User talk:Boson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Hi Boson, Thanks for the welcome message! As you know, I am inexperienced here and I was pleased and surprised that "someone" stumbled over the article and took the time to proofread it, spiff it up, and get it in conformance with Wikipedia conventions. Thanks also for the links. Mary Masters 16:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Europe Proposal

Hi, I was wondering if you would be interested in participating in a new "WikiProject:Europe"? It would cover non-EU pan European elements and more national elements where there isn't a project to cover it (e.g. there is no project for Slovenia). I am just trying to get an idea of numbers before I propose it but if you have comments on the idea please see the Discussion on WPEU. Thanks for your time! - J Logan t: 08:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Working Man's Barnstar
You have some how been finding and tagging every EU article with our project banner, how you have managed to keep doing such a repetitive task for so long is beyond me! I award you the Working Man's Barnstar! Your work may not be exciting, but it is essential and hasn't gone unnoticed. - J Logan t: 08:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--Boson 19:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU page

Hi, sorry to bring up the European Union article again, I know it can get tedious. Basically it is about the city table. Small point but we've been wanting to replace it, thus far Lear has been the only one wanting the old and has reverted any changes. A summery of options has been written up, I'd appreciate it if you'd give a comment. Don't mind what you pick as it will either help convince Lear to compromise for once or it will legitimise what he is doing (if he has support I don't mind, so long as it is not him alone). See here for the summery. If you could pop an opinion I'd be grateful before it turns into 3 pages of "standard content" vs "consensus" again. I understand if you don't want to or don't have time to. Thanks! - J Logan t: 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, good to see you still working around. Sorry to bring this up again again and again, we've got another summery: numbers of cities. If you have time I'd be greatful if you could drop a comment. Thanks. - J Logan t: 07:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland / Rep. of Ireland

"attempt to avoid confusion while respecting sensitivities of those on both sides of the border."

There is no consusion. The only official name of the State is 'Ireland' or 'Éire'. 'Rep. of Ireland' is only an official description. If you believe this is causing confusion, perhaps you should change the UK to it's long form name 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. Wiki01916 08:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to use the full official names. We don't do that for the other countries. The point (to me) is that people who do not already know the facts might think that "Ireland" actually refers to a single state covering the whole island and that there are therefore no significant differences between northern and southern Ireland. Especially in an EU context this is not the case, for instance: the euro is not legal tender in Northern Ireland, EU labour laws apply differently, and there are potential differences in the free movement of nationals from new members in eastern Europe. The potential for confusion is indicated by another editor's comment to the effect that it doesn't really matter, since both parts of Ireland belong to the EU. This is why -- though I understand the logic behind using "Ireland -- I think it is best to disambiguate in parentheses. It would be possible to use "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", but that might be even more confusing, since Northern Ireland would (lingusitically) appear to be part of "Ireland". Personally, I have nothing against "Éire'", but I don't think it would be understood internationally by itself. Would "Ireland (Éire)" "be acceptable?--Boson 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the reply, Boson.

I believe that it should be left as just 'Ireland'.

'Republic of Ireland' (ROI) is usually used in articles that relate to Ireland / N.Ireland, when one must distinguish between the two political entities. 'Éire' is the official name of the State in Irish, so you wouldn't use it in an English language article, just as you wouldn't use 'España', for example. 'Éire' is also the Irish name for the whole island of Ireland.

The majority of Wiki articles refer to the ROI as just 'Ireland'. Are you suggesting that these should be changed too? I don't see why the EU article should be any different.

I can find countless examples where 'Ireland' is used instead of ROI by doing a quick search on Google for "members of the EU".

Conclusion:

"Ireland" is the only offical name of the State and it the name is officially recognised as the sovereign State occupying five-sixths of the island.

Look forward to a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki01916 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about leaving "Ireland" in this context, though I would have preferred to add the descriptive phrase "Republic of Ireland" for disambiguation/clarity. The politicians have unfortunately presented us with a problem that is not easily soluble. If we want to use the official names there is a danger of being counterfactual or ambiguous (or at least appearing to express a POV). The same problem existed with West Germany before reunification, but at least it was only the short name (Germany) that was ambiguous. Some would have claimed that "Federal Republic of Germany" was counterfactual; I believe there were diplomatic problems with Spain because the Germans didn't want to accept that one could not distinguish between "Federal Republic of Germany" and "German Federal Republic".--Boson 15:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Union Emission Trading Scheme

Hi Boson, you added the tag "inline citations needed" to the article European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme. Could you please be a little more specific. Which facts are not supported by citations? Maybe we could change the tag for specific hints, using the "Fact-tag". Thanx, --Spitzl 17:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to address a couple of minor concerns:
  1. there are no full citations (including date of access etc.) in a "References" section. This is not a great problem as long as there are only inline links with no references to print matter, but I'm not sure what happens if such references are added. Personally, I would prefer use of footnotes with ref/reflist and {{Cite web}} but I didn't want to interfere with any differing consensus.
  2. I think two statements could do with citations:
  • the first sentence ("is the largest . . .")
  • the statement about "infringement proceedings against Austria" etc.
The {{Nofootnotes}} template I used was probably not the best choice, so please feel free to alter as you think fit. --Boson 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanx for your quick answer. I agree with your concern about the references. I would also use "cite web" etc, but there are different styles. The problem is, I'm not sure how specific information about the source is presented using the current style. So I'll leave it the way it is. I will replace your nofootnote-tag and add fact-tags to the statements you are concerned with. --Spitzl 18:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ECTS grading scale

Hi, Boson. I noticed you added a merge tag to the ECTS grading scale article. Well, I've been expanding it and I'd like to know your opinion about how it is now. Do you think the merge tag should still be kept? Waldir 13:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Boson, thanks for your reply I am still not done with that article, but as far as I'm concerned, it wont change much more. I'll wait for some time and if nobody says anything I'll remove the fusion tag. :) Waldir 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, after a while, nobody pronouciated in favor or against the removal of the tags, so I did it :) Thanks for your help. Waldir 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nürtingen

I removed the tag. At first, I didn't realise that the EU project was only for the broad scope of things, but I will be glad to help any way I can. If there is any special thing I can do to help please let me know. Illinois2011 | Talk 20:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment ?

Maybe you want to comment this [1]. Lear 21 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever voted and commented here? : [2], [3], [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.6.74 (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mulled wine

I didn't realize ^^. I edited, decided to make some changes, and re-edited. I had no idea until I saw your message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerwolfen (talk • contribs) 14:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I.U.S.W.L.S.S.

Hi Boson, Im new to wiki, did you comment on my article I.U.S.W.L.S.S. ? I dont know what that is all about. Douggiephresh
(Moved to bottom of talk page and added heading)--Boson (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello Boson. got your message re adding at the bottom not the top. still finding my way around. oops, forgot a title. Daiyounger (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Literal Translation into English

Further to my original message on the project page and your reply, i would offer the example of the entry for "John George 111, Elector of Saxony". the sentence " In addition, his language instruction as well as learning the building of fortresses and the warfare, apart from a strictly Lutheran education " actually makes no sense. i think it means that as well as recieving a Lutheran education, he was taught languages, and about warfare and the building of fortresses. Daiyounger (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Translation a machine! that makes sense. some languages are like lego, bits fit into each other with a satisfying click; english is like a collection of wooden blocks badly cut by the child's father; be careful or all the whole thing falls over. taken note of your comments, many thanks. Daiyounger (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU semi protection

Maybe you want to support this [5]. Lear 21 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discontinuous editing

Hey Boson, this is HARSH!!!
Do you want me top link this to a couple of thousand Wiki pages for reference? ;) If you want verification just visit any more or less substantial and prominent article talk page :)
And trust me, there is nothing original about this research since I bet 99.9% of Wikipedians have encountered it, jut never put a name to the experience.
It is very much a unique description of something as unique as the Wikipedia itself. Can it be categorised as Wikipedia? --Mrg3105 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added some more information and citation details on the film editing technique and removed the part on Wikipedia, which was unsourced, and apparently original research.I don't think the contention that it has been encountered by many Wikipedians makes it any less original research. It might be more appropriate in a different namespace.--Boson (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Would you care to make suggestions under which neamespace it would be appropriate? How would you source a new phenomena?--Mrg3105 (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EU intro

Your recent stance is convincing, considering the importance of the economic size(GDP) of the EU. Keep up this opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.19.156 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plaxall

Can we remove the remaining flags now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe all remaining problems have been fixed with the Plaxall article flags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.249.106 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Have now removed the remaining flags.--Boson (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008 edition of the WikiProject Germany newsletter

The Germany WikiProject Newsletter
Issue II - March 2008
From the editor

This is the second issue of WikiProject Germany's newsletter. The newsletter is intended to help all members of the project to keep up with new developments and coordinate new collaborative efforts. If you think anything should be featured in the next issue, please leave a note at the Newsdesk
Other areas where you can help
  • Assessment requests: Some open Requests for assessment need to be answered. To see new assessment requests as they come in, you can watchlist the assessment page.
  • More task forces and subprojects: As this WikiProject covers a very large topic area, it is helpful to add more task forces that focus on specific aspects of Germany. Currently, we have a Mainz task force, a Munich subproject and some joint task forces with other WikiProjects. Any project member is invited to start a new task force. Suggestions for possible topics:
    • Transportation in Germany
    • German politics (the political system of Germany and the biographies of its politicians)
    • German Democratic Republic

Be creative! If you have an idea, just suggest it on the project talk page (don't forget to watchlist it).

  • Categorization: Uncategorized Germany stubs need to be categorized
Project news
  • Cities and municipalities task force

The task force dedicated to creating and improving articles on all German cities and municipalities is happy to announce that there are now (at least) stub articles for all municipalities of Germany. Now the task force is looking for help in fleshing these out a little bit. The current phase of activity for the task force is to copy in infoboxes from the articles in German Wikipedia. If you want to help, even just for a few articles, look at the instructions and links here

  • Article Assessment:

There are now way over 26.000 articles tagged as part of our Wikiproject and many still need either an importance or a quality assessment. Also there are many more out there that do need to be tagged like approx 8000 municipalities. If you would like to help take a browse through Articles needing Importance assessment or Articles needing a basic quality assessment.

- - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This newsletter is delivered by a bot to all members of WikiProject Germany. If you do not want to receive this newsletter in the future, please leave a note at the talk page of the Outreach department so we can come up with a better spamlist solution. Thank you, - - Newsletter Bot Talk 14:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Zobel

Why did you change Chung-Kwei Chang to Chung-Key Chang? That's how he spelt his name in the paper[6].

Also, I see you put a biography rating tag on the talk page. Should Christopher Henn-Collins have one too? I created that article about a month ago. Thanks SpinningSpark 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I have changed it back. I was using a spell checker, but I thought I was only making actual changes manually. That must have snuck past me. I added a project tag to attract the attention of Biography Project members and invite an assessment from the appropriate task force. I did some copyediting to facilitate an assessment as at least B class, which I thought possible. I have also added a WP:WPBIO tag to the other article. --Boson (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Phew, for a minute I thought the Chinese had changed their phonetics again and we were going to have to learn new names for Peking and Mao Tse Tung etc all over again! SpinningSpark 23:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dein Link auf WT:MoS

"Die aufgerufene Spezialseite ist nicht vorhanden." Welche Seite meinten Sie? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metric Directive

If Directive 80/181/EEC survives its deletion vote in 3 days time--which looks likely--have you considered accessing Directive 80/181/EEC and hitting the 'move' button? This lets you to rename the article into the Metric Directive as you suggested. You just have to give a reason--that its relevance from a 1979 EEC directive appears questionable or the title is very bureaucratic whereas Metric Directive is more relevant today, etc. At present, there no article on 'Metric Directive' so you can do this. If every Wikipedia article on regulations was titled 'Directive XX', people would fall asleep. In the US, every WWII veteran knows of the G.I. Bill rather than its technical term--PL345. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if it survives, I will move it and expand it a bit, since a lot has happened in the last 12 months (though the amendment legislation is still pending, I believe) and I have done some more research. When it was created, I think the original author just made a very short stub to link to from an article on a court case in England; I later added a couple of sentences to give some indication of its notability, but I know I didn't do a very good job, being rather pressed for time. I have tentatively concluded that the (semi-) official title is now "Units of Measurement Directive", though it was previously referred to in the press as the "Metrics Directive", so I would probably create a Redirect for that as well. I also didn't like the title. It was probably then that I came across a discussion on standardizing the names for articles on directives and shelved any further action for the time being (and then forgot about it). If I recall correctly, the discussion was not on the talk page for the EU project, so I will have to have another look. I think the main problem was that some directives did not have a short official name and there may have been discussion about whether to include both a name and the "number". If I can find it, it might be worth reviving the discussion on naming conventions at WP:EU. The current status of the legislation seems to be that (probably because of uncitable protests in the UK and expected trade problems with the USA, together with efforts to get the constitution or reform treaty through) the EU decided to have "consultations", and on the basis of the results the Commission decided in late 2007 to propose prolonging the use of dual labelling etc. indefinitely. This appears to have been approved by the EP and the EESC (around December 2007), meaning that amending legislation should soon be published. --Boson (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. After some reflection, I suppose Directive 80/181/EEC has some significance for the gradual application of the metric system which is the predominant system of measurement in the world except for the UK and the USA/Canada. However, the title is a real put off! Only a bureaucrat could think of calling a legislation about the metric system by its purely technical name. I could tell this legislation was somewhat dated from its reference to the EEC. The EEC's name was changed in 1992, I believe. I never dreamed it dated to 1979 though...but it would have much relevance for the British. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't come across very well (or at all) at the moment, but I'll try to add some material to make it clearer why this 1979 directive is especially relevant in the 2006-2010 time frame (the main problem is that it takes a lot of research to get all the facts right). The thing about EU directives is that, unlike EU regulations, they are not immediately binding on normal citizens but oblige the national governments to adopt national legislation giving effect to the directive within a specific time frame, usually a few years. I think this directive insisted on metric labelling within a few years but allowed dual labelling to be continued until, I think, 1989, this later being extended to 1999 and then, finally, to 2009, the indications being that there would be no further extension. As from 2010, it would (probably) have been illegal for advertising or labels to additionaly give weights and measures in inches, pounds etc. The US government seemed to wake up to the significance of this in 2006, suddenly realizing that American goods would have to be re-packaged for sale in Europe, advertising would have to be changed, etc.; they probably also realized that the EU can impose very serious fines for deliberately ignoring EU law. I suspect the EU Commission also woke up to the fact that this also presented a problem for EU companies selling to the US. This is in addition to the protests in the UK by a sizeable minority who object to what is perceived as a would-be European superstate riding roughshod over UK cultural sensitivities (Nazi jack-boots seem to be the preferred image). As regards the "EEC" designation, "EEC" was replaced by "EC" (European Community) some time ago, but the EC remains an integral part (pillar) of the EU and is still often used in official documents, partly because the EC has a legal personality but the EU doesn't. This will change when the Treaty of Lisbon comes into force.--Boson (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew my application for deletion: [7] I trust you will change the article once it survives the deletion process. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Directive 80/181/EEC has been saved. Good luck on rewriting this bureaucratic legislation and changing its awful title. Artene50 (talk) 05:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foreignchar

I don't think the closing admin will reconsider. See his comments on WP:DRV Agathoclea (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep the closing admin made some changes to the template after undeleteing. He moved them parameters around to be able to do away with the foreignchars template.

Have a look at the editsummary I did for the first few I reverted. Also get the link to the list of bot edits as well as his comments on the changes from User_talk:Happy-melon#Deletion_review_for_Template:Foreignchar - Can you copy my editsummary when doing further reverts? Agathoclea (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)