User talk:Egidiofc/2007/February
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- CURRENT MONTH COMMENTS
[edit] More about Paul Erd[ő/ö/õ/o/...]s
Dear Mr. Marcika,
I have searched for the truly correct form, as in accordance to Hungarian Alphabet, as — more important — in obligatory deference to the mathematician ad causam. Most if Erdős is the correct, original written form — as you have pointed so conclusively.
Despite of this, I think I took a not well founded decision. Why? Because, simply because "all possible sources had not been explored yet — by me, of course".
However, I ask you some questions:
- Do you know sufficiently Hungarian Language — and, so, Hungarian Alphabet? I hope so!
- If no, have you reported to/seen sufficiently well accredited source(s)?
Dear and zealous Mr. Marcika, if I am simply wrong, as you have said — and you, in accordance, naturally right! — then your reverting action seemed to be more than necessary: it was, in fact, an obligatory one.
The following website The Hungarian Alphabet shows the complete Hungarian Alphabet (with all phonetic issues). More: our notable Wikipedia, at Hungarian Language article does the same. However, since at ‘’wiki’’-environment, knowledge is always changing to meet that final goal (will us arrive there?...), there remains some doubt with respect to the correct form. Most when referring to a name carrying letter/sign from a extended neo-latin new set. This claims to care.
- On the other side, at the section "Collaborations", I have put all the names in alphabetical order. That intended to make that section much more quick and easy to consult, don't you agree? An others more... So...: Why have you reverted too?
Finally, for my yet deficient issues, may you excuse-me. For your — perhaps: I hope so!... — corrections, EgídioCampos thanks you very much. And Paul Erdős and Hungarian Culture too!
Best wiki-productions!
EgídioCampos, 2007.02.05, 13:55 UTC
- Dear Egídio, to answer your question: Yes, I am a native Hungarian and I know the alphabet and I am sure that Erdős is spelled with a long <ö>. If you need some references, there are plenty of Hungarian sources for the proper spelling, just start at the Erdős page at the Budapest Science University (ELTE).
- My reversion of your alphabetization was accidental - apologies for that, but saw your incorrect changes and no edit summary, assumed the worst and reverted... -- Marcika 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paul Erdős: alphabetization criteria...
...et cœtera...
Mr. RUBIN,
Respectable Wiki-Editor,
Of your user page...:
- This user is a relatively famous Wikipedian: Arthur Rubin;
- Note: I didn't write that, but I don't feel comfortable taking it out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk).
- My note about this: I dont know you, but that words seemead to express a sincere feeling. I hope his/her maybe quite correct!
Let us go to the goal...
Honourable Mr. Rubin,
I think I have understood why you have reverted the alphabetization I have proposed for two or three times at Paul Erdős article.
In fact — last time — , you have commented the revertions as follows:
- 01:19 7 february 2007 (Revert failed alphabetization AGAIN)
- 01:21 7 february 2007 (Let's try this sort, if yoy want to alphabetize)
If you appreciate [FAMILY NAME, FIRST NAME] form (Nothing against it. I do appreciate this too!...), then, accordingly, at "COLABORATIONS" TOPIC, it must appear, for example:
- * Alavi, Yousef;
- * Bollobas, Bela;
- * (and so the following..., until Wrinkler, Peter, naturally, the last)
And, so, this "in fact"-alphabetized set would make sense: to provide quick and easy seeking, don't you agree?
On the other side — but under the same theme — why revertion done at "EXTERNAL LINKS" TOPIC? I really do not understand it. If Wikipedia Policies & Rules prescribe it in such manner, please, can you report it to me?
As you have seen — I think so — I am not an "anglo-culture native user", but a foreign ("alien" or "stranger"...) one, from Brasil. But I, naturally, want to obey or conform to the "Anglophone-Wikipedia home rules", not conform to mine.
So, my zealous wiki-editor... Can you answer me these questions, and solve these doubts?
Finally, can you post your answer to these questions on my discussion page?
Best wiki-salutations!
EgídioCampos, 2007.02.07, 14:20 UTC.
- The alphabetization problems are due to a combination of normal English-language conventions of listing people alphabetically by surname, and the Wikipedia convention of having articles about people in the order their name is normally written (see WP:MOSBIO#Names). I understand your confusion, but you'll have to get used to it. Although I cannot find a specific Wikipedia policy or guideline on normal alphabetization, if you edit the last section of Paul Erdos, you'll see categorization lines such as [[Category:1913 births|Erdos, Paul]], to force the article to be sorted in that category as if the article name were "Erdos, Paul". I see no reason why the sort should be different here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid alphabetization of the external links is not specifically covered by Wikipedia guidelines or common usage, as the links may be grouped by subtopic even without subheaders. There's really no way to tell, except by looking closely at the edit history, whether that was intended. (As an additional note, even when alphabetizing by phrase, an initial "a" or "the" is disregarded, so you still wouldn't have matched the order of the link title.) I don't see that alphabetization necessary. However, if you don't see any pattern, and want to alphabetize the external links by the visible phrase, I probably won't revert that again.
- (And, as a further aside, the phrase in English is et cetera, regardless of how it may appear in the original latin or other languages.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Main Page
Discussion pages are meant to be about discussing topics relevant to the article to which it corresponds. For example, the talk page at Talk:Abortion is about discussing improvements to the article and not abortion itself. The addition you made about Erdős numbers did not appear to be relevant to anything that was contained on the Main Page, so I reverted it. If it actually was about something on there and I made a mistake, you have my full apologies and feel free to add your comment back in. ShadowHalo 02:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
