User talk:Number 57

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Israel

I've been putting together some pages relating to Arab representation in Israeli politics, creating Arab Knesset members and editing and updating (and maybe one day creating) the entries on Arab parties and government figures. I've made use of your Israeli legislative election series, as well as a couple of your party entries, and I wanted to say good work, and keep going. I'll contribute more to the project when I have the time. Any resources you found particularly helpful? The Knesset's website, with its list of members, is fairly hard to browse and get relevant information from. That's all for now. Cheeselouise 20:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Danish elections

re Hi Number 57

Sorry to say it but I find you template about Danish elections somewhat problematic. Before 1953, the Rigsdag had two Houses, and the dates in your table only correspond to the Folketing elections, so it only tells half the story before this date as all elections to the Landsting are missing. It was not normal to have elections to both houses on the same date, but they often took place within the same year and month. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The "Rigsdag" was simply the name of the two houses combined, so there were no "rigsdag" elections. On very rare occations, both houses assembled for joint decisions. A referendum in 1939 turned down the idea of replacing the Landsting with a so-called Rigsting, so this term was never widely used. If all this information is to be grouped in one table, the finished result would probably be something like this (based on the Norwegian example):

• Danish Folketing Elections

(list of years)

• Danish Landsting Elections

(list of years)

• Danish Elections to the European Parliament

(list of years)

• Danish Referenda

(list of years)

Do you think such a solution would work or should it be split up? If you have any better ideas, I'm all ears. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the last part of your post. According to the old constitution, both houses were on an equal footing, so no "upper" and "lower" house existed. Danes normally considered the Folketing to be the lower house but this was not based on the constitution. The issue of which house should approve the PM and his government was the issue of a fierce battle for more than 20 years, known as Forfatningskampen (the Constitutional Struggle). Højre, the modern Conservatives, had based a series of cabinets on the Landsting and this policy was supported by King Christian IX. The opposition, Venstre and the Social Democrats, supported the Folketing. In 1901 the matter was finally settled in favour of the Folketing. Due to both the constitutional unclarity and the historical controversy, I believe both houses should be included. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a good source about the Landsting elections. The referenda are easier:

Non-EU related referenda:

• 14 December 1916: Sale of the Danish West Indian Islands. Passed.
• 6 September 1920: Changing the constitution due to reunification with South Jutland. Passed.
• 23 May 1939: Changing the constitution. Rejected.
• 28 May 1953: Changing the constitution / Princess Margrethe to become the future monarch. Bundled proposal. Passed. (She succeeded her father in 1972).
• 28 May 1953: Changing the electoral age from 25 to 23 or 21. Changed to 23.
• 30 May 1961: Changing the electoral age from 23 to 21. Passed.
• 25 June 1963: Four laws regarding land. Each suggestion a separate vote. All were rejected.
• 24 June 1969: Changing the electoral age from 21 to 18. Rejected
• 21 September 1971: Changing the electoral age from 21 to 20. Passed
• 19 September 1978: Changing the electoral age from 20 to 18. Passed

More information here (in Danish): [1]

EU-related referenda (data were taken from the EU information office: [2])

• 2 October 1972: Membership of the EEC. Participation: 90.1% Yes: 63.4% No: 36.6%
• 27 February 1986: Common Market. Participation: 75.4% Yes: 56.2% No: 43.8%
• 2 June 1992: Maastricht treaty. Participation: 83.1% Yes: 49.3% No: 50.7%
• 18 May 1993: Maastricht treaty modified with the Edinburgh agreement. Participation: 86.5% Yes: 56.7% No: 43.3%
• 28 May 1998: Amsterdam treaty. Participation: 76.2% Yes: 55.1% No: 44.9%
• 28 September 2000: Euro membership Participation: 87.6% Yes: 46.8% No: 53.2%

Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 23:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Polish elections

I don't mind, but may I suggest you ask this on the WP:PWNB for a wider audience - particularly useful may be your cooperation with User:Appleseed, who has created many Poland-related templates. The question of size can usually be fixed by the new 'collapsable' templates.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election Templates

Hi!

Great work with your templates. A few issues:

1. "Elections" should not be capitalised. {{Russian elections}}, not <{{Russian Elections. Neither should "Parliamentary Election" and such be capitalised in the template, use "parliamentary elections" instead; an exception is when it refers to a specific name, like "Folketing" or "Bundestag".
2. For more than one election per year, the format is [[Somewhereian general election, February 2000|2000 (Feb)]], not [[Somewhereian general election, 2000 (February)|2000 (Feb)]].
3. The convention for referenda is the same: "Somewhereian ISSUE referendum, YEAR". If there was no single issue or common denominator, leave ISSUE out, for instance in Ukrainian referendum, 2000.
4. Future elections should be italicised, like this: [[Ukrainian presidential election, 2010|''2010'']]

Apart from that: Keep up the great work! —Nightstallion (?) 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

One more minor issue: For some reason, it's now the de facto standard to use "constitutional", not "constitution", for things like the Democratic Republic of the Congo constitutional referendum, 2005. Just FYI. Still, great work on the whole! :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Irish elections

Hi, Regarding the Irish elections template, since it is part of an international series, I won't revert it again since you seem to have done a good bit of work in this area. One thing however should be changed is the third section, Irish referenda, there already is a template for Irish amendments to the constitution which is based on the Amendment no. rather than year. By basing it on year, it gives the impression (by the no. of red links) that a lot of these articles don't exist. In fact there is an article for each numbered amendment. This will have to be fixed up. Snappy56 07:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:European Union elections

Another point on the election templates. I edited the Luxembourgian template to include European Parliament elections without realising that you had made a range of standardised templates for many countries. Given that, would it be possible to have a separate section (that is, a row, despite what I've done to the Luxembourgian one) for European elections for EU member states? Bastin 13:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your map

FYI, there were elections in some of the Arab Gulf states already:

• Kuwaiti parliamentary election, 2006
• Bahraini parliamentary election, 2006
• Politics of Oman
• United Arab Emirates parliamentary election, 2006

And there are plans in the other two, too:

• Qatari legislative election, 2007
• And the Saudi Arabian municipal elections, 2005 might lead to national elections there, too.

—Nightstallion (?) 18:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Say, where has the map gone? I tried to find it to see your progress, but I wasn't able to find it any more... —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to future election articles

is in principle a very good idea, and I've seen you doing it very consequently (including the italics). However, if you've got some source stating that there'll be an election in a certain year (like in this case), please don't just red-link to the article -- create the article (take a look at Gambian parliamentary election, 2007 for a basic layout and what to include: the "future election" template, the "Politics of ..." template, a link to the source of the date, appropriate stub templates and appropriate categories) and then link it. Simply linking to a non-existent article and proclaiming the date this way is crystal-balling, I believe. Apart from that, great work! —Nightstallion (?) 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Eritrean elections

If you are going to make this template you must be more careful with it. What I mean is that you should recognize and identify in the template that there are separate dates for elections in the national, regional, and local elections in Eritrea. Because of this it seems that you are missing a number of dates in the time line. Furthermore when you say elections, for which branch are you talking about (this may also lead to confusion since all three branches of the government are elected). Thank you --Merhawie 00:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mauritanian Senate election, 2007

Turns out it is an indirect election. I assume we should remove it from the template, then? —Nightstallion (?) 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to remove the Senate elections if they are indeed indirect. Can the same be done to the Senate elections section of the DR Congo elections? Number 57 09:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh, yeah, you may be right on that. But since we happen to have articles on indirect elections quite frequently, what can we do with them? —Nightstallion (?) 12:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Senate elections should have their own template - I guess it could end up looking like those for countries who only have one level of elections (e.g. Swazi elections. Maybe they could also be included in the local elections template, as in several cases the Senates are elected by local assemblies. Number 57 10:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh, maybe, but: What do we do about presidents elected by parliament (Estonia, Turkey, Czechia, Italy)? By your reasoning, they'd have to be in the same table as the parliamentary elections... —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would put presidents elected by parliament with Senate elections, as they are indirect rather than direct popular votes. Number 57 17:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mh. The more I think about it, the less certain I am that it's a good idea to make such an arbitrary distinction... Maybe we *should* have all elections at the national level in one template? —Nightstallion (?) 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Philippine elections

Since (Congress = Senate + House of Representatives) ≠ (Parliament = Batasang Pambansa) ≠ Constitutional Convention, why not merge the Senate and the House sections while segregating the Parliament (I suggest to rename it to Batasang Pambansa and the Constitutional Convention. Congress is a bicmaeral body while the Batasan Pambansa is unicameral, so they're kinda different. --Howard the Duck 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a reply on my user talk page. --Howard the Duck 14:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gilbertese or "Kiribatian"

You must be very ignorant about Kiribati facts to think that Gilbertese is "for language and people" and the very ugly "Kiribatian" for the country. I suppose that you never have been there.--Enzino 12:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Zionist political parties in Israel

It would make no sense to have an article listed in both a category and its subcategory. Hashomer 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it's standard but I won't get into an argument over it. Hashomer 21:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Portuguese elections

My pleasure. I've put in the months too. Biruitorul 20:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinchas Rosen

Thanks so much for expanding it! I was going to do the work, but you totally beat me to it. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 00:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaim for Haim

I've noticed you are changing many articles, changing the name 'Chaim' to 'Haim'. Can you point to a place where this was discussed and agreed upon. It looks very disturbing otherwise. Shenme 23:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This is why I get nervous when seeing someone making a large number of changes all at once. I noticed in some of your comments that you were referencing the Knesset site. Strangely, I immediately found two references to "Chaim Weizmann"

[3]

[4]

whereas you have already changed the article Chaim Weizmann, redirecting it to Haim Weizmann. So it may be the right thing to do, but it doesn't look like it. Can you point to something documenting the reasons for all these changes? Shenme 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Less 'disturbed' is too much to hope for  ;-) but at least now your reasons are written down now. Thanks. Shenme 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Indonesian_elections

Hi there. At the risk of being fussy, the second Indonesian election of 1955 was for the Constituent Assembly, as you rightly linked it to. Would it be worth making this clearer on the template, as it wasn't "parliamentary"? Also, there is some debate over the word "parliamentary" as Indonesia has a presidential system... Secondly, at the risk of being it, isn't the right word for your user page 'pedantry', not 'pedancy'? Davidelit 12:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, I'm inclined to agree with you about the elections template. I guess any other way and you'd end up creating a myriad of different templates for everywhere... By the the way, do you think the Indonesian elections page should be split up into a separate article for each election? The problem is that the 1977,82,87 and 92 elections were rather dull and any page would be a bit stub-like. Incidentally, given your interest in Israel (which I share, but am less informed about having only been there once), would you be interested in writing an article about relations between Israel and Islamic countries (eg Indonesia, which bought A4 Skyhawk planes second hand directly from Israel, and whose special forces received Uzis and (allegedly) training from the Israeli military or Iran, which apparently received technical support from Israel to keep its US-supplied aircraft functioning during the Iran-Iraq war)? Just a thought... Davidelit 02:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your modification of the Azmi Bishara article was not source. I've reverted to the previous version.

Hello Number57,

I've restored the statement you've deleted from the Azmi Bishara article. I agree with your criticism, however (1) It doesn't justify deleting the statement, just modifying it: consider which of the two versions more closely approximates the truth - the version with the inaccurate statement, or the one leaving it out altogether, (2) this statement is a direct quote from Ha'aretz. Your annotation was unattributed. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. If you wish to make a modification, your modification should be at least as well-attributed as the version you wish to modify (this is true in general, not just in this particular case). Thanks. Itayb 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template:Malaysian elections

Fine. But the term is just too broad in scope, implying other elections should be included in the box. From which discussion is this "[country's] elections" naming convention and template standardisation based on anyway?

Meanwhile, Template:Malaysian elections should at least be renamed to Template:Elections in Malaysia, consistent with {{State elections in Malaysia}} and {{By-elections in Malaysia}}, and avoiding extra work when sorting them in Malaysian categories or looking for them there (i.e. Category:Malaysian navigational boxes).

Cheers. - Two hundred percent 09:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Retracted comment. - Two hundred percent 10:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arab MKs

You have organised the information in a compact and useful form. Keep up the good work! ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli town article moves

Hi, thanks for moving the articles about Israeli towns such as Kiryat Atta and Kiryat Mal'akhi. I've been meaning to make these moves for a while. However, there are still issues with double redirects, misleading information (unofficially also spelled Qiryat Atta - should be officially also spelled ...), etc. because of the moves. Please pay more attention to these details in the future, and keep up the good work. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think Kiryat Ata is the better spelling, however, I think we should see the actual website before judging by the URL. After all, if whoever originally ordered the subdomain made an error, it would be impossible to fix, so the website itself might have a different transliteration.

About apostrophies, I think we should follow a standard set of rules (outlined in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), a page that was never made an official guideline but which nevertheless represents overall consensus. These rules require an apostrophe. You might think that it wouldn't be difficult to alter the rules and gain consensus, but in some cases the name without the apostrophy looks awkward and non-standard (most reputable sources still use Giv'atayim and Pisgat Ze'ev, I think, although Beer Sheva seems to be most common).

About official spelling, there are numerous government organizations which are all 'official', but each has a different set of transliteration rules. CBS (למ"ס) happens to be one of these, and you can see their transliterations here.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Azmi Bishara, discussion in Itayb's talk page

I've responded. Itayb 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. Itayb 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've responded. Itayb 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Ballot papers.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Lost

I'm afraid you must have a poor monitor then, I've tested it separately, it is compliant, your changes do not work correctly on 1024, thus I've rolled back your edits, discuss them on the talk page, or pop to your local computer store and get a new monitor, HTH HAND. Matthew 09:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's quite obvious you do not have your computer set-up correctly, none the less you've violated the three-revert rule trying to push your minority POV, even with evidence to the contrary that it does indeed work perfectly fine on 800 res. I'd advise you to self-revert as I do not wish to have to spend time filling out the 3RR boiler-plate. Matthew 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I do not know why it's not lining up for you, perhaps this problem will mean we can finally reformat the template nicely. Matthew 10:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:The 4400 - Does that template format correctly for you? If so formatting it [the Lost template] like that may be beneficial. Matthew 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your changes to The 4400 template actually break it here, causing Collier to appear on a new line, add chunks of white space, and pushes the cells out of alignment. Matthew 11:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the Lost template format correctly now? Matthew 11:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The 4400 should format correctly now, it has no set widths etc. Matthew 11:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well then the only way I can see to fix the Lost one is by dropping the left cells somewhere else as by looking at your screenshot the only way to fix it would be to free-up space. Matthew 11:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naomi Chazan vs. Naomi Hazan

Hi, You recently moved the article Naomi Chazan to Naomi Hazan with the reason "incorrect transliteration". I am not questioning the accuracy of your claim (as I cannot read Hebrew), but would like two note two points. First, the official Knesset page lists her last name as "Chazan". Second, the "Chazan" transliteration seems to be far more common than "Hazan".

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists".

For these reasons, I intend to undo the move so that "Naomi Hazan" redirects to "Naomi Chazan" (and to note both spellings in the introduction), unless you have any particular objections. Cheers, Black Falcon 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I see what you mean. I suppose that in the end it really doesn't matter too much as long as there is a redirect from "Chazan". I am still surprised though. I would have expected the official parliamentary website to at least be accurate about the transliteration of the names of its members ... . In any case, your arguments are convincing and I will not move the page. By the way, there is another MP listed as "Yaakov Chazan" (no article on him yet). Cheers, Black Falcon 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, ....... would it cause more or less confusion if people ignored the road signs? :P -- Black Falcon 17:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proffessor Israel Shahak

Hi/Shalom! Could you have a look at Talk:Israel_Shahak#RFC and see what you think? Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lost templates

Hello,

I understand your points but want to clarify some things.

• It is perfectly appropriate to use
  in the templates on Wikipedia. I don't understand why you are so committed to removing them in Lost templates, when they are all over Wikipedia. Are you going to remove them everywhere?
• & nbsp; was put in for your very justification of messing up screen resolutions. I'm perfectly willing to remove them.
• I do not believe we should italicized upcoming episodes. Wikipedia is not a directory and does not list upcoming events.

Hope I made my reverts clear. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 21:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Botswanan

I don't agree with you and intend to take this further. I don't care what dictionary.com (a rubbish resource) says. I have lived and worked there and nobody from there says Botswanan; they would soon correct you if you made that mistake there! As I said at Talk:Botswana, I would have to see a Botswana resource which said that "Botswanan" was the correct form before I would change my mind. --Guinnog 16:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the centralised discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Africa#Botswanan --Guinnog 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This resource is subscription-only so I could not check it, though I believe you. If you were right that "Botswanan" were the correct form in Botswana, you might expect the army to be the "Botswanan Defence Force". It is not. In fact if you can point me to any Botswana government or official source using this adjective I will accept that usage has changed and withdraw my objection. Until then, I think I will stick to my guns. --Guinnog 16:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In the light of the discussion linked to above, will you consider restoring my changes? I would rather not have to redo them all myself. Thanks in advance, --Guinnog 07:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"It would be nice to have some other knowledgeable people's input to the debate". Well, I think we have achieved that now, and I think you'll agree they all endorse my view. I am still waiting for you to undo your changes; doing so would address the very slight pique I experience that you couldn't just have trusted my expertise on the subject. Please see if you can do it. Thank you, and best wishes. --Guinnog 07:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me thank you for having the chutzpah to revert the changes you made. That was an honourable thing to do, eliminates any vestigial bad feeling I may have had about the matter, and reinforces my belief that you are a good Wikipedian. I really appreciate it, and it makes it easier for me to apologise to you for my slightly waspish tone above.

Secondly, I want to say that (as always ought to happen where two honourable people have a disagreement and resolve it), the matter has allowed us to improve the project slightly (we now have a clear consensus on the naming issue which we can refer future inquirers to, which was lacking before), and also to meet each other. From your initial edits, which I never of course doubted were well-meant, and from your conduct in the dispute and a perusal of your user page, I think we share a lot of interests in common. I too would characterise myself as a pedant and a stickler for usage of language.

If there is ever anything I can do for you, I hope you will let me know.

Very best wishes, --Guinnog 17:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to it! Thanks again, --Guinnog 19:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next town name moves

After finally fixing the k/q for kuf issue, I suggest moving to the tzere + yud issue, namely in names starting with Bet/Beit. I think Bet She'an and Bet Shemesh (and any other such towns) should be renamed to Beit X. This complies with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and has a precedent - Elat was moved to Eilat. Granted, in Biblical contexts and such, the transliteration should be left unchanged (usually Beth or Bet). Please tell me what you think. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually supported the name Beersheba when it was going to be moved, and also prefer the current spelling of Petah Tikva. Beersheba is correct IMO due to the WP:NC policy, which states at the very top:

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This basically means that for any towns well-known to people outside of Israel, we should use the widely accepted English spelling, which happens to be Beersheba (and Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jericho, Acre, Tiberias, etc.) Although Beer Sheva seems much more modern and logical, there's really no arguing policy and this will also help non-Israeli readers.

About Petah Tikva, it ends with a het, for which it is unacceptable IMO to have a kh. Some users have proposed universally using kh for het, but this is phonetically wrong and has not gained consensus. Petakh Tikva is also not a very common spelling, having only 1,050 hits on Google (Petah Tikva having 293,000 and Petach Tikva - 235,000). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you are not Mizrahi ;) Well, neither am I, but there's a correct way to pronounce the Hebrew het, and it's not kh. Actually the correct Latin symbol I believe is ḥ, but it would be a disaster to put that thing in article titles. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I will address each point below:

• ḥ is an h with a dot below it. It is widely used in English mapping, like this map, even by prominent companies like Rand McNally.
• Yes, consistency is important, as is differentiating between het and khaf. Kiryat Mal'akhi in Hebrew is קריית מלאכי with a kh, while Petah Tikva in Hebrew is פתח תקווה with a h. Sakhnin uses the Arabic خ , which is a kh sound (although in Hebrew it's often transliterated as 'ח (het with an apostrophe)). The Arabic equivalent of het is ح, like in Habib.
• The word for village is similar in Hebrew and Arabic, therefore the many differences. I think it should be a constant Kfar in Hebrew names and constant Kafr in Arabic names. Kefar is a Hebrew variant I don't support, and Kafar is an Arabic variant I also oppose.
• Qalansawe is an Arabic name, therefore I think it should be left as it is, because in most Arabic dialects there is an actual difference between kaf and quf. See for example the audio file here - they are saying Muammar al-Qaddafi, using the same quf as in Qalansawe. For Hebrew names it should be a K, as you correctly pointed out in the case of Katzrin vs. Qatzrin.
• The other 3 have already been edit-warred over, and this is how the current transliterations came to be. Ness Ziona is the weirdest case, the only reason it's used is because it's the official spelling used by the municipality, therefore holding more weight than other (correct) variants. Rishon LeZion is another case of a spelling recognizable in English, because ציון is Zion in English. This is similar to the argument over Nazareth Illit, where it was argued that it should be Natzrat Illit because it's not the same as the Biblical Nazareth and therefore should not use the accepted English spelling. However, it was decided that it should, even if only part of the word is widely accepted. Finally, Herzliya derives from Herzl, and there is a consonant Y, therefore this is a logical and correct spelling. An alternative would be Herzeliya, as it would comply with WP:NC (Hebrew).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I will probably be going to sleep now and won't be able to reply until I get back from the army next weekend, so please make necessary non-controversial changes :) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of football clubs in England

Regarding the FC and AFC prefixes/suffixes within List of football clubs in England :

I disagree with considering FC or AFC when listing football teams A-Z. Take for example AFC Bournemouth - the BBC website lists them as simply 'Bournemouth' for the purpose of A-Z listing. I think it is important to add the FC and AFC within each list entry, but not to consider the FC and AFC as part of the sort (just as 'The' would be dropped when ordering band names). I assume that you wouldn't want to list F.C. Copenhagen under 'F', for instance??? --Jameboy 12:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hamodia

I have moved HaModia back to Hamodia. if you want to change the paper's name, please clear it with its publisher first. --Redaktor 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed comments in Malaysian election templates

Hi. I write regarding your unexplained removal of side comments in Template:Malaysian elections [5] and Template:Malaysian state elections [6]. Why is this necessary? The comments may be useful for consistent management of the templates, and don't hinder the actual output of the templates given the formatting tags used. In fact, I recall you noting that Template:Malaysian elections is suppose to list only general elections and national referendums. The name of the template is already confusing enough that it suggests editors add other local elections, so what's the problem? - Two hundred percent 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bnei Sakhnin

I think that nobody even uses Ihoud in Israel and I have only seen it on the scarves at Doha Stadium. I think that the way it is now is the most appropriate. I do need help though, now that the football clubs are being changed to F.C., we need the categories about the players to be changed as well. Also, head to BigSoccer.com, we chat about Israeli football there and you sound like you know your stuff. NYC2TLV 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, the title should be that way. The mention of Hapoel is really only relevant when it gets into the merger and the fact that UEFA calls the club this. Some media outlets in Israel say Bnei Sakhnin is still part of the Hapoel organization. Whether they are or not, they don't use this title and it could be that the club card held by UEFA is that which belonged to Hapoel Sakhnin before the merger. NYC2TLV 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ligat ha'Al

Don't you think the names of the clubs should be exactly their official names? I mean, I took the names from the UEFA official site. Please, don't make any changes if you not sure what is my intentions. Flags-Chaser 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't accept your decision. The names according to UEFA are the official names (for example, in the Champions League or the UEFA Cup broadcasts they uses the names exactly like they present in their site). Are you from Israel? Flags-Chaser 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm living in Tel Aviv, so therefore I know good how the press spells the names. We're not talking about the press, but about what are the official names. For example Hakoah Maccabi Amidar Ramat Gan IS the official name of the team, even though the press uses Hakoah Amidar Ramat Gan. Flags-Chaser 19:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's better to use the official names? I mean, the common names are more popular, but not always correct (like you saw). I, unexpectedly, prefer the official names (Olympique Lyonnais - Lyon, FC Internazionale Milano - Inter Milan, and so on). Flags-Chaser 19:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your claims, although I prefer the official names. Do you have MSN Messenger? Flags-Chaser 19:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Cheers for giving me a barnstar, it is much appreciated. I'm currently on a Wikipedia sabbatical, a combination of family and work commitments combined with a futile attempt to rusurrect my football career dont leave me with much spare time. Regards, King of the North East 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian elections

There have been a number of referenda in Canada, both at national level and in the provinces and territories, which should be included. I'm afraid I don't know where to find a complete source of these, though. —Nightstallion (?) 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing edit summary

Just wondered why you removed the disambig link to International Day of Quds from the Jerusalem Day article with the edit summary that should not have been removed? Surely it's a valid link. Number 57 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that occured; I meant to only re-add the link to Yom Ha'atzma'ut. Perhaps I accidentally edited an old version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 14:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hapoel Tel Aviv

Did you notice that somebody changed Hapoel Tel Aviv to a redirect to the football club? I am not talking about your double redirect correction, the guy before you. I don't have the energy now, but I want to do what I did with Hapoel Jerusalem and have the Hapoel Tel Aviv (basketball) moved to Hapoel Tel Aviv B.C.. That is what they are called in Europe by FIBA. Check out Hapoel Jerusalem and the subsequent Hapoel Jerusalem F.C. and Hapoel Jerusalem B.C., this is what the standard should be in my opinion when a club has more than just a football or basketball team. NYC2TLV 10:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)