User talk:Picapica/archive0702

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Scambled eggs 2 What if? 3 Year in Wales 4 RE: El Trigal Manchego Cheese 5 Country graveyards

[edit] Scambled eggs

Hi, I dissed you on the Talk:Scrambled_eggs page, I hope you don't mind ... Eleuther 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(Eleuther wrote: it also seems to have led at least one literal-minded editor into the contra-factual assertion that scrambling requires "two or more" eggs)

Hi, Eleuther. No, I don't mind at all.

I was, I admit, a little anxious before I looked, not really knowing what "dissing" meant. But it turns out to be not half as bad as it sounds, and no more than what we over here would call "having a little dig". Being on the receiving end of such digs is surely no more than a bold Wikipedian editor should expect.. :-)

I am, though, also literal-minded enough to deny the charge that I asserted, against the facts, that scrambling requires two or more eggs. I did not. What I wrote was that the dish called "scrambled eggs" requires two or more eggs. Of course one can scramble a single egg (I often do so myself) but were I to serve just one scrambled egg to a customer who had ordered scrambled eggs then I would surely be guilty of providing short measure.

It's also interesting that you think there may be other literal-minded editors who have made the assertion you refer to. In the words of the great Eric Morecambe, there's no answer to that! -- Picapica 13:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if?

I'm referring to your comment on the Sign-off (broadcast) discussion page. 'The article, as it stands, should either be moved to Sign-off (television) or rewritten to include information about radio closedown procedures.' I agree with what you are saying but does an article about Sign-off (radio) exist? Also, would it be necessary to have two sign-off pages, one about radio and one about television? Cepb 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) please respond on my talk page - I have trouble connecting normally.

Thankyou for the reply. Gwnaf i ddechrau ystyried eich sylwadau! Cepb 13:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year in Wales

(Copied from User talk:Deb):

Just a request for your opinion. I was about to amend the entry on the page 1983 in Wales re the death of Carwyn James when it occurred to me that although this was an event of importance to Wales it did not actually happen in Wales (he died in Amsterdam). What do you think we should do in cases like this? -- Picapica 17:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good point, and one I'd wondered about myself. What we could do is to write a little note, eg. "(in Amsterdam)", after the name of the person. I haven't been doing that so far, because in so many cases we don't know where the person died. You could also argue that it applies in the case of books and music, for example. Do these have to have been published/performed in Wales? It's not often we get the premiere of anything in Cardiff, unless it's by Karl Jenkins.

Another option would be to add a note at the top of each article, saying that it relates to events that happen in Wales and those that are relevant to Wales or involve Welsh people. What do you think? Blwyddyn Newydd Dda, by the way. Deb 17:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like both of your ideas, Deb:

- Add e.g. "(in Amsterdam)" where we do know the information (I don't think it matters that there will be cases where we don't, or don't yet); and

- (brilliant idea, BTW) start each article with a note of the type you suggest. I would propose amending the present opening formula to

This article is about the particular significance of the year xxxx to Wales and its people.

See also other events of 1933 and the list of years in Wales.

(You may notice that - on Ockhamite grounds - I think it would be better to leave out the direct links to the preceding and following years; readers wanting a different year can simply go straight to the list of years in Wales.)

I'm prepared to do the "legwork" of updating articles, by the way, if you think this would be a good way of proceeding. -- Picapica 18:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think your proposed wording is excellent, and I'm even happier for you to do the "legwork" as you put it! Deb 18:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Diolch. I'll get my boots on... -- Picapica 22:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hwyl. I've replaced the "See also" section in 2006 in Wales with a "proper" yearbox. I'd like your opinion before I go adding it to all the articles. What do you think? Deb 12:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Deb! Am away from home for a few days - but will reply properly at the weekend. -- Picapica 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, home again. While I'm not all that keen on "infoboxes for their own sake", I quite like the principle of your idea. The start of these articles could certainly do with a "neater" start. However, I hope you won't think I'm being excessively critical if I say that I think the set-up as currently illustrated in 2006 in Wales is overkill. I can see that it is based on the infoboxes that appear in the "general" Year X articles -- but I think that they are over-the-top too!

I'm probably a far from typical user in -- like you, I expect -- editing Wikipedia as much as, if not more than, I consult it , so my outlook is bound to suffer from a certain degree of "déformation professionnelle". Nevertheless, I can say that where I think I am most likely to "want to go next", in terms of other "date" articles, when consulting a Year in Wales article, is either to another Year in Wales (which is no more likely to be an immediately adjacent year than any other) or to look at the same year in another context. Now, all I want is to be able to do that in, at most, two clicks. That's possible with the "minimalist" infobox that I would propose and that I have put "on test" at 1961 in Wales -- I'm reading, say, 1948 in Wales, and I want to check something on, say 1977 in Wales; I can click on "Other years in Wales" and then on "1977" -- If I want to check a parallel event in, say, Portugal, then I can click on "Other events of 1961" and then click on the Portuguese version of that page.

As I've said before, I don't really understand why the years immediately preceding and following any one year in question should get special prominence, but as there seems to be a fondness in many parts of Wikipedia for giving them such prominence (and you appear attached to the practice yourself), I have included them in my sample infobox.

To sum up, then, my "pitch" for the minimalist approach is that it maintains the four direct links that appear in text form in, for example, 1926 in Wales, but provides them in a neater and more quickly visible form -- while avoiding the overkill, in my view, of the all-singing, all-dancing Centuries / Decades / Years approach of the "general" Year X articles. What do you think? -- Picapica 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I like what you've done very much. My personal reason for wanting the years either side to be easily accessible is that I've often found it to be handy when editing them. But also, I can envisage going to a page looking for something that happened in 1935, not finding it there, and thinking, "I wonder if it was 1936", and being able to go and check without bothering to type in "1936". My second comment relates to the thing I tried to do with linking to the "Year in England" and "Year in Scotland" pages - I thought it might help refute the accusation of insularity if people are easily able to compare the year in Wales with the rest of the UK. Deb 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, Deb, about the usefulness of being able to take "a quick look either side" of the year in question.

Regarding possible accusations of insularity, I think that if they are made then we should stand up for ourselves! There are no Year X in England articles (it's just a category), and to have the general article about "Year X" stand in for a "Year X in England" would seem to me to invite a worse accusation: that of adopting the politico-cultural cringe! Yes, there are some genuine "Year X in Scotland" articles, but I think that the link to them is adequately covered by the inclusion, which we already have, of the "Year X by country" category (though a quick look does give the impression that quite a lot of tidying-up needs to be done where that category is concerned) - why single out Scotland and not mention, say, Year X in Ireland, Canada, or Poland. The category link should take us to those articles, where they exist. I think that mentioning individual countries at the top of the Year X in Wales articles, though, gives them too much prominence.

I hope you don't think these views are too forthright, but I do feel the articles must stand on their own strengths and not be seen as a "subset" of some other Anglo(or US)-centric ones. -- Picapica 21:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mostly agree. It's just that England and Scotland are neighbouring countries. I'm certainly not in favour of subsuming Wales in the UK as someone suggested - see my reply to him on Talk:1974 in Wales - but I think we could recognise that events in other parts of the UK could be relevant to us. Deb 11:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Ireland is a nearer neighbour to Wales than Scotland! But if you do want a direct link to the Year X in Scotland, I would rather it went at the bottom. And the problem with England is that, although I was not quite correct in saying that were no Year X articles, there are, as far as I can see, only four: 1664, 1666, 1687, and 1705 (and there are no Scotland -- or Wales -- articles for those years in any case). And what about Northern Ireland?

I will add further comments re Talk:1974 in Wales on that page.

On another matter, would you like to have a look at my addition to cy:Sgwrs:Crucywel? (I'd like to move the article to Crughywel -- but I'm not sure, as very much a dysgwr, that my Welsh is up to going through the official procedures correctly... Is it acceptable, in your experience, to make such proposals in English there?) -- Picapica 12:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. That's all I can do myself! We've got a great user there now, Anatiomaros, who is adding lovely long articles hand over fist, and I find him very helpful. I'd certainly support a move of that article.

On the other subject, I'd be glad to see links to Northern Ireland and Ireland as well as the other "home" countries.

Deb 15:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Taking your views into account, what do you think of 1961 in Wales as it now appears with the "Beta" version of my proposal?

The "full" version (if all the possible pages referred to existed) would be (e.g.):

1960 | 1962 | Other years in Wales

1961 in the United Kingdom

1961 in England

1961 in Scotland

1961 in Ireland

1961 in Northern Ireland

Other events of 1961

Ireland/Northern Ireland (post 1920) is a potential minefield (if the nomenclature wars over existing articles and links to do with our western neighbours are anything to go by!) -- but perhaps we should cross that bridge when we come to it? The main thing is -- so that we can get on with formatting the Year X in Wales articles -- would you be agreeable to our implementing my revised version (i.e., including UK, En, Sc, Ir, NI where the corresponding articles exist)? -- Picapica 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks fab! Or, as I think they say in Welsh, campus! Deb 12:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: El Trigal Manchego Cheese

Yes, I agree, it was a stupid decision to make the article. Go ahead, you have my support. Black-Velvet 08:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the understanding, BV. (Have to leave it to the admins now, as I don't have the power to delete articles myself.) -- Picapica 20:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Country graveyards

Hi Pica. I am curious why you changed "graveyard" to "cemetery" in the Suncroft page? Small old burial grounds such as that are almost universially referred to as "graveyards" in Ireland. A 'Cemetery' is a big place in a town or city. Suncroft is definitely a 'graveyard'! (Sarah777 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Well, because of:

The name recently registered on the new extension to Suncroft Cemetery is ‘Holy Cross’. The cemetery was consecrated approx 12 months ago by Bishop James Moriarty. (Kildare Nationalist, 14.09.2006)

Suncroft Cemetery: Negotiations have been completed in relation to the purchase of lands for an extension at Suncroft cemetery. (Minutes Of Kildare Area Committee, 08.04.2002)

The funeral was from Newbridge to the Curragh Church and the remains were laid to rest in Suncroft Cemetery, Kildare. (Munster Express, 09.11.2001)

Burial afterwards in Carna Cemetery, Suncroft. (Irish Times, 30.01.2007)

Do please change it back if I'm wrong, but it seems odd that the article would be illustrated with an image of a different burial ground from the cemetery (listed as such by Kildare Co. Council [1]) which is one of Suncroft's "claims to fame"! -- Picapica 10:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The place in the picture is the old graveyard; the new 'extension, called "Holy Cross Cemetery" - where is it?? Took the picture myself and saw nothing new bar a few graves!! Must make some enquiries. Suncroft is also famous for producing the footballer Anthony Rainbow; Rainbow from Suncroft - there's a cute name! (Sarah777 11:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Mind you - the graveyard I know so well(!) and photographed IS in Carna, the place mentioned in one of your references. The plot thickens, if you'll excuse the pun. But, like yourself I am a stickler for exactitude so I'll leave your edit unless I can clarify things!! (Sarah777 11:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC))

Do let me know what you dig up (about, not in, the graveyard!) -- it's many a year since I was last in the county. My guess would be that Carna / Suncroft is home to both the ancient graveyard you photographed and a newer cemetery (serving Kildare Town and district?). I love the bit about the Rainbow from Suncroft, by the way: that's got to go into the article :) -- Picapica 13:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)