User talk:Djmutex/old002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did you move Münster to the oddly-named Münster (temp)? --mav

I'm glad you're asking. I screwed up. The plan was to have "Münster" (with the umlaut) to be the main entry and have "Muenster" redirect to Münster. Since I read somewhere that one should always move pages instead of cut and paste, in order not to lose history, that's what I tried. And now I'm stuck cos wikipedia automatically created a redirect page, and I can't move the other pages to where they should go... can you clean up after me please? Djmutex 23:21 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Is that right now? -- John Owens 23:32 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, thanks very much. I'm sorry for causing the hassle... is there a correct way to exchange two pages? It's the first time I've tried this. Djmutex 23:34 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
For future reference, the ideal approach is to have an administrator (using this particular case as an example) delete the old Münster redirect, then move Muenster to Münster after that's done. -- John Owens
OK. I'll do some cleanup with the pages pointing to the redirect now... Thanks again. If you can find the time, Muenster (region) has the same problem... I won't touch it. :-) Djmutex 23:37 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
You should have no problem doing that one all by yourself, since there's no Münster (region) redirect yet. -- John Owens 23:39 May 2, 2003 (UTC)
Whew, it worked this time. Thanks again. :-) Djmutex 23:41 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Just noticed that there's an article at pangram and at List of common phrases that contain all letters of the alphabet that probably should be merged. Feel like having a go? -- Someone else 01:48 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I already added mine to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. I have linked to pangram from typeface instead. Thanks for the pointer, I learned a new word. :-) Djmutex 01:58 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
I made a redirect to pangram from "list etc.". If it gets deleted that's fine, and if it doesn't, that's fine too<G>. -- Someone else 02:00 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of Hermann Göring...hmmm... interesting sentence! Just needed a move, because the page only had a redirect with no history, so I didn't need to do a delete, so you should have been able to move the page yourself. (Just telling you in case the same situation comes up again, I was happy to move it for you! You should feel free to ask me to help out wherever you see a need). -- Someone else 18:38 17 May 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll try myself next time. Thing is, last time I tried I got the "page exists" error for the target, so if I understand you correctly this depends on whether the link has a history. Djmutex 18:40 17 May 2003 (UTC)

That's the way it's supposed to work. So if it looks like there's no history, only the redirect, you can give it a try. You won't hurt anything, and if it doesn't go you can always ask for help. (I usually misspell the page I want to move it to...making more of a mess to clean up. I'm always happy when it goes well<G>).. -- Someone else 18:55 17 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks again. There are several pages where the German umlauts have been incorrectly used, and sometimes when I find one particularly annoying, I try to clean things up a bit. German names are quite frequently actually spelled with "oe" instead of "ö" (or with other umlaut circumscriptions, for that matter), and really the two are different and can even be pronounced differently in certain cases... it's very confusing, and I'd rather see it correct. As an example, consider the city of Soest, Germany, which is not pronounced as "Söst", but "Sohst" rather, since the "e" here has the purpose of prolonging the vowel. You'll find that in a lot of German names. Finally, certain Germans are actually spelled Schroeder instead of Schröder... circumscribing umlauts therefore adds to the confusion, in my view. :-) Djmutex 19:21 17 May 2003 (UTC)

At the 21. may you wrote that germany hasn't a bicameral parliament. What is the Bundestag and Bundesrat in your opinion?

The Bundestag is Germany's Parliament. The Bundesrat is a special institution that represents the interests of the Bundesländer at the federal level. It is not a parliament nor a part of a bicameral one. Its members aren't elected, they can't vote whatever they want, they don't even participate in all the legislative procedures. I tried to explain it on the Bundesrat page. You will find the same classification in any textbook on Germany's constitution. -- Djmutex 18:31 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I read the official homepage and you are right! Sorry, my fault.

HAllo Ulrich -- Schön, dass wir beide ähnliche Interesse haben, oder? Obwohl gibt es ein Paar Leut' hier, die mich nicht glauben, ich habe meine Doktorarbeit über die Karolinger im Fuldagebiet geschrieben. Auch wohnte ich in Deutschland für vier Jahre. Das erste Jahr, war ich DAAD Stipendiatin bei der Uni Augsburg, danach habe ich als Sprachlehrerin (Englisch, natürlich -- man sieht wie schlecht mein Deutsch ist!) gearbeitet ...

Anyway (sorry, I can never resist practicing, but don't want to be obnoxious about it), I'm sorry about the links -- I missed that part.

OK, I'll fix that back then. -- Djmutex 23:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)

You're right, of course, that they don't need repeating. As far as the rest, there was some method in the madness when we started all of this. We wanted some overlap, but not much, so that we could keep the articles short and to the point. The idea was that people would follow the links if they wanted to know more, and also, they would be able to search under more terms. Then we started getting people who were interested in List pages and got the dynasty things ... At any rate, I still like the idea of several shorter articles, but think some could be consolidated. AS far as the bloody French Monarchs, I don't think it's a French/German dichotomy -- just a problem over the definition of France and French. To me, the Merovingians are Frankish, as are the Carolingians -- They aren't "French" or "German".

Yeah, sure. :-) I just get the feeling some Francophiles are fearing that their history is taken away from them. :-) -- Djmutex 23:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)

BTW, what's your interest ing the Franks? It's not *that* common! Look forward to working with you on these JHK


Just a hobby. I did a bit of research on the Holy Roman Empire when I was still in University, mostly in studies of Legal History... one of my papers is online, if you are really interested. Anyway, to get a grasp on that, it's a good idea to know your way around general history too. The thing is that Charlemagne is such a mythical figure in medieval Germany that it's hard not to stumble over the Franks at one point. Besides, I grew up in Osnabrück, which was founded by him. -- Djmutex 23:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Just looked at Carolingian Empire -- I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but the more I think about it, I think this is not a good idea. What if someone wants to know about the Carolingians, or the Carolingian Empire -- I know they will eventually get the information, but doing it through re-directs is not intuitive. I can well imagine someone looking for a quick bit of info, being redirected to Franks and either: a)getting annoyed because he is totally aware of any connection; or, b) having to scroll all the way down to get to the Carolingians after wading through Rome and the Merovingians. EIther way, it could make this user not want to use the wikipedia. COuld we please put some of each article back, at least? JHK
Well, my approach so far has been structure. I am not opposed to having many articles at all. I am aware that people might stumble over the word "Carolingian" and just want to know what it means without having to read a dissertation about Frankish history.
However, I am opposed to having many articles all saying similar things, but varying in little details, which forces the user to read all of them and effectively contrast them to get the whole picture. The lists of Frankish/Merovingian/Carolingian rulers I mentioned on your page really bother me for that reason. Another example is List of German Kings and Emperors vs. List of Holy Roman Emperors. It seems that some writers did not quite grasp that a German King did not stop being king when crowned Emperor, or even that being king was a requisite for becoming Emperor.
Anyway, what I have been trying to do so far is to have little articles on specific issues and a "big picture" article with all the details for those who are really interested.
Which is why, for example, I shortened the Merovingian article and clearly point the user to Franks for the big thing. I don't mind doing the same thing for Carolingian Empire, but the article that I replaced clearly did not succeed in doing that. I have changed the redirect for now to point to Carolingian instead, but IMO that page needs a rework too. -- Djmutex 23:27 30 May 2003 (UTC)
That makes sense -- maybe we can work on it together? JHK
I'd love to. Always happy to meet people interested in history. :-) I was thinking that maybe the various Frankish rules in Neustria etc. could be merged into one page somehow, maybe with the use of HTML tables to make the connections a bit more obvious. I could try this on a sandbox page first. Djmutex 23:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Mr, User:Djmutex, I do not think it is appropriate to be asking User:JHK what to do on the pages that are either under discussion or linked to them that could result in much alteration. Ms. JHK is equal to all and has no special authority at Wikipedia in these matters. Like Ms. JHK and all users, you should follow the established Wikipedia policies. Thank you, sir. Triton 23:44 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Hey, I just asked her how I could avoid stepping on people's toes. I was not aware that asking her would already cause trouble. I am not implying any hierarchy whatsoever, nor am I suggesting any semantic changes to any text. I am only trying to get some structure into a number of articles that look like a bit of a mess to me. Is there anything in particular that you are worrying about? And what policy are you referring to? -- Djmutex 23:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, I was not directing anything at you personally. Go to the Main Page to follow the various policies and procedures and if you can'ty find the answer, post it on the Village Pump and someone will always point you in the right direction as to where it can be found. If there is no sufficent answer, the policies will tell you where to go to get one. Good luck. Triton 00:03 31 May 2003 (UTC)

If you have the inclination, (and if you've read the Harry Potter in the original German), you might be able to supplement what I've started at Harry Potter in translation (really just a way of me finding stuff out, but...<G>) -- Someone else 20:53 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, I'll have to decline. :-) I haven't read any of these, nor am I planning to. But if you are looking for the German titles, amazon.de might be of some help? -- Djmutex 21:18 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, one can't know everything -- I suppose<G>. Got the titles, looking for character names, but let not your heart be troubled, I shall find them elsewhere! -- Someone else 21:22 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I currently have my mind spinning over The Matrix Reloaded and was quite disappointed to find no real attempt at resolving all the philosphical references in Wikipedia. For a minute I thought about writing a couple of things that came to my mind, but then I stepped back and figured it would be the safest way of starting a first-class edit war. :-) As of now, imdb.com has more than 1700 comments already, which slightly troubles me. -- Djmutex 21:34 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Not a big fan of The Matrix, so I haven't seen it Reloaded. The philosophical references were fun, but it was a little too inchoate for my taste. And I would have liked some explicit Gnostic references...they didn't mention the pleroma did they? __ Someone else 23:14 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Erm, I'm overwhelmed. I'm not an expert on philosophy, so all I know is that some have seen references to Gnostic philosphy in the Matrices, but I certainly wasn't able to spot that myself. Something that hit me however are the religious connotations, such as Neo being an obvious reference to the Messiah (see also Aeon) and (especially in "Reloaded") the permanent hitting on human choice vs. providence and/or fate. My personal theory is that Matrix might actually become a very Christian movie, and so far I have seen nobody elaborate on that anywhere on the Net. :-) -- Djmutex 12:10 31 May 2003 (UTC)
The Matrix is definately Gnostically inspired, for example there are two virtual worlds appearing in the film, both which form the actual Matrix: a machine world analogous to the pleroma where AI-characters such as Merovingian hang out, and a "real" artificial world occupied by the captured minds of the flesh beings. The Architect is obviously the Demiurge and AI:s turned to the human cause such as the Oracle are Archons. I think it is most obvious really. Nixdorf 10:25, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Djmutex --

SO far, I like what's on the sandbox. The only thing I might add at this point are explanations of how one kingdom turns into four, and that the Carolingians are Mayors of the Austrasian Palace. There are other leading families providing MAyors, especially in Neustria -- it's one of the reasons Pippin needs papal validation of his kingship. Really nice table work, too! JHK 17:09 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! About your concerns: a) Yes, the various splits should be explained, and I will add a brief explanation. But the details should really go on the Franks page, I think. b) You probably know more about the Carolingians' rise to power than me, but from what I gathered, the Carolingians were first Mayors in Austrasia and became thus mayors of the entire realm when it was reunited under the later Merovingian kings, or am I wrong there? — djmutex 17:27 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Nope -- I just couldn't tell you off the top of my head when it happened! And there were rivals, I believe -- including many who became their leading men or who married into their family JHK