User talk:Gene Nygaard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For older talk, see

  • User talk:Gene Nygaard/2004Dec-2005Apr (Litre,Special Fraction Characters, Deletion, merge, do nothing?, Edit summary, Mass is not weight, Middot, Ansari X Prize, Unicode code pages, Welcome to the Wikipedia, Aquarium volume, Balsam poplar, Significand, Death Valley National Park FAC, Magnetar distance units, Bot to undo damage by bot putting in U.S. census places, Thank you!, Degrees symbol, cm for height of people, Continental United States, BC / BCE dating convention, Europa (moon) edit, Units and nbsp, mid dot, Cheddar, Villages in Hong Kong. The bot thing, Devil's Lake, helium nonbreaking spaces, template:Infobox_U.S._state, California State Route 57, SuperCroc revert, Second/seconds, what is the least ugly in-line math in Planck units?, mass flow meter, Sequoia, Specific impulse)
  • User talk:Gene Nygaard/2005May-2005Jun (Sugar substitute, Trinity anniversary, Slrubenstein debate, USS Mississinewa (AO-59), Gustav II Adolf-vote, merge Tonne?, PA 103, lots of edits, not an admin, Pounds force, Aircraft loaded weights, Camel, Aluminium)
  • 2005Jul-2006Jan | 2006Feb | 2006Mar-2006Apr | 2006May-2006Jul | 2006Aug-2006Oct | 2006Nov-2006Dec | 2007Jan pt 1 | 2007Jan-Oct

Contents

[edit] Not good enough

Gene, I respect your contributions to this project, but your response to being blocked for being rude and aggressive was... rude and aggressive, basically. You don't seem to understand the problem, preferring to attack those who identify it. I'm sorry, but this is not good enough. Right now you have a block of 7 days, I will be happy for any admin to lift that if you can persuade them that you've actually learned something from the experience. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Guy, I was going to ask you why, if I have been blocked, what your interest was in it, and why there was no notice to that effect by the blocking administrator here on my talk page.
But then when I come to post that, I happen to glance at the jumble of a signature there and see that the "Guy" who was posting on my talk page was the same as the "JzG" who appears in my block log.
So then the question becomes, why the third-person passive-voice nonsense? What's this "Right now you have a block of 7 days" stuff, as if you are informing me of someone else's actions? You blocked me. Just say so--especially if you are going to twiddle with your user name so that what I see in the notice is something different from what I see in my block log. I almost mistook you for some well-intentioned soul who thought that he was going to offer to help out in some unspecified way in my reeducation. Some helpful, innocent bystander with a "Help!" button in his signature for some reason or anther.
To say that one cannot raise an issue and claim, on a forum for making such complaints about the actions of editors such as WP:ANI, that an editor's actions have been rude and inconsiderate (or even aggressive, your word, if I had said that), is ludicrous. It is totally contrary to all sense of fairness and due process, on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Raising such an issue is clearly not a violation of WP:CIVIL, whether or not in your subjective opinion you can find some excuse for that action--but you haven't even bothered to try to do that.
But you also seem to have entirely missed the point of the issue I raised at WP:ANI. Rlevse's actions in disrupting the process are not wrong becasue he was incidentally rude and inconsiderate to me in doing so; they are wrong because they are bad for Wikipedia. They are wrong because they corrupt the process of the various dispute resolution network we have. They would have been wrong if he had been pleasant and nice to me and had tried to discuss things with me and actually accomplish something, rather than blocking me out of the blue. The fact that he was rude and inconsiderate is irrelevant to that issue. I even pointed that out there, and don't understand how you could have missed that.
You are instead assuming bad faith on my part, in addition to not paying any attention to the actual issues raised there. You have turned a blind eye to the issue that was raised, just because, for whatever reason--and I don't have a clue what it is--you have taken a dislike to me. Not a good foundation for any discussion.
But then, you aren't really interested in discussion, are you? No more so than Rlevse. No, in fact, much less so--he didn't block me to keep me from responding to anything he had said. He merely didn't say anything, anywhere. You, OTOH, have blocked me specifically to stop me from addressing your response or anyone else's on the WP:ANI discussion, and the subsequent one on WP:AN.
The disruption of WQA was done to give an advantage in content disputes to User:Greg L, who had already had a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts on his own actions at Kilogram, filed by User:Enuja in [this back on 1 September, before I ever got involved in that discussion there. The issues raised then have continued almost unabated or even in a worsening manner, with a changing cast of characters other than the constant Greg L involvement, and remain largely unresolved.
Gene Nygaard 13:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gene, you're being blinded to the forest by the trees. Guy didn't block you for taking your complaint to ANI, he blocked you for an overall rude and aggressive tone. Likewise, Rlevse didn't block you for not participating at Wikiquette, even though that is part of what he said. He blocked you for an overall rude and disruptive behavior - go back and read what he said.
Your manor has never bothered me in the least - I know that is just how some people talk. But a lot of people don't see it this way. A good example is this post. It reads just fine to me - but some people find it rude and aggressive. Since this is a collaborative effort, subjective things like civility are defined by community standards - your and my idea of civility doesn't really matter. That being said, insulting peoples intelligence is definitely not ok.
You need to try to be very polite and to apologize when you hurt peoples feelings, even if that wasn't your intention. A lot of people want to see you banned permanently, so try to be nicer from now on. --Duk 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think I'm the one most in need of a lecture about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Look, Duk, if you want to take on the job of my reeducation, I can probably talk to you about it.
But if you want to do so, first we need a solid foundation on which to build the discussions. Let's stick to what is known about why I was blocked, okay?
  1. JzG blocked me because I complained, in a point incidental to a separate complaint, on a complaints noticeboard, that Rlevse was rude and inconsiderate in his actions towards me. We know that because JzG came right here and said that was why he was blocking me.
  2. Rlevse blocked me because I had not responded on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. We know that because he came right here and said that was why he was blocking me.
    1. We also know it because Rlevse went to WQA and said that was why he was blocking me.
    2. Rlevse did not go and make any such explanation at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade.
    3. Rlevse did not go and make any such explanation at User talk:ArielGold
Now, maybe I just missed it, but I don't think there is anything at Wikipedia:Blocking policy saying that the decision to block is something entirely at the administrator's whim, or that the administrator should
  • Block now. You can always invent a reason for it later.
or anything along those lines. So let's just stick with what is actually known and knowable about he reason for which I was blocked, the things that had been documented and recorded in our various histories here at Wikipedia before I was blocked. Anything else is irrelevant.
Don't invent new reasons for a block. At the same time, don't say that the stated reasons for a block were not the reasons for it.
For that matter, if Rlevse had wanted to take on that job, and had felt that there was something he wanted to teach me, he likewise could have tried to talk to me. He did not do so. If JzG had wanted to take on that job, he likewise could have tried to talk to me. But he took it one step further than Rlevse did; JzG did make a comment addressed to something I said, but then he blocked me to prevent me from responding to his own comment. Gene Nygaard 22:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The immediate cause of JzG's weeklong block of you was, yes, the post you made on the admin noticeboard. I didn't see any justification for that in our blocking policy so I objected to it (a weeklong block for a grumpy post on ANI? huh?). I thought the indefinite block was stranger still. Nevertheless, while I agree with you that the blocking admins have been lax in justifying their actions with respect to our policies there is an underlying reason for this sudden pile-on of blocks. You are consistently perceived as rude and confrontational. Like Duk above I have learned that this is just the way you normally interact with people. I usually just chuckle when you throw a sarcastic barb at me or deliver some useful information wrapped up in porcupine leather. But your style honestly bothers and offends some people so if you're going to survive in this ecosystem you're going to have to tone it down (without, I hope, losing too much of your character in the process). Haukur 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
your response to being blocked for being rude and aggressive was... rude and aggressive. I think Guy explained his reasoning perfectly well there.
Looking at Rlevse's block note - he listed about six or seven things. Three were broad generalizations of past complaints that add context and perspective. Then he listed three specific uncivil links. You've focused on a meaningless part (Wikiquette) while neglecting the important parts (the specific examples and history of incivility). You're being blinded to the forest by the trees.
reeducation - Ha! that's funny. Administrator's job is to serve, I'll run errands for you, accept your criticism and return it if I think it might help. I'll try to keep people from ganging up on each other. When someone makes an idiotic request at WP:AN for a diacritic-related community sanction, without presenting a shred of evidence why it is needed, and when your behavior in that area has been fine for the last 5,000 edits, I'll call him on it. But I'm just one little guy, meanwhile there are about twelve people who owe their adminship nomination to Hunsond. Did you notice, by the way, that as soon as I called for a reporting of all off-wiki discussions regarding a request for your indefinite block, the request was retracted instead. Mayby it's my imagination - but still a funny coincidence (descisions like this, when there's no reason for secrecy (like privacy issues), must never be make off-wiki, and it's one of the reasons Husond lost his RFB).
the decision to block is something entirely at the administrator's whim - Disruption, not a whim, but still completely subjective.
OK, I'm fairly sure we're not going to agree on all this so I'll stop repeating myself and leave you with a quote from my favorite admin:
  • Working productively with people you think are idiots is probably *the* most important skill you can have on Wikipedia. David Gerard
--Duk 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, yes--Husond. You two know that it probably isn't prudent for me to say much about him now.
Instead, let's take a different tack, okay?
A challenge to those at WP:AN
A number of people have been discussing various moves by me. In an attempt to help clarify the issues, I respectfully issue the following challenge:
  1. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and make a request for Eduardo Perez to be moved to Eduardo Pérez, providing the proper discussion space on the talk page in accordance with the instructions at WP:RM, etc.
  2. Then give everyone who has commented about my moving articles should be given a chance to weigh in on that requested move. Put together all that collective brainpower, and more importantly, all that spirit of cooperative editing, to work to try to resolve the question of which of those two names should occupy the unique spot available for the article's name, in accordance with our Wikipedia:Naming conventions.
    1. Consider what you could support based on the article as it stands today, with nothing specifically identified as a reference, but with two entries under "External links" to statistics pages. Based on what I could see, in other words.
    2. Look for and discuss additional sources of information, to support either the "Eduardo Pérez" spelling or the "Eduardo Perez" spelling.
    3. Add appropriate references to the article, if they are "reliable sources".
  3. If anyone who has commented about me in this regard hasn't jumped in of his or her own accord within a couple of days, seek them out and specifically invite their input to achieve the best cooperative result.
  4. This will provide a wonderful opportunity to "teach by example".
  5. Then, no matter where it ends up, we will probably accomplish one thing. Those who want to talk about naming conventions issues will at least have some little bit of experience with and understanding for the potential issues involved.
History: This article was started with the name Eduardo Perez more than two years ago, and remained that way until moved to Eduardo Pérez without discussion and no edit summary here 10 Oct 2007 by User:Kolins. Later, I moved back the undiscussed, unreferenced move of the longstanding name. There have been no edits since, and Talk:Eduardo Perez is a blank slate, unused but for the ubiquitous WikiProjects and BLP boxes filling up a couple of screens.
Or, perhaps it would be even more instructive to add one additional step first. Let Husond first show you how an old pro, one well versed in the workings of Wikipedia, would handle this. Let him first move it back to Eduardo Pérez, then request page protection on the page. Then, once that page protection is in place, you can request the move in the opposite direction, from Eduardo Pérez to Eduardo Perez.
Same encouragement of participation by anyone involved in that WP:AN discussion, of course, no matter which direction the move is requested. All that changes is the burden of proof (something Husond is well aware of, but might not have been considered by everyone else). It might have some effect on the ensuing discussion or not, I can't predict what will happen in this case. Leave the discussion open for the normal five days or more, with of course anyone who is following the article just because they are baseball fanatics or whatever free to jump into the discussion as well.
That discussion, of course, ought to be able to proceed quite smoothly and amicable, since you won't have to worry about a disruptive character like me jumping in there. ;-)
Does that sound do-able? Either direction, I don't care. You choose. Gene Nygaard 19:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as I support the current location (without diacritic), I'll wait for someone else to take up that challenge. What I might do instead is go through the last 20 or so diacritics-related moves, and see what I find. I anyone could point me to the most relevant discussions and guidelines, that would be good as well. Carcharoth 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
You could do it without it being changed, just say that it has been subject of some dispute and you want to clear it up.
But, as I pointed out, that can be changed before you make the request anyway. I doubt that Husond has changed his spots, but it might be that he is trying to exhibit exemplary behavior for a couple of days. But somebody else could probably be talked into moving it first.
This would be of most benefit to those who, unlike you, haven't been involved in such discussions before. Gene Nygaard 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sort keys

From some of your comments about category sort keys, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 14#General biographical sort key clean up. Do you think this is the sort of thing a bot can do, or is it not always clear what character to replace the non-standard character with? Carcharoth 07:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block

I'm sorry to say that I feel that the Community's patience has been exhausted. I am blocking you indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to Physchim, I feel an indefinite block at this point is counterproductive to building encyclopedic content, and have restored the seven-day block. It is very clear that Gene has been uncivil and has made personal attacks, per this. However, comments on the administrator's noticeboard indicate that several users feel that the method of prevention of disturbance to the encyclopedia in this case (an indefinite block) is excessive. As Phychim has indicated he does not object to undoing the indefinite block, I have done so. It is my hope that Gene can reform his habits and return to building the encyclopedia when his block expires. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Gene, I'm not sure how you will react to this, but could you read what I wrote here? I'm proposing to work with you on the issue of diacritics, with the hope of calming down any future disputes. I hope I can see both sides of the arguments, and communicate that to you and others, and that we can work together productively. Would you be happy to do that? Carcharoth 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That actually sounds quite reasonable.
Keep in mind that I've been blocked largely to prevent me from participating in discussions that were already underway off-Wikipedia before I was blocked.
It's refreshing to see some true civility for a change. Especially after having had four different admins block me (actually, it's probably more than the last four), without one word of discussion with me from any of them before doing so. Then there's the whole thing about much of the discussion not being aboveboard, but rather taking place in the modern version of the proverbial smoke-filled back room.
Duk and Haukur were decent, and know more about what they're talking about because we've been involved in the same discussions at various times in the past; even I've locked horns with both of them at various times, we've managed to come out of it without permanent hard feelings (can't say that for everyone else involved).
Mostly, however, what I've much of anything not even remotely resembling civility, in this entire process. At least not anything close to civility in anything other than a highly ritualized, magic-incantation, Wikipedia-jargon meaning of that term. It's no wonder that so many of them never use that word without linking it; it has nothing whatsoever to do with real-world concepts of civility as they use it.
Your proposal was so much in a different vein that it catches me by surprise. The fact that I am surprised might be a cause for concern. Gene Nygaard 13:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You say above that a requested move discussion might enable me to learn more about this. How about I initiate that requested move discussion for Eduardo Perez, you watch, and then decide if you think I'm the sort of person you can work productively with, and whether I will be a calming influence on both sides, or not? Your block expires before that requested move discussion will end, so whether or not you want to participate in the requested move discussion is up to you. For now, I will point to the initial post you made above, stating that I agree that a naming convention discussion needs to take place. Carcharoth 14:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Done. See Talk:Eduardo Perez. Carcharoth 14:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't believe it!

You know I pointed out Eduardo Rafael Perez at that talk page discussion? Well I just recently came across Eddie Pérez (baseball). Looks like Eduardo Rafael Pérez needs to be redirected there as well. I see that Eddie Perez also exists, which is how I found the Rafael article. Do you think that both Eduardo Perez articles need to go at the "middle name" versions? As that is the best way to disambiguate them. Carcharoth 23:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think they're normally called Eduardo and Eddie. That's where they should be. You never see either of them listed with a middle name version on any baseball rosters and the like, so the "baseball" disambiguation is fine for Eddie, and Eduardo should have the disambiguation line (hatline, some call it) to the disambiguation page. But yes, the E. Rafael P. redirect should exist. Gene Nygaard 02:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Disambiguation for more ideas. Gene Nygaard 03:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Em dashes on Honoré de Balzac

Thank you for your attention to detail on the Balzac page. However, as WP:DASH#Em_dashes indicates, spaced en dashes are acceptable as an alternative to em dashes. We standardized the article using the spaced en dashes throughout during the FA process, so we'd prefer to leave them that way. (I've changed them back.) Thanks! – Scartol · Talk 14:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dumb idea, IMHO. However, in any case spaced en dashes are totally unacceptable, in a dynamic paging environment, if you allow the line to break before the dash. Fix that, and I won't argue with you now on this article. Gene Nygaard 14:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "put the source value first"

Thanks for your comment at the convert template talk page. I would be grateful if you could also comment at the original discussion at WikiProject Firearms.

Lightmouse 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperial Nautical Mile

Hi Gene, I assume good faith edit to the Outer Continental Shelf article, but I have reverted it. The US Federal government source, cited extensively in the article, says for Louisiana: "Louisiana is extended 3 imperial nautical miles (imperial nautical mile = 6080.2 feet) seaward of the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured." Thus, for now at least, until another verifiable source is found for some different assertion, it is correct to leave the word "imperial" in the article. I have thus reverted your edit. Please feel free to further research "imperial nautical miles" and improve the wikilinks and information in this article. I am guessing, but do not know, that perhaps the "imperial" nautical mile is related to an older French unit of measure, since a great deal of Louisiana state law is based on the Napoleonic code. But because of this fact, which is anomolous from the other 49 states, I tend to believe that the imperial nautical mile cited in the original Federal source is very likely correct. N2e 22:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So, whose empire? No, it isn't correct to leave it in the article. Especially when we specify in imperial unit how that term is used in Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard 22:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Gene, I am not defending which country the imperial nautical mile came from. Frankly, I don't know. Someone before me added that text to the article, and did so correctly from a correctly cited US Federal Government source at the US Dept. of the Interior. If you want to change it, you should do so within the article, and only with a valid citation from a verifiable source, not with mere assertion that I, or any other editor, needs to do some particular research to satisfy you. Thus, you have now made the article incorrect, and I will revert it back unless you first do it yourself.
I am continuing to assume good faith on your part, but you should not make such a change unless based on citable sources, from Louisiana law or elsewhere. It is insufficient to revert because you don't like what the Federal government says about Lousiana's seaward jurisdiction being measured in imperial miles.
I would also suggest you and I both take, say, a day or so off to allow a cool down period in the event any emotional elements have crept into our debate on this topic.
I will do further discussion only on the article talk page, not here on your Talk page. N2e 13:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot ratings

I see you asked about BetacommandBot's article ratings. We had a little thread on ANI about that. Haukur 18:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French ship Marat (1794)

I have expended French ship Marat (1794) somewhat and taken the liberty to remove the speedy deletion tag. I hope you don't mind.

I have noticed that User:SpookyMulder has created a number of stubs of French ships of the line which obviously need expansion. I think that it is not a bad thing, because even very short stubs containing the name and date of a ship are a good basis to find further information.

Cheers ! Rama 11:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good. I'm not much of an exclusionist. But I do draw a line when all the info in an article adds nothing to what is said in its name. -- Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 E-3 s

Hi Gene, since you are always interested in proper coverage of the SI, I thought you might be interested in the discussion at Talk:1 E-3 s, where an editor erroneously claims that the correct abbreviation is Ms! --20:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The cheddar article

D'oh. Thanks for catching that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Japanese photographer substubs

Gene, I'm surprised that you encountered the wretched "article" Yoshizaki Hitori. But you did, and if you did you might very well encounter more like it. After all, there are hundreds. Thus a short explanation. If you take a quick look at the page history, you'll see that I essentially reversed your edit, intelligent, well intentioned and excellently described though it was.

You'll find the background here and here.

As for the current state, I'll explain in terms of this (very worthwhile if only for its "related changes" tab). A full explanation of what's happened since and where we are now would exhaust both of us, but the following should cover well over 90%:

  1. I turned all the names into links.
  2. I respelled them where necessary, turning them into Hepburn complete with diacritics
  3. (Irrelevantly to the substubs) I added people from other lists
  4. I stuck "OK" next to any link that I knew was more than a mere stub, and "NC" (not checked) next to any other blue or redlink.
  5. I started at "A" and worked my way down to somewhere around "O", looking primarily at articles about people whose names need diacritics:
    1. Respelling the articles to Hepburn where appropriate (but not reversing the names)
    2. Adding DEFAULTSORT (but not consistently adding a comma where appropriate)
    3. Fixing links where necessary
    4. Marking each linked article as "OK" or "BGSS" (bot-generated substub)
    5. Moving the articles where appropriate (but not reversing the names)
  6. I then realized there'd be various problems if I didn't comply with the (bloody stupid) requirement of MoS-ja that names of Japanese people born after 1867 should be back to front, and so started again at "A" and:
    1. Adjusted the articles to have names of people born after 1867 in "western" (non-Japanese) order
    2. Stuck commas within DEFAULTSORTs
    3. Re-moved these articles

So:

  • Substubs on people without diacritics in their name are mostly untouched by human hand. They'll be misunderstood for sorting.
  • Substubs on people with diacritics in their name are OK down to "K" or thereabouts (and a little later every day).
  • From "K" or thereabouts to "O" or thereabouts, substubs on people with diacritics in their name have a more or less correct DEFAULTSORT (though it may lack the comma).
  • From "S" or so thereon, substubs on people with diacritics in their name are like those for people without diacritics.

All pretty straightforward really. . . .

A few months or so from now, I should have sorted out this mess. We'll then have hundreds of correctly sortable, MoS-compliant, utterly useless substubs. A few years or so from now, I should have converted a significant percentage of these into articles that are worth a look. A few decades from now, they'll all be good (lowercase "G") articles. Er no, I'll die of old age before that happens.

Of course, if you happened to be interested in photography in Japan, you'd be most welcome to join the effort. I've occasionally made feeble attempts to interest some other people, but nobody has yet been tempted. Which hasn't surprised me. Hoary (talk) 10:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad moves?

Hi! Based on your comment for this edit, I'm a bit curious what was bad about the move itself. Taking the actual edit into consideration, it seems the only real problem you had with the move was that I didn't add a defaultsort (which I probably didn't know existed at that point, and I certainly hadn't realized diacritics caused problems with alphabetical sorting), rather than with the new title, or any leftover redirects, or mis-linkings, or whatever other usual problems "badly done" moves cause. So... am I missing something, or was the "badly done" misplaced? -Bbik★ 16:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That was what I was concerned with, and it happens far too often, with different editors. Otherwise, you did much better than most of them, having discussed your proposed move and showing concern about double redirects. Your mislinkings might evidence a misunderstanding; as WP:NC says, "In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that title name, nor that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles."
You are in a better position than anyone else to know if there are likely others you have done which need a similar adjustment. Gene Nygaard (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm slightly confused again. Mislinkings? As for other pages with sorting issues, there are probably at least a couple, silly diacritics, and most likely plenty more that could use a defaultsort just in case; I'll run through and check for that in a bit. -Bbik★ 20:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I think I caught all the sort issues that might've been caused by moves I've done. Only two or three where it was actually an issue, in the end. -Bbik★ 21:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] November 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to USS Midway (CV-41). Thank you. MBK004 (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space before unit symbol in bullet names

You may wish to read a claim by user Koalorka that a project has decided that there would be no space before a unit symbol in bullet names. I would have thought that the default should be to use a space but I am open to debate. I am sure you have an opinion on this and I will be interested to see what you think. Lightmouse (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bold for vectors

I reversed this edit. Vectors are conventionally typeset in roman boldface, while scalar variables are typeset in italic.--Srleffler (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they are vectors; and furthermore, the things that are vectors in this article aren't boldface. That x and y are axes in a coordinate system. They aren't vectors; they are just directions. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any other vector variables in the article. Note that Ex(t) is a scalar component of a vector.
Mathematically, x and y are nothing if not vectors. Scalar quantities don't have direction. I'm used to representing the axes by small unit vectors in each direction. An alternative approach is to typeset the x and y in plain roman font (not italic)—merely a label for which axis is meant, rather than a mathematical quantity. I altered the article accordingly. See what you think.--Srleffler (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
But vectors do have length as well as direction; these parameters do not. They aren't vectors, and they (axes in a coordinate system) are normally italicized. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, Ex(t) isn't a scalar. It does have direction--in this case along the direction of the x axis. It is a vector, just as unit vectors are vectors. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are not far apart, but are mostly talking past one another. In the article, Ex(t) is a scalar, not a vector. It is the component of the vector E(t), which is obtained by taking the dot product of that vector with a unit vector parallel to the x-axis. --Srleffler (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brabham BT19

Thanks for the unit catches at Brabham BT19 - I must have absent mindedly used a US converter. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long and short scales versus Parts-per notation

Gene. I was tempted to fix this and then thought it best to refer the issue to you since you are more expert on the subject. In Parts-per notation, it says…

The IEC suggests not to use the part-per notation to avoid misunderstanding. In most countries, a billion is 1012 (a million²) and a trillion 1018 (a million³); in the U.S. a billion is 109 and a trillion 1012 (being a billion in Europe). Nevertheless the notation is still widely used.

I find the above to be misleading given that 1) parts-per-notation is used primarily in technical fields, and 2) this is the English language version of Wikipedia. Accordingly, the English expression in science of “ppm” doesn’t have the confusion implied in Parts-per notation; the term is well understood to refer to one part in 1,000,000 in English technical circles. Further, IEC is just another safety standards agency, similar to the U.S.’s U.L. or Canada’s CSA.

The below is from Long and short scales:

For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the United Kingdom uniformly used the long scale, while the United States of America used the short scale, so that the two systems were often referred to as "British" and "American" usage respectively. Today, the UK uses the short scale exclusively in official and mass media usage and, although some long-scale usage still continues, the terms "British" and "American" no longer reflect usage.

Also, Names of large numbers says this (which I believe reinforces my point about English-language use):

The following table lists those names of numbers which are found in many English dictionaries and thus have a special claim to being "real words". The "Traditional British" values shown are unused in American English and are becoming obsolete in British English, but are dominant in many non-English-speaking areas, including continental Europe and Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America; see Long and short scales.

I’ll leave this to your judgment and choice of sources. Greg L (my talk) 03:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

British use of billion meaning 109 is almost always limited to monetary figures. Billions are generally avoided in other contexts.
But that isn't the biggest problem with "parts per" notation. The biggest problem deals with the identity of the quantities being compared—and the clumsiness necessary to make that clear. That ambiguity is an unnecessary problem, something easily avoided, by simply using normal units such as mg/kg and nmol/mol and µL/L and, especially important, the weird yet common use of "parts per" when the units are along the lines of µg/m³. See NIST SP811. Gene Nygaard 03:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
So I interpret your position as follows: If a resistor changes 10 ppb, you prefer to write 10 parts in 109. Right? Do you change ppm and ppb when you encounter them? The notation ppm is so incredibly common in science. Greg L (my talk) 04:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No. I write 10 nΩ/Ω. What's so difficult about that? Gene Nygaard 04:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Or, if it is clearer, 10 Ω/GΩ might work better. Gene Nygaard 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I'd be more likely to challenge your claim the resistance was measured to that precision. Gene Nygaard 04:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
NIST calibration against a quantum Hall resistance standard. They can calibrate to better than 10 ppb; it's an issue of how long a resistance standard will hold the calibration (not long). Greg L (my talk) 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
But in cases like that, you rarely see 10 ppb. Rather, you will see 1 part in 108 (or simply a statement about a 10−8 level of precision, especially if it is only a decimal order of magnitude) or 1.0 part in 108, whichever is appropriate. You do know the difference, don't you? And why the 10 in 10 ppb is ambiguous? Gene Nygaard 13:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please

Don't use my name in edit summaries like here. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't give me reason to do so, then. Can you go fix all the problems you have created in that regard, the hundreds of articles which appear in the wrong place in their category listings, making it likely that some people looking for them won't find them? Why would you want to hide things away like that in any case? Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
They appear wrong only temporarily, until this bug is fixed. As soon as it is, all of your 'fixes' will have to be reverted.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Several points:
  1. It's not likely to happen in my lifetime. That bug report is already nearly four years old.
  2. Even if it does ever happen, that would only mean that English sort order can be achieved more simply here.
  3. We will still need to do much of it manually, to get the words used in sorting and their order as we want them (last name first in many categories, but given name first in some; omitting the initial "Battle of" in article names, for the various "Battle" categories, etc.)
  4. Those with existing, proper sort keys will still sort every bit as well as they do now. None of "my fixes" nor those of thousands of other Wikipedia editors who do it correctly will have to be reverted, even if the software ever becomes more than a primitive, rudimentary Unicode number sort.
  5. If you continue to deliberately missort items, corrective action will have to be pursued. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese photographer non-articles again

On this edit of yours: no, her name is KON Michiko in Japanese-language contexts, and either KON Michiko or Michiko KON in English-language contexts. (To my personal disgust, MoS-ja of en:WP plumps for the latter.) So it was the titling rather than the sorting that was wrong.

As I wrote above at tedious length, I am not at all happy about the robotic generation of hundreds of these bloody non-articles. The exceedingly thin silver lining is that perhaps one in fifty has prompted somebody unexpected to flesh it out. In addition to turning a handful into real (if short) articles, I've already put hours into the dreary chore of renaming those that have macrons in their name (not because I am partial to non-articles whose titles have exotic lettering but because the bot screwed them up more than it did non-articles without macrons). I suppose I'd be a bit irritated if you rushed to prod those. But as for Kon Michiko, you'd have been welcome to prod it. (She does deserve a proper article, but prodding the silly non-article of course doesn't prejudice her chances of getting a proper article later.)

Simple rule of thumb: If an article on a Japanese photographer looks like a robotically generated substub, it is. Please don't guess how it should be sorted, but (if its edit history shows no sign of human intervention) feel free to prod it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article you might want to read

I saw the quote you had on political correctness from President George H.W. Bush and I want you click on User:Miller17CU94/In defense of free speech for something to pique your curiosity. Chris (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boiling point of water

The boiling point of water is actually >=212, not about 212. For searing approximately is close enough. --Zeamays (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boiling point of water

The boiling point of water is actually >=212, not about 212. For searing approximately is close enough. --Zeamays (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Where I live, the boiling point of water averages about 208 °F (98 °C). There are many inhabited places on Earth where the normal boiling point of water is less than 200 °F, and at any place it can vary by a couple of degrees with high and low pressures. That's why cooking instructions on many food packages and recipes include "high altitude" directions with longer cooking times. Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that this depends on the absolute atmospheric pressure at any location, not the pressures we get in weather reports which are "corrected to sea level". Gene Nygaard (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
High altitudes and other exceptions (salty water) are just that, exceptions to the general case. In any case, searing is not so exact a process as you imply. --Zeamays (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pelham bit

Gene, can you do that same pressure/force/newtons thing for curb bit? Thanks! Montanabw(talk) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, you did, a week ago. I missed that one. Is the wikilinking the same? Seems clearer in Pelham. I can't recall if there is anything on this in bit shank, but that would also be an appropriate place. Montanabw(talk) 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] millihertz

My script converts 'mHz' into 'MHz'. Many editors write 'mHz' or 'mhz' for megahertz. I can either watch for false positives where 'millihertz' is really intended or take the function out of the script. I am interested in your thoughts. Please comment at the existing debate on my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SI multiples template

I made some of your requested changes in Template:SI multiples as a new template Template:SI multiples 2. See the accompanying talk pages. Any comments are welcome. Han-Kwang (t) 11:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stibine

Hi there

I've returned bond length to angstroms, properly disambiguating ("A"). In my experience, angstroms are used more than picometers in crystallography, even though it is non-SI. With the proper wikilink, I do believe there is no more ambiguity. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There's still the fact that nobody should have to learn Fred Flintstone units to read a Wikipedia article. The iinterdisciplinary nature of the SI is as important as its international nature. I'll put in conversions instead of replacing it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, while angstroms may remain far too common in this context, picometers and nanometers are common in the technical literature as well. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
But should people need to learn Jetsons units that no one uses yet? Not that this is the case here, but I couldn't resist. :) --Itub (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL. And maybe my comment wasn't really called for in the first place. But even Rifleman 82 says "used more than picometers"; that "more than" may or may not still be accurate (and is difficult to gauge in any case), but there surely are a significant number of people and publications which do use picometers. Having both in the article is fine with me; that way, people can use the one they are more comfortable with and ignore the other. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost ... Fred Flintstone and Jetsons? I'm well aware that picometers are used often... but I've never seen it used to describe bond lengths. Reports from single crystla X-ray diffraction studies are routinely denoted in angstroms and degrees (why not pm and radian?). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Google[1]
picometers OR picometres "bond length" -Wikipedia 666 hits
and you can see several examples, with at least some of any Wikipedia taint removed from the list. Don't know about radians, but would guess that the way they are used gives none of the advantages radians have in some calculations. In any case, degrees, unlike angstroms, are acceptable for use with SI. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... searching "angstrom 'bond length' -wikipedia" 81900 hits... But I stand corrected. Bond lengths are reported in pm indeed. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a bigger difference than I would have expected. I suspect it is more time-sensitive than those results can show, with older tables still being copied and in use, even after a trend away from angstroms. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
NB: the pico- prefix was not used to any significant extent before the CGPM included it as part of the SI in 1960, and even since then has likely been adopted more slowly here than many other places. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
This search, compared to the more general one, might be indicative of the trend:
angstroms "bond length" -Wikipedia site:.edu 698 hits
picometers OR picometres "bond length" -Wikipedia site:.edu 61 hits
dropping the ratio down to 11:1 on education sites rather than 123:1 for the general search.
Many uses will also be missed because those pages involved use only the symbols Å or pm for the units, without ever spelling them out for the search engine to find. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the issue for stibine is settled, so I'm not pushing any agenda. To your last, I doubt that there are only 61 and 698 hits across the entire www for bond lengths. Either that, or journal articles are not listed (or that bond lengths are not mentioned in abstracts which are indexed). That said, I do doubt that there *is* a move away from angstroms, but I doubt you & I can prove either way. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I searched using 'pm' and found plenty of examples of picometre being used with bond length. Even if there were no examples, it would still be acceptable to use it. Wikipedia is not an in-house publication for any specialism, it is an encyclopedia intended to be inclusive to non-specialists. So the customs of specialists is merely one factor to consider. We can be certain that anyone (including those in crystallography) that understands metric units will know that a picometre is a unit of length. Some will get further useful clues from the prefix 'pico'. We can be much less certain about knowledge of the older units. Thus the picometre is more inclusive than the angstrom. I suspect (but could not prove) that the angstrom may be a bit more prevalent in the US where metrication is less common. Lightmouse (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I don't know what the d-b move is exactly. I saw Speedy-delete and thought Parana should redirect to Paraná becauae that "á" isn't on the keyboard.--12.72.150.158 (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Incorrect sort keys

I have replied to your ill tempered comment on my talk page. -- Barliner  talk  14:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Must be the electronic equivalent of invisible ink? Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birgisson

Hi, Gene Nygaard! I'm curious as to why Jón Þór Birgisson should be sorted by last name for, say, the Category:1975 births, and by first name for Category:Icelandic musicians, per your edit here? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

We've had first-name sorting in the Icelandic people categories for some time (it is common in Iceland, for example in telephone books, to sort people by first name). See the note on Category:Icelandic footballers, for example. There are probably some talk pages discussing it somewhere; it's been a while since I've been involved in such discussions. Still English sorting order, of course. The categories dealing with a specific family name (e.g. Category:Du Pont family) are also generally sorted in first-name order.
I don't have any big problem with that, could accept them sorted either way in these categories. There'd be considerable opposition if you tried to change it, and a whole lot of editing to do to change the sort order in all the categories now generally sorted by first name, but on the other hand a general acceptance of the fact that this applies only to the Icelandic people categories and not to other categories generally sorted by last name, and that it is English-alphabet sorting order. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for the reply! I'm going to switch his sorting for the LGBT category, if that's okay, but will leave the Icelandic Musicians one alone :) Thanks again! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for this. I've been a little concerned about that user's actions regarding WP:UKGEO trying to support Scotland's place articles. It's not the first time I've seen him remove templates and change our mainspace without asking the project itself... anyway, thanks again! -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not part of that WikiProject and won't be following it closely, but if you'd like my participation in any discussion that arises about this, let me know. It just seemed pretty obvious to me, without even knowing anything about the project. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wheatgrass

Thanks for the edits. Why "1 kg (2.2 lb.)" instead of the other way around? Anthon01 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a guess that it was the original (otherwise, it would more likely be something like 2¼ lb, or 2 lb 3 oz, or 35 oz, I'd think). But it does result in a hodgepodge with the ounces in the first measurement being compared to it (1 ounce of wheatgrass juice is as nutritionally valuable as 1 kg of green vegetables). Were that the only issue, I wouldn't have any objection to going back to the original order.
But your calling this to my attention makes me notice what I'd overlooked the first time; those juice ounces most likely are not 1/16 lb, but rather 1/16 pt. Or perhaps the slightly different 1/20 imperial pint (the two fluid ounces aren't quite the same size). Let me take a new stab at it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is an understandable hodgepodge, of course. Whoever came up with the comparison may have had the juice nutritional data based on fluid ounces (or 6 or 8 fl oz servings, as would be used in U.S. nutrition labeling, for example), and the green vegetables information on a "per 100 g" basis. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby player edits

Hi Gene,
I noticed that some your edits to rugby players were reverted; some with good reason, others without. I reedited some of the changes that were reverted by User:Londo06 using {{convert|13|st|7|lb|0|abbr=on|lk=on}} to produce 13 st 7 lb (86 kg/189 lb) and {{convert|5|ft|10|in|2|abbr=on|lk=on}} to produce 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m). This way stones pounds are shown for the Brits, pounds for us here in the U.S. and Canada and kilos for elsewhere. You may want to check some of your other recent edits to see if they were reverted. Good luck, —MJCdetroit (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#Cleanup, please. The biggest problems aren't the ones reverted, but the hundreds of rugby articles still using "Kg" and "lbs" and "ins" in the infobox, and malformatted dates. I'm not a big fan of {{convert}}, which is difficult for the average editor to correct when it isn't used properly. Try, for example this Google search:
  • lbs kg -rugby -user -talk site:en.wikipedia.org [580 hits]
Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just givin' you a "heads up" because the first page I seen that was reverted, was reverted because Londo06 didn't want pounds only st-lb and kg. That lead me to other pages that were reverted. I can almost understand the "lbs" mistake, but "Kg" and "ins" is just terrible. I'll check out the link you gave and maybe try to give an explanation of how {{convert}} can help if used correctly. But truth be told, I could care less about rugby. I was just trying to back you up on your edits. Regards, 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
If that's what you call terrible...Londo06 (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Grossinger - Fred Holliday

Thanks for fixing the categorization to Fred Holliday (actor). As you could see from the original categorization, it is more important to categorize him under Fred Holliday. --Bejnar (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for the housekeeping on the ballet articles. Robert Greer (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ernest Shackleton (a shameless request for help....)

Hi Gene:

It looks like you have a lot on your plate from your talk page, however I noticed that you left a few remarks on the Ernest Shackleton talk page regarding distances, nautical miles, degrees, and a bunch of other stuff that it seems like you understand much better than I do....anyway, I've been doing a lot of work on the article, trying to bring it up to GA status, and some of what I did was to change the distances to coincide with what I read in sources. Anyway, since it seems like you have a firm grasp on the different ways of measuring distance, I was hoping that if you had the time you could take a look at the distances I've quoted and, if they aren't correct, maybe make a clarification note (hopefully leaving the original in some manner, as it is sourced).

Any help would be appreciated! Thx! Lazulilasher (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metric cartridge data

Please can you look in on Talk:.308 Norma Magnum. I noticed that the article had inconsistent values. Now I notice that the manufacturer is Swedish although the product seems to be for the US market. I wonder whether source data is metric. I looked at: http://www.norma.cc/sortimentjakt.asp?Kaliber=25&Lang=1&Kalibernamn=.308%20Norma%20Mag. I also navigated via their 'Ballistik' menu to 'Ballistik metrisk' and 'Ballistik US' (using Internet Explorer).

Perhaps some values are hard metric (e.g. velocity) and others (e.g. weight) are not. This the website itself provides a good example of why we need source data to be clearly distinguished from converted data. You seem good at digging out source data and your thoughts are welcome. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travers Stakes

Please refrain from making changes to article content for which you are not qualified such as what you did with the racetime format at Travers Stakes. Should you disagree with any integral format in use on similar such articles, please have the good manners to post your views/suggestions to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing and allow members who know what they are talking about to decide its merits. Your edit does nothing to help Wikipedia and only wastes valuable time of editors who make real, knowledgeable, and substantive contributions. Just for the record, twenty years ago they invented a timing clock that measures in 1/100ths of a second. The racetime format used by Wiki Project members is not only consistent with the digital racetimers in use, but is the only official racetime reporting format used in the United States by the NTRA and without exception, every other Thoroughbred racing authority in the world. Thank you for your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not my burden of proof, but yours. If you want to make a case for improper misrepresentation of the precision of these historical numbers, have at it. I'll do what I can to oppose it if you do. If you do so, please cite some verifiable references as to the existence and the exact nature of an "official racetime reporting format", and some reason why if they do exist that should have any effect on Wikipedia standards, not just some bald-faced, subjective claims. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I also take special note of this edit in which you corrected the previous false precision of the numbers in the Travers Stakes article, which I had properly represented in accordance with the numbers which existed at the time. Clean your own house before you come whining to me; if any of those numbers in other articles also have improper trailing zeros after the decimal point which are incorrect, fix them before I get there, and you won't have so much of a problem. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Imperial Robbery

I read your views at MOSNUM Talk regarding metrics in UK articles with much interest. I have since proposed some further wording for the MOS on the point. I do not expect you will be overly impressed, given your apparent preference for greater freedom on the issue, but would be grateful for your continued thoughts all the same. Many thanks Dick G (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gene, this is unnecessary

This, this, this, this and this aren't productive contributions. If you think that those shouldn't be hidden away, you know just how to fix them, and you're good at it. But complaining at the talk pages doesn't really seem like a good way to make a point. Regards, Húsönd 06:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As are you, but you haven't done so. But there is no reason for me to do so either.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, a few particulars are worth noting:
  1. If it is something that I care if people can find or not, I'll often add the redirect
  2. Fixing it doesn't even let anybody know that it has been done, that it is something that should be done, or anything along those lines.
    1. Adding a redirect doesn't show up on the watchlist of anybody watching the article or its talk page
    2. Adding a redirect cannot be noticed by anyone visiting the talk page
    3. Adding a redirect cannot be noticed by anyone looking at the page history
  3. If someone with an interest in a particular article can see the need for adding redirects and disambiguation page links so that it can more readily be found, that person is quite likely to have an interest in a number of other articles that could be improved in the same way, and be able to find them quite quickly.
    1. That gets a lot more done than I could ever do myself.
    2. That will find articles that I would never find, even if I had infinite time to devote to it.
  4. If it involves creating or cleaning up a disambiguation page, I'm not going to waste all the additional time that would be necessary if it is something in which I have little interest.
  5. Someone who is interested in the article is also more likely to be aware of other specific redirects that would be helpful for the article, from other spellings or nicknames of people or common names of places and things, than I am. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I support Gene in this. A little bit of time (a few weeks or months) is enough for people to see the redlinks or talk page notices. Then I suggest Gene (or someone else) goes through his contributions list and turns the redlinks in the edit summaries into redirects (I'm sure there is a tool to list edit summaries). Education of others is an important part of the Wikipedia process. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Those intercoursing Japanese photographer substubs again

On this move: well intentioned, but alas it led to more work.

Really, if any of these substubs bothers you (they certainly bother me, and there are hundreds of the bloody things), feel free to prod it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that--good thing you are cleaning up after me.
They are a nuisance, aren't they.
But there may be other things I'll want to tackle before I get around to any larger-scale action on them. Now that articles on individual Pokémon cards are gone, if you hit "random article" you'll likely get an episode of a TV show, some no-name athlete or band, or a one-liner sub-stub on a river in Romania. Do we really have 50,000 rivers in Romania? How long will it take before that category is larger than the living people category (it already has the two-letter table of contents navigation links, like the living people category)? Maybe I should start a betting pool on that. Easier than nominating 49,000 articles for deletion. Maybe a few less than that, I haven't actually counted them, but somewhere in that neighborhood. Problem is, it's a lot harder to get places removed than people, so I might take on that challenge first. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, but I do rather like the idea that en:WP would have tens of thousands of (excellently sourced, informative) articles on rivers in Romania. (Beats hundreds of thousands of articles on pop singles, or on individual Simpsons shows, or indeed on these.) But of course such articles are one thing and substubs another. -- Hoary (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SeaLand Isle

hi. i recently tagged the above as possible hoax & now it's been prodded. just wondering, only because you were the last person to edit it, if you knew anything more about the article. as far as i know, someone is 'selling' bits of the pacific sea-floor, but there's no sources for the stuff about the 'unique' contribution to the law of the sea. any thoughts? thnx in advance, ben  ⇒ bsnowball  05:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I know nothing more. My edits were limited to copyediting, and have explained that on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Großmarkthalle/Grossmarkthalle

Hi. Would you be in favour of moving the page to the double-s version? If so, I'd have no particular objection, although I'd suggest to wait until after it's off the Main Page. athinaios | Talk 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] España 2000

Just so you know, the page you tagged as not English had been replaced by the Spanish-language version, but was originally a real article.

No harm done, just figured you might be interested in knowing. - Revolving Bugbear 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the fix

But what's with this edit summary? Don't be a dick. dissolvetalk 21:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It was correct, with the sort keys on the individual entries. Then you deleted all the categories, and in a later edit put them back in with the wrong sort key. Seemed pretty strange to me, is all. Fixed now. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Van Vleck

John Hasbrouck Van Vleck move done, double redirects fixed I think, nothing else changed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orthography

I just figured I'd check on it since you reverted the edits I made: is there a policy against properly accenting for category sorting? I admittedly didn't look around for one, I just assumed the proper name would always be used. Good to know for future reference if there is a standard against it. Thanks for letting me know either way. matt91486 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is. I'm sure Gene will provide a link. What I'm wondering is how to make more people aware of this. As someone who presumably looked for something, may I ask where you looked and failed to find anything? Those are the sort of places where the warnings need to be placed if people are going to learn before making such changes. Carcharoth (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I only skimmed through [2] and didn't see it. It might be there, but hidden. I really think it should have its own section in there to be more clear. I'm sort of interested to see what the rationale behind the rule is now that I know it exists, because it seems sort of ridiculous to me. matt91486 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The relevant section is Wikipedia:CAT#Category_sorting. One key point is that "this text is used as the sort key on the category page itself... contrary to expectations, that sort text is not displayed". This means that the spelling of the sort key doesn't need to be correct as long as the sorting order is correct, because the spelling won't be visible to users. On the other hand, using the correct spelling will NOT sort correctly due to technical limitations of the Mediawiki software. For example, "á" will sort after "z", and not together with "a". Therefore, it is necessary to use the sort key without the accent. I don't know if this is written down somewhere else, but it should definitely be added to WP:CAT. --Itub (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new bullet point to Wikipedia:Categorization#Other_specifics explaining this. Perhaps Gene will find useful to link to it instead of having to explain the same thing every time someone complains on his talk page. :-) --Itub (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the help guys. I'm glad to know there's a reason for it. matt91486 (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't checked yet, but it used to be explained where it belongs at Wikipedia:Categorization. Then somebody moved it to Wikipedia:Categorization of people, even though it applies to everything else on Wikipedia as well. I haven't checked yet, but it should be explained at both places. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Popovic

moved to Talk:Tony Popovic

This is also related: Talk:Muzzy İzzet#Requested move. Chanheigeorge (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brunei ringgit to dollar move

Just wanted to say thanks for the support of the move. --Novelty (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kilowatt hours

I defer to your expertise, but I was merely repeating what the source said, on the grounds that a web site produced to inform the public and scientists about a research facility would probably know whereof it spoke. Could you look at the source in question and see if maybe they made the sort of mistake that would allow someone knowledgeable to guess what they really meant, and if so, correct the article accordingly? Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I looked at the page again and it was a time period. I have appropriately corrected the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hirohito

Thank you for your post on the Hirohito discussion page. The word you use to describe the preference for using Showa instead of Hirohito there, ludicrous, is the one that perfectly describes the situation. I agree with you totally. JGC1010 (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =

Certainly wiki "contributors" ego over exceed their knowledge. I hope for sake of your mental stability this is not your case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo1971 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missorting

Was this [3] really nessesary? I can't see how highlighting mistakes its particulary constructive or for that matter civil. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it different from any other reversion? We routinely say who we are reverting, for several reasons. It shows that I'm not making a new change, but going back to an earlier version, and identifying either the one who changed it or the last editor before the change or both can make it easier for someone to find that change in the history. It can call it to the attention of a contributor still following the article, who is more likely to pay attention to the edit on seeing his or her user name. And it can help people notice users who are getting reverted frequently.
In your case, had you already become aware that the way you had changed the preexisting sort key was wrong, in this edit last May, before you saw my recent reverting of it? Had you done the same thing in other articles? Mostly, it is something helpful to me, to see if there is a pattern in a certain editor having missorted a whole series of articles. Was that the case with you, and if so have most of them been corrected or do problems remain? I don't remember noting your name before (if I had, I probalby would have gone to your talk page about it before you came here), so I'd guess it wasn't widespread in your case, but maybe I just haven't run across the articles you are interested in. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Outside of Carlos and Eddie I can't recall changing this on any other article, then again these are the only articles that end up with Colón, as for why it was done, its pretty obvious that there is a significant difference between somebody related to Cristóbal Colón and the large intestine. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
There are lots of other people on Wikipedia with the Colon or Colón names, of course, including many not listed on those disambiguation pages, and most are likely not related to Christopher Columbus, at least not in lines using that name. And I don't know what you are getting at, but there is no error in Carlos Colon and his relatives being spelled that way in English (as they are in many sources such as this one), and there are other people named Colon who never use the Colón spelling. Nor do the spelling variations necessarily imply different pronunciations in English. None of which, of course, has anything to do with the sort keys, which need to be "Colon" for all of them, no matter how it is spelled in the article's name or the article itself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The Columbus part was a analogy, my point is that the "Colon" mispelling should be avoided as often as possible, while in English the difference is not particulary notable in Spanish its quite noticeable, this combined with the fact that Carlos always uses the proper spelling when signing autographs should justify my desicion back there, although to be honest I don't really spend a significant ammount of time working with sorting articles, with the bulk of my edits being focused in building articles toward Good and Featured status, wich means that chances are that at the time, nearly one year ago, I wasn't paying attention to that particular format issue in the sorting template. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a template; if you look, you will see it uses a "colon", not a vertical bar as templates do. It is a magic word. Furthermore, it isn't an issue with that magic word. You can sort each category individually using vertical bar piping; you still need to strip out the diacritics so that they will sort properly, because of the rudimentary every-character Unicode number sorting our categories use, which not only results in sorting not in accordance with English sorting rules but also not in accordance with anybody else's sorting rules either.
This is an English encyclopedia, of course. Pronunciation in Spanish isn't particularly relevant to choosing the proper name to use for our articles, which is normally the name by which a person or thing is best known in English.
And we don't use a different word for that colon in DEFAULTSORT, just because it is spelled and pronounced the same way as colon (anatomy). Likewise, in addition to the fact that names of people who do at least sometimes spell their names "Colón" are quite often and quite legitimately written as "Colon" in English-language works, there are many people who do spell their names Colon all the time, whether they pronounce that name like the punctuation mark or like cologne. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. This was what made my brain explode. The three different meanings of "colon" that managed to be brought into the discussion. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record most of these articles are visited by Latin American users, and the reason we use the accent on Carly's page is because someone had already noticed the issue and complained about it, wich means that there are people actually noticing the difference. All I'm asking for is that you respect the cultural differences as I respect the one used by Anglo speakers, for example in this diff [4] it would have been a lot easier to just replace one letter in the 'defaultsort' instead of just undoing the other user's entire work, see my point? - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Torkel Franzén

Why did you change Torkel's name on the DEFAULTSORT? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So that it will sort properly in the categories. See, for example, Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I was afraid of that. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that this works differently from piping in wikilinks, which changes what you see on the page, don't you? It is still the article name that appears in the category listing, no matter what you put in the sort key. The sort key only affects where it appears; it doesn't change what appears there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the credit

But I had nothing to do with the sorting you reverted in the Čapljina article. Kirker (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This sure looks like your edit to me. Isn't it? I didn't strictly revert it to the version you had changed; I used DEFAULTSORT instead of the individual keys on each category, but it sure looks to me like it was your missorting which I was fixing. Do you still claim otherwise? If so, why? Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly that was my edit. But there was no sorting or missorting in it. Take a little more care with your comments. Kirker (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the whole purpose of a "sort key", whether on an individual category or through the DEFAULTSORT magic word; to ensure proper sorting in categories. The result of your change in the existing sort keys was "missorting" of this article in its categories. You changed a correct sort key, which resulted in proper sorting, to one which resulted in missorting. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I just changed a few Cs to Čs. It caused no missorting that I could see and you don't seem to have removed the carons. Maybe I'm missing something. Kirker (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
You need to look in the categories to see the sorting. Let's not mess with that one, but look at a different one instead. Go to Čajdraš and look at its sort keys. It doesn't have any, right? So add them, like you did at Čapljina. Then go look and see if you can find the article listed in its two categories, linked in the bar at the bottom when you view the page after saving it.
Then go back and change the sort keys to "Cajdras", then look at the categories once again.
Note that the "DEFAULTSORT:Capljina" I added works the same as if I had added the sort key to all the categories which don't have a different sort key in their individual listing. It's just like using
[[Category:Cities and towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina|Capljina]]
[[Category:Cities and towns in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina|Capljina]]
[[Category:Herzegovina-Neretva Canton|Capljina]]
(DEFAULTSORT does also sort the categories (usually maintenance categories such as stub categories and "Articles needing ..." which are added by templates and don't show up in the category listing.) Does that help? Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, that doesn't help and I'm not going to try tampering with another article. Right now Čajdraš does not show up in either of its listed categories, and I would have thought the reason was obvious. In the case of Čapljina, it did show up in the appropriate categories when entered as "Capljina" so I need not have changed "Capljina" to "Čapljina". However my replacing the "C" with "Č" (which is all I did) made no dfference: Čapljina still showed in the appropriate categories.Kirker (talk) 11:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong on both counts.
  1. Čajdraš does show up in its categories, it is just in the wrong place. For example, look at Category:Cities and towns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It should be before "Čajniče" which is before "Cerska", but instead it shows up after "Zvornik".
  2. When you changed the sort key for "Čapljina" from "Capljina" to "Čapljina", it did still appear in the categories as you say. But it appeared in the wrong place in those categories, somewhere after "Z".
The fact that you couldn't find Čajdraš in its categories, even when you knew they should be there because the categories were linked to in the bar at the bottom, is pretty clear evidence of how serious this problem of hiding the category entries away in the wrong place really is. In this case, it was easer than what is often the case—it even appeared on the same page, because there are fewer than 200 articles in that category. In other cases, such missorting can result in an article being a page or a few pages or many pages out of place in the category listing; if this were a person rather than a place and it appeared in Category:Living people, there would probably be over a thousand pages of 200 entries each between where the article appeared and where it should have been. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point that after my edit, the town still showed up "correctly" - or at rate under "C". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirker (talk • contribs) 13:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
And on what basis are you making that claim? You can't view an unsaved old version, click on the category listing there, and conclude that is the case. Unless you save the old version, it will still appear according to the sort keys in the current version. Revert to your old version and I bet it will be wrong. But, as I pointed out above, it would be better for you just to try it by doing Čajdraš like you did Čajniče, just to see for yourself. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination)

I've nominated this article for deletion. It still has no sources besides the book itself, and having got hold of a copy of the book, I find that it actually makes no claims to be derived from an authoritative survey, so I see no notability. Since you've edited the article or participated in the old AfD you might like to comment. As there has been confusion about the book's actual content, I'd be happy to back up all the assertions I've made by Emailing you scans of the relevant pages. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Spelling fix, and indexing

The kick off was your edit here that got my attention. That was a flat move to anglicize the name not only in the sorting, but in parts of the article text as well. As a third party editor pointed out the reasoning behind the changes to the default sort, I'm not going to worry over the removal of the accents there. And as far as "listas" goes, yes, I have been taking the information from the article title, so there are going to be some that are accented.

The sorting explanation though doesn't explain the removal of apostrophes and spaces. You'd think that would wind up miss-sorting material.

- J Greb (talk) 12:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The rudimentary sorting we have sorts every character, including punctuation, which we don't use in sorting. It does so by Unicode character number, not by anybody's sorting rules. And it sorts letters case-sensitively, which causes lots of problems and tradeoffs between "ideal" and "practical" results for Wikipedia sorting, especially with the article name being the first default as a sort key and with initial capitalization of them turned on in English Wikipedia (unlike, for example, Wiktionary where initial capitalization has been turned off so "newton" and "Newton" are different articles). That's especially noticeable in the Spanish titles of some works such as albums which start with an inverted exclamation point or inverted question mark. We do use this to some advantage to get articles to the top of certain categories, before the alphabetical listing starts, by using a space (they are characters which are sorted) or an asterisk as the initial character of a sort key. There are some areas where there probably aren't clear-cut rules, and there may be some where there are and I get it wrong. Some of these have been discussed at various times at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people and elsewere (recently on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, for example). One helpful place to look for whatever rules may have developed in practice, even if they might not be explicitly spelled out anywhere, is the quarter-million member Category:Living people, which gives lots of opportunities to try to deal with the problem areas.
Note that there is no "error" in spelling George Perez's name that way, even if it is sometimes spelled with an é. In fact, the spelling in the text of that 3¼ year old article was changed from Perez to Pérez this month in the last edit before mine, with no discussion and no evidence whatsoever. Actions such as that to long-standing articles is usually a pretty good indication that it might be wrong.
Furthermore, it is not at all clear that George Pérez is the proper name for the article under Wikipedia:Naming conventions and its various subpages. That is an issue which has never been addressed, not on the talk page nor on any requested moves or the like. Just because a name can be spelled with an accent doen't automatically mean that it should be. And it especially doesn't mean that that spelling is the proper one to occupy the one slot available as an articles name (there can be many redirects, of course, so the rules are different for them). Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brain exploded

When I feel like seeing how easy it is for people to misunderstand the sorting and indexing systems on Wikipedia, I come and read your talk page. Some nice explanations as well, though it must get tiring after the nth time. Do you think most people read the instructions and get this right, or do most just not bother to read the instructions? I wonder where else this could be highlighted? Where do people learn about category pipesorting and DEFAULTSORT first? On the documentation pages or through copying other people? If the former, no problem, but if the latter, I'm glad someone (ie. you) is helping to stem the tide. Carcharoth (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Artur Rodziński

hmmm...not that it really matters much, but didn't you mean to say: “corrected missorting by User:Emerson7 ”? --emerson7 18:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DEFAULTSORT

You may find it useful to check out the use of {{DEFAULTSORT:}} tags with categories. Vernon White . . . Talk 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Useful how? Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You may find that it was unnecessary to make the changes you made to members of Category:Fox family of Falmouth, or have you some complex plan that I don't understand? Vernon White . . . Talk 10:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You can change them back if you like. But almost all the "family" categories are first-name indexed categories. Look at Category:Du Pont family or Category:Lubomirski family and the like. If you do think this should not be a first-name indexed category and want to change them back, it would be helpful to put a notice on the category page that it is a last-name indexed category, and explain why on Category talk:Fox family of Falmouth.
Besides the Help: file you looked at, you should look in the Wikipedia namespace, too. Particularly Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Categorization of people and various related pages. I think the general practice of sorting categories about family members by first name is mentioned somewhere, but it might only be on the talk pages (which might be archived as well). Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't want Edmund Backhouse (MP) (Husband of a daughter of Charles Fox (scientist)) and other Husbands, Mothers-in-Law, married female Foxes listed under Forename. There is some interest in the Quaker network of cousins, who made huge business successes, without the benefit of University degrees. Female lines are significant in discovering these cousin relationships and will, if WP notable, be included in Category:Fox family of Falmouth. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caïque

My apologies for my revert. Not sure what happened - recent changes filter highlighted Image:Example, so I reverted. SMC (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying. If it was an unintentional revert, you can just revert yourself again, can't you? I don't see any purpose for having that image, and you also took out my template suggesting merger. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested moves: Hornitos Beach

While it might be argued whether moving Bío-Bío Region, Coyhaique, Huerta de Maule, Til-Til, Aysen and Aysén Region is controversial (even though official documents do not use these names), it is unarguably uncontroversial to move Hornitos Beach, as the article is not about the beach, but about the town, which is unarguably called Hornitos not Hornitos Beach. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I just moved the Aysén ones, didn't I? That's the ones where the variations were actually discussed in the article--and according to that, it is an official document in particular which uses the Aysen (no diacritics) spelling, if I recall correctly. What is Hornitos Beach? A beach? A city? Some other administrative region? The answer might affect the results. Gene Nygaard (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at Hornitos Beach, and I think what you need is some references of some sort in the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I just moved the Aysén ones, didn't I? What? I haven't seen you moving those articles. The spelling note at Aysen actually contradicted the reference it was citing, and I've corrected it and added more information. I encourage you to read it and check the references cited if you suspect. Regarding Hornitos, it is a town and it's called just that, Hornitos. See this official document (Zip file) for proof. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't say that very well. I meant those were the only ones I moved from the "uncontested" section on WP:RM to the contested section, somebody else moved some or all of the rest of them down. I don't have any strong feelings on any of these, but I do think that including references in the articles first, before suggesting that the names are wrong, is a good idea. One source, of course, doesn't "prove" anything. If it is a reliable source, it is probably good enough to get mention of the variant spelling in the article. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is the proper choice for the articles name. And as the naming conventions say, an article's name is not determinative of the spelling used in the text of other articles (nor for that matter, not necessarily for all of the article which appears under that name; the appropriate spelling is in any cases time- or location-dependent. What we often have, however, is a number of choices for the one slot available for the article's name. Under our Wikipedia:Naming conventions including various subpages thereof, you need to provide some better justification than your claim of "proper spelling" to warrant a move, and that is part of what I was saying on WP:RM and even more so the point of the editor who moved the others down to the other section. If you understand better how our naming conventions work, you'll be able to present clearer reasons why you think a move is appropriate, after you have given due consideration to the other possibilities. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The move is appropriate because I myself created the Aysen page there originally in error. I used Aysen based on an unofficial transcription of an old decree that lacked the diacritic (Aysén) by mistake and that is not current anymore, ignoring that the official name is currently Aisén. If you're not convinced by looking at the official documents, then do a Google search in Chilean pages for Aysen vs. Aisen, and you'll have an idea which one is more popular. You'll find that Aisén is both the correct, official name and the most used variant. It's a no brainer and you're just being a little too demanding on this old chap. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make myself perfectly clear: The variant Aysen does not exist, it was an error which I've explained. Aisén and Aysén are the only exisiting variants. Having the article at Aysen is completely wrong. ☆ CieloEstrellado 04:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No. You are forgetting one factor at least; it is not an error to use the English alphabet when writing in English. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do I think you're only giving me a hard time here? The English Wikipedia uses foreign characters extensively in titles (just one example: Guantánamo Bay, which is reproduced extensively in English without the accent). In discussing the Chilean settlements naming convention, the community has established at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board that accents will always be preserved. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The broader community can always decide otherwise in any particular case. When there is an English name, that is what we use as in Munich and Romania. And it is, of course, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, so you chose a particularly bad example to illustrate your point. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I chose the right example. Guantanamo Bay Naval Base refers to a U.S base, thus there is not accent. Guantánamo Bay refers to a geographic area that is part of Cuba, thus it is written with an accent. I chose the perfect example. The broader community can always decide otherwise in any particular case. Yes, but the current concensus is to always use accents for Chilean places, and as an admin you have to respect (and enforce) concensus. And there is no name in English for Aisén. If there is, prove it. Until then, please move the article or I'll get help somewhere else. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that I'm an admin. But now that it has been moved out of the "uncontested requests" area, nobody should be moving the articles. Not until good reason for doing so is achieved on the talk pages of the respective articles, with or without a regular WP:RM request and the appropriate talk page notices and the like. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank God you're not an admin. There was something terribly wrong with your attitude. So you just have the habit of contesting people's move requests, right? ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I support many of them, and do some of my own. Yours were mostly just incomplete and premature—and it wasn't just me who opposed them on that basis. Provide some reliable sources, present your case, and see if you can get others to agree with you. At least start the appropriate discusions. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manners

Rude messages deleted. I ignore messages which are impolitely worded. Afil (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting

Dear Sir,

I have noticed that you have modified the DEFAULTSORT in some of the articles I have submitted, though they were correctly written with the appropriate diacritics. I continue not to understand what the entire issue is about. Except for involuntary errors, why may occur, all river articles are written with the correct ortography, including all accents. This is valid for names in all languages which use special characters. The articles will be sorted according to the order which the sorting program accepts over which I have no control. Maybe I did not look in the right place, but I am not aware of any rules which say that articles should be spelled otherwise than correctly. You have repeatedly accused me of misspelling the titles, and even of doing this on purpose which is definitely not true. If there are any rules, I would appreciate if you would direct me to the rules which you claim I am ignoring.

SincerelyAfil (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You might start by just looking at the categories, where you can see with your own eyes that they are not sorted properly, when you have put in those improper sort keys.
Then try Wikipedia:Categorization#Other specifics, which incorporates by reference [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people# Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ordering names in a category
Punctuation, such as apostrophes and colons (but not hyphens) should be removed, and accented letters and ligatures should be replaced by their unaccented or separated counterparts.
See also numerous discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people and their archives, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Alphabetization, etc.
Then, just for good measure, go read Wikipedia:Redirects and Wikipedia:Disambiguation to learn various other things you should be doing, to keep your efforts from being hidden away in oblivion where nobody will find them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


All your quotations refer only to names of persons. There is nowhere a reference to geographic names. I am perfectly aware on how the system classifies the names. However you prefer to classify the letters with or without accents in the same category. For the time being this is only a personal preference and it is incorrect. For instance T and Ţ or S and Ş should not be in the same group. Ş should come after S and Ţ after T and so on. This can be achieved not by eliminating the accents but by replacing them for instance, by replacing Ş with SZZ. So there are ways to fool the system and make it sort the geographic names correctly, but it requires other procedures, which even if they have the desired effect seem extremely strange.

What is difficult to understand is, if the rule was as generally applicable as you claim, why the sort program is not set up so as to disregard any diacritics. Though it is perfectly programmable, this has not been done. Presumably, because the developer of the program has considered that the letters with several accents are NOT equivalent to the ones without accents.

The discussions you quoted are not a rule which indicates that any of us is right or wrong. Unfortunately I was not able to identify an article which describes this policy. The discussions simply show the oppinions of some of the participants - however if a policy article does not exist, it indicates that the matter is not settled. It is clear that we disagree on what should be done. I consider that we should agree to disagree.

I will eliminate the DEFAULTSORT statement from future articles in order to avoid further disputes, until a ruling on this matter is posted, at least regarding geographic names in foreign languages. Afil (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The WP:CAT page quite clearly says that the rules stated on the Categegorization of people page apply generally, and incorporates those rules generally. At various times in the past, the main Categorization page has stated it more explicitly there, and someone has tried to reduce the maintenance of two pages listing the rule by changing it to a reference to the page about people. The name order thing applies specifically to people, but similar rules are also of general application. For example, with rivers those such as the River Clyde should generally be sorted under "C", not under "R".
As you point out, our crude software not only doesn't sort by English sorting rules, but it does not sort by Romanian sorting rules (where Ţ comes before Z, not after it) or anybody else's sorting rules, but rather just a simplistic Unicode number sort. Somewhere in the depths of Wikipedia (and in off-Wikipedia bug reports to thw Wikipedia developers), there are numerous requests for changes and bug reports going back many years, by many different people.
But in any case, this is English wikipedia and we do sort by English sorting rules, under the 26 letters of the English alphabet. T and Ţ are indeed equivalent under English sorting rules, the only ones relevant here, as are S and Ş and as are all the various forms of A or whatever.
Note that eliminating your in fact useless DEFAULTSORT: keys (since the primary default in any case is the article name) will not solve the problem. It will still be deliberate missorting on your part if you do not in fact add the proper sort keys, so that they get sorted correctly in their categories. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Names

Chinese names are not translations of English names. In all the cases where you removed the Chinese names of those ethnic Chinese persons, they are widely known by those names. HkCaGu (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing in the articles to indicate that this is the case. The ones I removed are American-born, have never lived in China, don't have Chinese-language publications mentioned. There is more reason for including their names in Chinese than for including Arnold Schwartzenegger's Chinese name; he, of course, also gets his name used in Chinese in some communities in California, but so what? Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, you are quite free to create a Chinese Wikipedia article and include an interwiki link to it, if one doesn't already exist. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the basics. Chinese is not the language of China; it is a language of the Chinese. Ethnic Chinese born anywhere outside of sinosphere are far more likely to be given a Chinese name by their parents or grandparents than their chances of learning the Chinese language. And once they become well known, their names become public knowledge. Unlike the Japanese who won't write your Japanese surname in Japanese/kanji script if you possess foreign nationality, the Chinese language is non-alphabetic, is not tolerant of alphabets, is tonal and therefore not back-translatable, original Chinese names if exist must be used. This applies even to Vietnamese, Korean and Japanese names since they are also Chinese-character based. The Chinese names you removed can be the only name known to many Chinese speakers in California or wherever it's concerned. Governor Schwartzenegger has no official Chinese name, period. And there isn't even one unified translation of his name. He's from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia. HkCaGu (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly: "He's from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia." QED. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And just in case you are a little slow to understand,
  • Judy Chu is from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia.
  • Mike Eng is from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia.
  • Lisa Ling is from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia.
  • Etc., etc., etc. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You still don't seem to understand. Is Schwartzenegger given any name in any other script? I should have been more clear to say that Schwartzenegger has no ancestry from but Latin alphabet countries. All of your examples are GIVEN Chinese names. Even in most restrictive societies, names are given by the parents. Whether the government can register the names in all given language is another matter. They are given Chinese names, they use those names, they are known (by many, only) by those names, and that's their names, and since those are not an equivalent of their English names, they ought to be included. And for those politicians, their Chinese names (not the phonetically translated version) had gone onto ballots. The Japanese and Korean versions were phonetically spelled, not the Chinese. HkCaGu (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
All of which is, even in the most favorable interpretation, at best irrelevant unreferenced and undiscussed original research that doesn't even appear in the article. Exactly which ballots are you claiming that Lisa Ling appeared on? Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, if you want to talk about ballots, you had better come up with a reliable source to show that these people's names appeared on a ballot in which names such as Arnold Schwarzenegger which may have also appeared on it were not in Chinese. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese names are certainly important to retain, and the editor removing them without discussion or consensus (and with a highly contemptuous tone that shouts, "I am not even going to consider any other point of view than my own") is doing so in a highly improper manner. The information presented by User:HkCaGu is quite correct and reasonable, and we must be reasonable in everything we do at WP. The unilateral, non-discussed/non-consensus blanking was highly unreasonable and must not continue. Badagnani (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
In one case in particular, your readdition is clearly contrary to actual discussion and consensus, for Talk:Michelle Kwan. In almost all of these cases, it is totally irrelevant information, as irrelevant as a Chinese name for Arnold Schwartzenegger, and it is against the rules of our manual of style, and even if it were to meet those preliminary threshholds, it still remains undocumented and unreferenced information. But before we even get to those verifiability issues, you first need to address the relevance issues and the style issues. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We either aim to be encyclopedic, or we don't. The Chinese names are given by the individual's parents, and have significance and meaning. Blanking this information from the article, thus, is unreasonable and robs this highly significant information about these individuals from our users. We should not be in that business. Badagnani (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We could include Chinese names for everybody, sure. But there is no reason to do so. Furthermore, you have the Chinese Wikipedias where you can put a chinese name for everybody, and you can link to those articles from the ones in English Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese given names are given by the individual's parents and have meaning beyond the Latin given names, and thus must not be blanked unilaterally, without consensus. We either aim to be encyclopedic, or we don't. We must be reasonable in everything we do. It would be unreasonable to include Chinese names beyond the interwikis for individuals who are not of Chinese descent or who are not Westerners intimately associated with Chinese culture who have Chinese names. However, if the individual is an overseas Chinese known to possess a Chinese name given by his/her parents, if we aim to be encyclopedic, we must include it (and it must not be blanked unilaterally, without consensus). Badagnani (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
First, they need to be relevant to the article in English Wikipedia. Then, second, if that can be established, we need reliable sources that these were given by their parents in each case, if you want to make that claim. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If given by the individual's parents (and used in literature within the Chinese American overseas Chinese community, which is indeed a part of the United States), it would be unencyclopedic to blank such a name. The name is carefully selected by the individual's parents and possesses a meaning different from the Western/Anglo/Latin given name. Badagnani (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it needs to have some relevance to the reasons why the person is notable for purposes of an encyclopedic entry, then if that is the case, it needs to be referenced to a reliable source and not just some made-up stuff or original research. It's fine for people who were born in China, or who worked in China, or who published in the Chinese language. But for almost everybody else, it is irrelevant and unencyclopedic. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
When something is well known and/or easily verifiable (like "Guangdong is a province in southern China), you can't demand documentation or accuse original research. Sources not in English doesn't mean they're invalid, either. If you can't go a Google search to verify their Chinese names, it doesn't mean you should remove them. HkCaGu (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We do have many bilingual editors who are able to verify such things. We must be reasonable in everything we do, and "discussion" should have been used to generate consensus before the blanking took place. Badagnani (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If possessed by the individual and given by the individual's parents it is part of their identity and background, and would be quite relevant, and it would not enhance our encyclopedia to blank such a name; in fact, it would rob our users of this important backround information about the individual. Such names are not translations and are used in literature within the Chinese American overseas Chinese community. As such, to remove them would be highly improper. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That is not what "part of their identity" means in the Wikijargon used in various discussions. You need some actual evidence of that, not your speculation which isn't even stated to be such. Lots of people of all sorts of ethnic background are discussed in various languages associated with that background; but unless it is used in English publications or in some way formas a relevant part of a person's identity, it doesn't belong here. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
We must be reasonable in everything we do. If given by the individual's parents, the Chinese given name (which possesses meaning different from the Western/Latin/Anglo given name) is of signal importance to an understanding of the individual. The editor blanking such names without consensus and using dismissive terminology such as "irrelevant" is quite incorrect and unreasonable in doing so. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Reasonableness is exactly what has been lacking in the actions of you and HkCaGu. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. Thank you. HkCaGu (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant material can be removed at any time. There is nothing "contentious" about it; it simply has no bearing on our articles. Establish its relevance on the talk page if you think it should be there. This isn't censorship; it is quite simply following our rules for notability and for style and the like. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I cannot agree with your changes to Norm Chow or other Chinese-Americans. There is not perogative against using them, there is no fallacy in including the Chinese spelling of a child of Chinese parents. Your counter examples of Swedish names or Chinese names for the Governor of California are flawed and not relevant. If you dislike the Chinese language so much, perhaps you should avoid those articles? --Bobak (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

So, now you are claiming that it would be improper to add a Swedish name for Brandon Lee, yet we must include a Chinese spelling of his name? Get over it. Neither have any relevance to this Wikipedia article.
Furthermore, it isn't a matter of disliking the Chinese language; it is simply that this isn't the Chinese-language Wikipedia; you can create all the Chinese-language articles you want, and include the interwiki links for those who are interested in knowing how someone's name is spelled in Chinese. But unless it has some relevance to an English Wikipedia article, it doesn't belong here. And even in those cases where some relevance can be shown, it still doesn't belong here in almost all of these cases I have seen, some editors made-up name or other original research wholly unsupported by any citations to reliable sources. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

STOP MISQUOTING ME AND ABUSE IT IN EDIT SUMMARIES! I've corrected what I meant, and you presenting what I didn't mean as my view is considered incivility. HkCaGu (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't attributed to you. I have merely adopted what you originally said as a reasonable, sensible--a part of Badagnani's admonitions about reasonableness. What should be adopted as our black-letter rule:
  • He's from a country which uses the Latin alphabet, and no foreign name is necessary anywhere in English Wikipedia.
Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. HkCaGu (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no WP:Censorship involved here. So stop bullshitting.
WP:Censorship#What censorship is not
"Doing any of the above for reasons other than censorship including relevance, verifiability, copyright." Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RM:Iván Navarro (Chilean)

Hello Gene! I've added a second suggestion to your RM of Iván Navarro (Chilean). Since there is a tennis player called Iván Navarro (Spaniard), per WP:naming conventions they should be at Iván Navarro (artist) and Iván Navarro (tennis player) respectivly (with Ivan Navarro a redirect to the Iván Navarro DAB-page). If you agree with this we could close the RM and go on with these rather uncontroversial moves. Respectfully, Sebisthlm (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You appear to be involved in an edit war with Alexsanderson83. Looking through a number of edits there are multiple violations. Reverting or arguing over little digits, numbers or whatever they are, too many to look through, is pointless. Please come to a consensus over what appears to be an s, weights in countries, etc.Londo06 20:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no 3RR violation.
There is a consensus, well established and long-standing, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Unit symbols and abbreviations:
  • Do not append an s for the plurals of unit symbols (kg, km, in, lb, not kgs, kms, ins, lbs).
This has been part of our style rules continuously for many years, since before I ever started editing on Wikipedia. It is User:Alexsanderson83 who is deliberately flouting that rule. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Sure no great problem. Left messages on both user pages as most of my watchlist is filled up with reverted edits and what have you. 3RR mentioned as there were numerous revertions from both parties throughout a multitude of articles. Don't worry not reported either of you so no need to worry.Londo06 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
As stated not looking to report either of you, just making you aware that edit warring is strongly discouraged, whether you feel you are correct or incorrect. Nothing to worry from me, not going to escalate the situation.Londo06 21:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Not overly interested in the argument itself, just the fact that I am looking through a whole host of edits to see that very little is being done except my watchlist being filled up with whole hosts of articles. Not really bothered about the fight, just want the cessation of hostilities, ie no more edit warring. Just leave the articles at lb and leave it be, it doesn't really matter what is used where, etc. Londo06 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manners

I strongly object to your manners and your tone. I don't know where you are from and what you are doing. Please be however advised that in Virginia people are used to being polite. If you can't please be so kind and take your business elsewhere, As you might have noticed I ignore any messages which are not civil, such as yours.

Following our previous exchange, I have notified you that I do not agree with your views, but in order to avoid any more contacts with you, which I find increasingly unpleasant I will eliminate any Defaultsort from my articles. You did not object to my message and that is what I did.

Please immediately stop all this harrasment.Afil (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I object to your uncivil tone, that's all. You have certain views on how the articles should be sorted which are different from mine. The sorting is not done by me, but by the sorting program applied by Wikipedia. For some reason you don't like their sorting rules and want to apply others, in which you ignore the diacritic accents. Other sorting rules (and the one applied by Wikipedia) consider that accented letters have a separate meaning and are placed according to the sorting rules.

If Wikipedia intended to ignore the accents, as you seem to want, the sorting could have and still can be programmed accordingly.

I comply with wikipedia rules. You invent new ones.

Don't take this up with me. Suggest the new sorting rules to the administrators, get them approved and if the rule is changed I will of course apply it. As I indicated before, what you have stated was just a discussion not a policy. Afil (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't invent new rules. They are clearly stated in the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization. THey are evident in most categories. They are supported in hundreds of talk page discussions all across Wikipedia. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accents

Okay this needs to stop, you are edit warring over accents when you don't appear to have any knowledge of Spanish, blanking the discussion on the article's is disrupting the project to prove a point, if you don't like it comment about it on the relevant project's talk page don't edit war over it, I won't block you, but if the situation scalates further I will open a AN/I thread. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Podčetrtek

Why did you place a {{translate}} tag on this page? Cbdorsett (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it needs numbers translated to English style, because it needs translation of whatever those words in the infobox are, such as: let (which you took out, maybe that is enough), osebo. It's not much, but then there wasn't much i the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like mostly taken care of other than "osebo". Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ton

Hi,

You may be interested in this topic: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#DWT

If you are, I would be interested to read what you have to say. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of De Lellis

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —BradV 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd best do some explaining, pronto, if you are going to come here and accuse me of moving pages to nonsensical titles. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It was a mistake and I have reverted it. But I will explain. The article De Lellis was moved, and I was trying to clean up the old redirect. Twinkle has a CSD that simply says "Page move", but the resulting template is pretty rude. Sorry. —BradV 16:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Still don't understand what you were trying to do. Who's Twinkle? What's a CSD? Were you trying to delete the article, the redirect, or both? It sure looks to me like redirect should stay if the article does. This old-timer is likely an artist often known as simply "De Lellis" and hence the original article name, before I changed it to include the given name which is used in the article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:TWINKLE. One of things it does is automatically notify the initial contributor of an article when you nominate something for deletion. Because there was an option for "page move" that should have read "page move vandalism" I mistakenly called you a vandal. I realized my mistake and reverted it right away. By the time I came here to remove the notice from your talk page you had already replied to it. On further consideration I'm going to leave the redirect as someone may find it useful. —BradV 16:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Now, is there any mechanism so that this gets unflagged, so that some other editor doesn't come along and delete a useful redirect without ever having seen this discussion? Or should you post a "speedy" request there and let me delete it? Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. The redirect is no longer tagged for deletion, as I removed the notice. Or are you concerned about this aspect of Twinkle? I suppose I could report this as a bug. —BradV 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm concerned about some other editor getting the same information that you got from Twinkle, then going there and deleting this redirect. Is that likely to happen? They won't see anything to tell them otherwise, just by going to the redirect, will they? Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Twinkle is just a script to make the nomination for speedy deletion easier and more automated. It doesn't report any problems itself. To avoid the mistake I made (which was really to send you the wrong template) I am requesting a change in the wording in the tool. [5]
And, just to be clear, the fact that I nominated the redirect for deletion in the first place was my error in judgement, not Twinkle's. So no, it's not likely that someone else is going to do the same thing. —BradV 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the help on Blue Iguana, I appreciate it!--Mike Searson (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Băbiu River. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Băbuşa River. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering up my talk page. Thank you. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Ermin Alić

An editor has nominated Ermin Alić, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ermin Alić and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] Mexico

Hi Gene. Hope you are well. I've noticed you indexing some Mexican geo articles. This is good but could you try to think about adding an infobox. I created a Template:Location map Mexico to improve thw quality of articles , eventually each place in Mexico will have an infobox but this will take time. I would be a grwat help if you could an infbox every now and again. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You should put some documentation on the template page (either noincluded on the page itself, on its talk page, or the modern way of transcluding a separate /doc subpage so changes to the documentation don't have a chance of accidentally changing the template itself). It isn't clear how to use it. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

For instance see Yécora, Sonora. It has be done very quickly. All that has to be done is the enter the correct coordinates and altitude or state on each one with a cut and paste. I'll get around to working on Mexican articles sometime but as I see anything you can do in advance would be a great help ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I just followed the link on the page to the documented main location template, too. That may be enough. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Basically the location maps allow any settlement on that country to be pinned on a map that can be displayed in all articles. I have been working on most of the countries in the world to begin to do this e,g Category:Cities, towns and villages in Sierra Leone where most places now have a map and infobox. Countries like Mexico will take considerably longer to complete but guaranteed it will be done eventually. It can be done by copying and pasting the infobox e.g in yecora now, onto another settlement page, and then entering the correct geo coordinates and altitude in the box. If you are working on one state at a time it can be done fairly quickly (within ten seconds) as you don't have to alter the state name in the box. As for population figures -well if they are referenced to falling rain I would plainly ignore this as population figures on that site have proved to be grossly inaccurate. Keep up the good work ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I haven't actually been doing a lot with Mexican places anyway. I was cleaning up some of the category sorting of pages whose article names started with punctuation marks, and of course many of them are the Spanish inverted exclamation points and question marks. I just came across Yécora by following a link or two from one of those articles. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes some of the categories can look pretty yucky when we have all these diaretics and weird foreign letters. It does help to have a sound filing system certainly as it isn't a good look to have article out of place. But as I say if you could help with a few infoboxes this would be a nice help. Saludos! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 13:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Accusation of history falsification is uncivil

See this [6]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 10:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't be taking things out of context; the editor there clarified that with the parenthetical "(anachronism)" statement, and in any case edit summaries are often somewhat cryptic. There is no inherent incivility in what was stated there. You might disagree with his reasoning, in which case you need to discuss it on the talk page. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
If you say someone is falsifying history then you are at least uncivil. That's the fact. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say anything of the sort. But no, it is not a fact that the other editor was being incivil in claiming in an edit summary that anachronistic names are being changed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I reffered to this Undid revision 202552119 by Tankred (talk) history falsification (anachronism) undone. It is a clear accusation that Tankred was falsifying history, don't you think? ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Really? Maybe we should have it judged by the administrator if you wish. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 13:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
This difficult discussion is being further complicated by wandering between four different talk pages (four that I have seen, maybe more.) I'm putting some comments at Talk:Ľudovít Štúr. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Pomerania

Per the searches Talk:Hither Pomerania#Discussion, what are your views on a move to Western Pomerania instead? Knepflerle (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I might as well answer there. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name sorting

I have been starting to do what you suggested at Category talk:Biography articles with listas parameter, and I came across ¥Π¥, which totally stumped me. Any ideas? (That is in the biography category because all the music groups ended up in there - something I must try and sort out one day). Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And some more... Þorsteinn frá Hamri?? Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that it should be moved. That doesn't seem to be an appropriate name. Maybe there is something specific related to it at Wikipedia:Naming conventions, I'd have to look at it. Something about foreign alphabets (in particular, the uppercase pi here). In the meantime, sort it as they say it should be pronounced in the article, or maybe better as as "Y pi y". Similarly for someone who uses a $ as a S in their name, sort it as if it were an S. Or sort ?uest as "Quest". Maybe there is a music WikiProject where you might ask if this problem has been addressed; maybe they do have some rules along those lines. You can at least ask, just don't be disappointed if you don't get a clear answer.
The thorn is sorted as "Th" in most cases; that's something that has been discussed and most Icelandic editors accept, as well as non-Icelandic editors. That's what is usually used, not a simple "T". Note that some Icelandic people categories such as Category:Icelandic writers are sorted by first name, so it would be "Thorsteinn fra Hamri" in them. (Look under T in that category listing, lots of Þ there already.) But in other categories, including Category:Living people (needs to be added), etc. there are two possibilities, "Fra Hamri, Thorsteinn" or "Hamri, Thorsteinn fra". I'd probably go with the latter in that case, but if he lived in an English-speaking country and still used the "from" in his name, I'd sort it under F. Gene Nygaard (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought every separate sort key needed to be capitalised, so it is Hamri, Thorsteinn Fra or Thorsteinn Fra Hamri? But that probably doesn't matter a huge amount. It is rare that sorting goes that far down a name. I went with Hamri, Thorsteinn Fra. By the way, I've discovered why no-one does this. It is incredibly boring (though mildly interesting in terms of names). Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Even with the guidance at Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category, I'm still steering clear of the von, van, de, di, du names. I don't think anyone can do this sort of work for long without going insane! <gibber> :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Re your first point: I knew I was thinking of some article along the lines of "?uest" but didn't notice that it was a redlink. Here's what I was thinking of. See the discussion at Talk:Questlove; somebody recently moved that article to "?uestlove" (and naturally didn't adjust the sort keys, which is how I noticed it). I reverted that move, because it had previously been moved to "Questlove" as a result of a prior requested moves discussion. Look through the arguments used there, and the people supporting them; I wasn't part of that discussion, but it gives some ideas if we request any moves along those lines in the future. Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And read through Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). Gene Nygaard (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I've been bold and moved it. I must be getting impatient in my old age... Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Japanese photographers

Would this have done the trick?

There are perhaps two hundred more virtually identical wretched robot-generated non-articles on which you could just as well slap the same template. (See what's flagged as "BGSS" here.) My gut feeling is that ten or so among them really aren't notable -- other than by the risible en-Wikipedia standards that for example let in hundreds of Star Wars vehicles and thousands (it seems) of people who provide the voices for Japanese cartoons -- and that the rest are. All but a tiny number (who all died a very long time ago) have produced photographs that are in the permanent collection of Japan's preeminent gallery of photography. So all in all most do deserve actual articles. Unfortunately only a small number of people seem inclined to produce those articles. I'd like to do more myself, but during a period of a month or so starting very soon indeed I shan't have time to do any. Could you perhaps announce at WikiProject History of photography any addition or proposed addition of this template to photographer article(s)? There's always a chance that somebody would see it there and act upon it. Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yamane does seem to me to have demonstrable (if not so great) notability, so I'm removing the notability tag you stuck to the article. If you disagree, please speak up on its talk page (or of course send it to AfD). -- Hoary (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improper page moves by Husond

Gene, your moving of Mihai Şuba to Mihai Suba was not only justified with a poor excuse, as you are also not allowed to perform such a move. Your diacritics move probation has not been lifted. Please use WP:RM if you intend to move an article due to a diacritic presence with which you disagree. Thanks. Húsönd 13:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such probation. Nothing that can be "lifted".
My move was quite proper and legitimate. It was the unreferenced, undiscussed move by you which was improper. And to a much lesser extent, he original creation of the article itself with an article name contrary to all the sources cited in the article.
Furthermore, your move here is now the second improper, unreferenced move of this article to a name not supported by the cited sources.
That your move was undiscussed is especially improper and inappropriate given that there is a talk page discussion. Gene Nygaard (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Gene, your probation is very much alive: Wikipedia:Community_sanction/Log#Gene_Nygaard_is_banned_from_non_consensual_article_moves_until_further_notice. The page is marked as inactive, but as you can read your probation is still in effect. I have reverted your move of Mihai Şuba again. Please do not attempt to move the article again, as I will be forced to block you per your probation. Use WP:RM, as you are required to. Thanks. Húsönd 18:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You know better, Husond. You've already explicitly tried to make that very same claim at WP/ANI several months ago. And, despite the fact that you deliberately did so knowing that I was unable to respond, you were nonetheless resoundingly rejected in that claim, with the discussion already closed and already archived before I got back. (Maybe there's a lesson in there for me; sometimes it works out better if I don't say anything.)
Furthermore, that big, honking box at the Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log page means EXACTLY what it says:
✘ This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained for historical archive. A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.
Not only that, but it was totally out of process at the time it ws done; there was no such procedure, and there is no provision whatsoever for "lifting" anything in this nonprocess.
Furthermore, it never did have anything to do with moving becasue the name was not in accordance with the sources. It dealt with moving articles because they did not have redirects. That is the only thing ever discussed at that time. In this case of "Mihai Susa]] the redirect already existed; I moved it "over redirect". I didn't move it to make a point about the redirect not existing; I moved it because the article name was wrong, because all the sources spelled it the way that redirect spelled it.
Your move was contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions and knowingly made to a spelling not supported in any of the sources. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please don't patronize me Gene. And you should really refrain from distorting facts to have your way, it won't work. And refrain from being repetitive too, as it won't work either. Your probation is on, that you can be rest assured. Regards, Húsönd 23:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be the only one holding that view; your claims along that line were rejected last November, and you tried to raise it again now without success. You had probably better start acting in accordance with the WP:ANI discussion yourself, and in stop trying to stifle discussion by threatening to block me, rather than dealing with the issues involved. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, instead of disagreeing with each other, why not see what people think at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#Old community sanctions? Gene, can you dig up a link to the November discussion? I'll drop a note on Husond's page as well, and will notify Lar (who documented the original sanction). Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Kosovo

The situation is far more complicated, Gene. I don't know how well are you aware of the Republic of Kosovo recognition situation, but it has been quite a nightmare on Kosovo related articles since Kosovo declared its independence last February. This redirect is just the latest episode, and a rather unexpected one actually. Basically, the article on Kosovo deals with all matters related to that region, which has declared its independence as the Republic of Kosovo. But a few users, usually Serbian-POV users, have been trying to limit or separate references to Kosovo as an independent state from the main article, for months. By redirecting the target of Republic of Kosovo to a small section of Kosovo, users Beamathan and Dbachmann who have been particularly involved elements of the pro-Serbian side, are trying to alienate the republic from the region. They forget or pretend to ignore that most users searching for "Republic of Kosovo" are looking for the whole "Kosovo", not just a small note on what the republic is about. After all, the Republic of Kosovo consists of Kosovo, like it or not. History, geography, economy, etc, of Kosovo are just the same as the ones of the Republic of Kosovo. It's just petty to re-target the redirect in order to make a point that the Republic of Kosovo is some kind of unimportant detail about Kosovo. But this is just the tip of the iceberg really. POV pushers will apparently pick every tiny thing and make a huge war out of it. Húsönd 19:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it likely that people who search for "Republic of Kosovo" rather than just "Kosovo" are looking for just that? And in any case, a redirect to a specific section still gets you the whole page; it just affects the placement of the cursor. I still don't see what you imagine to be the problem. Gene Nygaard (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is, for many people the "Republic of Kosovo" is "Kosovo". It's like searching for "Republic of Finland" and ending up somewhere that is not the top of the article Finland. And the bigger problem is, this is all about POV. You may be interested to check double standards here, as Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija does not redirect to the section on Kosovo about the province itself, but to the very top of that article. In my view, this is not even fishy, it's plain POV. Making the Republic of Kosovo look like something as unimportant as a small section on the article about Kosovo, whereas Kosovo as a Serbian province gets the entire highlight. Húsönd 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I was just reviewing my talk page and noticed you commented regarding the whole RoK redirect thing. Low and behold I find a section about it on your talk page. Just wanted to let you know that your idea of reasoning regarding the redirect was the gist of my conclusion. Unfortunately for some POV Pushers they feel like if the RoK redirect goes to the whole article of Kosovo that will legitimize the RoK. It's almost silly! Oh and as an aside, myself and Husond have quite a history which may explain his accusation of me, and Dab for that matter, being Serbian POV Pushers. Meh, if you're interested in that saga check out my, Rudget's, and Husond's talk page as well as Future Perfect's talk page. Anyway, stop by the Kosovo article sometime, we can always use help there. Beam 01:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your contribution would be welcome

Your contribution would be welcome at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Using_a_policy_page_as_a_scratchpad_to_develop_a_proposal.
Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This MOSNUM mess

I feel increasingly disturbed as the hours and days pass about the breach of due process and the aggressive removal of even a dispute tag. Seems to me to be a denial of central pillars of WP. What are we to do? We certainly shouldn't sit by and watch this new process of subverting consensus-gathering create a precedent, I feel. TONY (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe spin out the disputed material into a subpage and let the disputed tag sit there? Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greenbox

There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)