User talk:Tabor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Tabor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 20:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/President of Earth

Hehe, I agree that maybe saying "every single person" was a little bit of an overestimate of the minimum intelligence level of people! What to do with fiction articles is kind of an interesting problem. I don't think that adding (fiction) to article titles would really be a good way to go about things, because people are more likely to search for, say, Homer Simpson rather than Homer Simpson (fiction). There would have to be just as many redirects as there are current articles about fictional people or things just to make sure that it's abundantly clear in the article title that the subject is fitional. A namespace would have a similar problem. Actually, one of the best solutions that comes to mind is a template, maybe one like

This article is about a person, place, or thing appearing in a work of fiction.

A huge number of articles would have to have it added in, but if you're really interested in separating articles about real life from articles about fiction, that's probably the best way to advocate a change, in my opinion. -Doozer (Talk) 22:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

In general, I agree with your proposal regarding titling articles about fiction. The template is a great idea, too, but I do like clear titles of what's not really knowledge in an encyclopedia. If you want help refining it, or support when you're ready to move your idea along, let me know and I'll help as I can. --Unfocused 05:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your notes on Norse mythology names

Thank you for the hint on moving pages. I wasn't aware of that option and it's indeed useful to keep the page history intact. Fortunately I was mostly moving substubs with a very short edit history. I will use the proper procedure in the future.

As for "Þrúðr" vs. "Thrud" I don't think everything found under "Thrud" applies to the valkyrie. Nor are these the only possible forms. For example "Thruth" is just as logical an anglicized form as "Thrud" and it has far more (mostly irrelevant, I think) hits on Google. Other possible forms include "Þrúður", "Trud", "Thrudr", "Þruðr", "Thrúdr" and "Thrudur" all of which have some relevant Google hits.

The fact of the matter is that there is currently no standard for representing Old Norse mythological names on Wikipedia. We have article names under all sorts of systems. If you have an idea for a workable standard then by all means write down your proposal. It's not as simple as "using the English form" since there are often several different anglicized forms in use and for all but the best known gods none of the forms will be especially familiar to the casual reader. For the cases where there is indeed a familiar English form (Thor and Odin) we propose that it should indeed be used.

It is not my intention or Wiglaf's to sneak or impose a standard upon Wikipedia. We have made our proposal, suggested a waiting period of one month, and we welcome any comments or counterproposals.

The style guide suggests: "Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." This is inapplicable here since there isn't any "the anglicized form". I believe this case is closer to falling under the following guideline: "If there is no commonly-used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages like Spanish or French should need no transliteration[.]"

Since Old Norse is a Latin-alphabet language it doesn't need a transliteration.

This proposal is by no means unique or revolutionary. We're proposing to use the same system as the most widespread and recent reference work on Old Norse mythology in English does, Rudolf Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology. You can look at sample pages here for confirmation: [1]

I think Simek's work is a much more solid ground to stand on than frequency searches on the Web.

Haukurth 23:58, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi again, Tabor. You note: I'll just say that it doesn't appear that the two of you are respecting community consensus when you make statements like "we are the only two who care about it" and start implementing the changes barely a day after posting your new proposal, especially after no consensus was reached on the old one.

Indeed. You were right to be concerned. From my edit history today it does indeed appear that I've started implementing a new standard wholesale and willy-nilly. This was not my intention. I wanted to tidy up the valkyrie articles irrespective of spelling and since I was editing them anyway I decided to change the orthography to see how the new standard would look. The spelling of the valkyrie names was very inconsistent anyhow with some Scandinavian forms, some Old Norse forms and some forms anglicized under different schemes. I didn't see my changes as implementing the standard since I was only editing a very limited subset of the relevant articles and I wasn't going to defend my actions by referring to a day old standard.

So, forgive me if I've been a bit overzealous. I'm glad that Wiglaf and I are not the only ones who care. Defending his statement, however, I'd like to add that he has done an amazing amount of great work in the area of Norse mythology and Scandinavian history and he is one of very few people who has contributed to the thread on ON name standardization. His perception that there aren't many people who care about this is, I think, more an expression of sadness than ego. Haukurth 00:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have no intention of touching any names, until a month has passed, and everybody involved is in agreement. Although, I am not perfectly happy with the suggested standard (I agree with your point here), a convention is better than none, and it is long overdue.--Wiglaf 07:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that the application of the policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) is itself much disputed as can be seen from its talk page. The facts on the ground currently seem to favor more pedantically correct forms even when there are more common English forms available. There's a page for Hermann Göring, for example, with Hermann Goering being a redirect even though Goering beats Göring 6 to 1 in an English Google fight.

As Wiglaf points out it's not the standard itself that's so important - it's having a standard at all that's important and overdue. The one we propose may not be perfect (I have my own reservations) but it is simple and workable. Haukurth 10:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polydeism

Hi, I've redone the article. What was originally a vanity/original research page is now on its way to being a legit entry in the sphere of human knowledge. Cheers! -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:35, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

[edit] Adverbial phrase

I'll have to admit that I'm no expert on the matter. Originally, I actually believed the same thing as you. Then I stumbled on what was a red link in the phrase article, and felt the urge to write a stub on the subject. My main source was the few words said on the subject in the phrase article. They seem to suggest that a prepositional phrase that functions as an adverbial is not at the same time an adverbial phrase. Since the definition of "adverbial phrase" in this article seemed to have remained intact ever since its original version, written by User:Karl Palmen in March 2002, I did at the time consider it rather reliable. After reading your comment, I've done some Googling, and it seems to me as if there are several terms in both overlapping and conflicting use.

Just as you say, the most common definition of the term adverbial phrase seems to be any phrase (e.g. a prepositional phrase) that functions as an adverbial ([2][3] and many more),
There is, however, the occasional use of adverbial phrase in the sense that the phrase article currently uses the term. ([4]). However, this actually seems to be very rare.
A more frequent term for "a phrase with an adverb as head" seems to be adverb phrase. ([5][6][7]).
Confusingly, some texts use adverb phrase for a phrase that functions as an adverbial. In these cases, it seems to be a consequence of treating "adverb" as meaning both the part of speech and the syntactic function I would call "adverbial". (The Wikipedia adverbial article explicitly claims they are not the same.) Although rather frequent, these articles don't seem like the most authoritative sources. ([8][9])

In conclusion, I think you might be right. While I think there is need for an article about "phrases with adverbs as heads" it might sit better at "adverb phrase". I wouldn't object to a simple move of the current adverbial phrase article. If so, the phrase article needs to be rephrased accordingly. Also, it would be good if we had a replacement article on the more common definition of "adverbial phrase" and some kind of disambiguation in both articles. However, since User:Karl Palmen still seems to edit Wikipedia frequently, you might want to ask him about his opinion on the matter, being the one that introduced the current terminology./ Alarm 00:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ({{mergefrom|Grand Master of the Knights Templar}})

Grand Master of the Knights Templar list has garand masters names after Jaques of Mollay which can be POV or cannot be proved. I suggest that the Grand Master of the Knights Templar to be merged with the list of the Knights Templars.

[edit] VfD on Richard Vanderpool

Recently you voted in the VfD debate on Richard Vanderpool (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Richard Vanderpool). I recommend you take a second look at this, as the version of the article listed for deletion had been heavily vandalized. Thanks, Carnildo 23:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balconies

Sid Rich, huh? Hmmn. --Mothperson 02:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .ai and such

Hi there! As you said on VfD, these articles on top-level domains are somewhat lacking in encyclopedic content... maybe a centralized discussion would help to establish what to do with them (because deleting them all hardly sounds appropriate either). Suitable locations to start one would be WP:RFC and/or Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Policy_consensus. Yours, R adiant _>|< 12:52, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

You voted "Merge" in this discussion. I've laid out a detailed merger plan. Please review it and state whether you prefer it or some other form of merger. Uncle G 2005-07-02 00:15:20 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Orphaned categories

I just noticed the other day that there's a new data dump on this page. Since you were one of the few people who worked on the last batch, I thought you might be interested. Russ Blau (talk) June 30, 2005 18:21 (UTC)

[edit] Cfd:People by surname

I have added all the child categories to the Cfd, in case you wish to adjust your vote or comment. Cfd People by surname. I have also added two exceptions to be considered. Thanks. <>Who ?¿? 3 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)

[edit] verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to merge at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Matthew 1:verses

however, that VfD concerned only the verses from Matthew 1, wheras Uncle G's proposal covered a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

[edit] About VRCE merge request

Hi Tabor: Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology (formerly known as Visvesvaraya_National_Institute_of_Technology) is an entirely different school from Visweswaraiah Technological University (Visweswaraiah_Technological_University) and the two schools are in no way associated with each other. I will appreciate if you may please remove the merge request initiated on both the articles. If you need further information feel free to drop me a line. Thank you. Jyotirmaya 07:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tabor: Thanks for taking care of the merge request. I know for sure that in VNIT, the "V" stands for "Visvesvaraya". But, according to the article here 1, the name has other spellings too. I am not sure about the Visweswaraiah_Technological_University as I am not affiliated with them, but you can assume "Visvesvaraya" as the name used in the Universities/Schools in general. Jyotirmaya 20:15, July 11, 2005 (UTC) ^{\talk \contribs}

[edit] Category:Courts vs. Category:Court systems

To be honest, I made Category:Courts so long ago that I forgot it existed - and at the time, I was not aware that Category:Court systems existed, because it's not a phrase that sprang to mind when when I was looking to see if there was such a category. That being said, it seems intuitively that "court systems" is a term that encompasses organizations of courts, as opposed to individual courts - United States district courts would be a system, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is an individual court, and not a system. I will reorganize the categories along those lines, but it may take a while for me to get to it and get through it! Cheers. -- BDAbramson ^talk

[edit] GNAA Peer Review

I went ahead and removed the text you wanted to be removed from the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese

How does one use non-roman scripts in the english wiki? is this possible?

also, on a different note, I know a woman who's last name is tabor. do you know any McGoverns in your family?

[edit] Image010.jpg

Whoops, sorry about that. I'm well aware of CSD I5, but obviously I made a mistake with that one. As you can probably imagine, there are a lot of images showing up in CAT:CSD lately due to I4 and I5, and goof-ups are bound to happen. Anyway, I deleted the image. Cheers, android 79 21:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Hello. Given your past interest in a similar page move, could you take a look at Talk:Höðr and comment on moving that Norse deity to a name more familiar to English readers? Jonathunder 02:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hermione1980's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA; I really appreciate it! I will do my best to live up to the trust you've shown in me. Thanks, H e rmione1980 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kelly Martin

Thanks for your reply to my reply. It caused me to go make an amendment, so you might want amend yours to mention that, so you don't look crazy. I hadn't expected my response to be read as an attack on Durin's character. I think his position is slanted and incorrect, but that doesn't mean I think he's a bad person, just human. Your response gave me a chance to clarify my omission, and hopefully prevent some bruised feelings. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 23:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've struck my comments on the RfB page. --Tabor 23:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:twoversions

For your information Tabor, I have nominated the template to Wikipedia:deletion review#Template:Twoversions. The articles previously tagged with the template already have the template removed. David Gerard was not the only person to participate in the delinking exercise. — Insta ntnood 05:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus image

the source is here, which references a BBC link, which references a UCSC/UCSB (i forget) forensic reconstruction. Fair use is not a designation, but an argument, which in this case may be a solid one, but even moreso it may be actually public domain. I dont know. -St|eve 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

I was just wondering how you came across the new article for Max Romeo, since I'm amazed it's taken so long for one to be created. Aaron Jethro 04:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Your reply, I thought as much, but I hoped you might have been like me, constantly checking to see if there was an article for him before deciding I was the one who had to do it.

[edit] Template:Mtnbox start change

Hi. Could you please explain on the talk page for Template:Mtnbox start as to why you converted the HTML table syntax to wiki equivalent and how the former syntax was breaking due to Tidy being disabled? Thanks. RedWolf 03:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: You have broken the start template. Photos will no longer appear. I will revert your changes unless you fix this ASAP. Thanks. RedWolf 04:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norse mythology naming convention proposal notice

You made some good suggestions on Talk:Höðr on how to make a policy and I'm trying to do this your way, doing things by the book and posting notices hither and yon. This is one of those notices :)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Norse_mythology)

- Haukur Þorgeirsson 01:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your views. You're one of few people who've actually said something material and sensible on the issue. You're clearly a nice guy - I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. My cut-and-paste move from Thrud to Þrúðr was wrong and you were right to call me on that. See you around. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of arms

The {{coat of arms}} template says If this is the case, please add the appropriate copyright tag In the case of Image:UWI Logo. Can you explain what this means? Thanks. Guettarda 23:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stub image template license

Thank you for bringing this to my attention ... license addition done (referring to User_talk:Ceyockey#Image:Geometry_stub_icon.png). Courtland 16:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TS, KM, Sn, RfArb

I appreciated you comments. Clear, concise, and accurate. Well done. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your name

Just curious: is your username related to TaBOR? – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No relation. --Tabor 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Thank you. Robert McClenon 02:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methacholine

Hello, Tabor. I thought that there was a move in the chemical/pharmaceutical industry to change from methacholine to metacholine. (It is acetyl-methylcholine.) However as you point out, most sources indicate 'methacholine' as the standard spelling. Would you like me to move the pages back to 'methacholine'? Axl 17:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Methacholine

Choline

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/b/User_talk%7ETabor_6ece.html"