Talk:Swedish language/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 Colon
2 Swedish as a foreign language diplomas
3 Modifying reference system?
4 Date reversion
5 Third opinion
6 Reply to tags
7 Mutually intelligible?
8 Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed
9 Wikiquette alert

Colon

I added the part about the colon because i kept seeing it at the main page of http://www.europa.eu/ . I guessed the meaning, but couldn't find any clear explanation at this article. I finally found it at Colon (punctuation). Even if its use is marginal, it still should be mentioned here. Feel free to change the wording, of course, but please don't delete it completely. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You should really ask about these things on talkpages before adding potentially misleading information to articles. Peter ^Isotalo 11:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The information i added is based on Colon (punctuation). If it is incorrect, both should be changed. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The information in the colon article is correct, but the way it was reworded here was not. Peter ^Isotalo 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the text about the colon could use some examples and/or be further explained. Looking at Svenska skrivregler (2nd ed, 2002, p 154-156), the colon is used:

before citations:

Leende frågade han: "Är du alldeles säker?"

Hamlet: Att vara eller inte vara, det är frågan.

before a question or statement:

Frågan är: Vem avgör vad som är sanning eller lögn i denna sak?"

Mitt förslag är: Gratis cyklar åt alla!

for examples, explanations, specifications, and summaries:

Du skall ha tre valsedlar: en gul (riksdagsval), en blå (landstingsval) och en vit (kommunfullmäktige).

Nu förstod jag plötsligt: mannen var blind.

in certain expressions with numbers and abbreviations:

10:50 kronor (tio kronor och femtio öre)

Job 14:1-3 (Jobs bok, kapitel 14, vers 1 till 3)

Land 1998:3 eller Land 3/1998 (nummer 3, 1998)

skala 1:50 000 (skala ett till femtiotusen)

1:a (första)

S:t (Sankt)

for stating the time:

klockan 13:10, tiden 1:40:02

for all types of suffixes that can be added to numbers, letters, abbreviations:

4:e gången (fjärde gången)

54:an (femtifyran)

linje 10:s väg (linje tios väg)

första a:t i apa

tv:n (televisionen)

vd:ar (verkställande direktörer)

FN:s (Förenta Nationernas)

IOGT:are (member of IOGT)

Karl XII:s likfärd (Karl den toftes likfärd)

förf.:s, förf:s (författarens)

(Examples are from Svenska skrivreglar.) I believe the last one was the one that Amir E. Aharoni was interested in. –panda 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this isn't Swedish alphabet, an article which is only marginally longer than the section on the same topic here. The bulk of these examples would also be especially tedious as they don't really differ much from how the colon is used in English. Peter ^Isotalo 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I specifically mentioned that the last one is probably the interesting one. Also, the first example is different from English since a comma would normally be used, but that's such a minor difference that it may not be worth mentioning. Probably not all of the examples should be included but more than one example makes sense since the current text is confusing:

"In Swedish orthography, a colon can appear inside words in a manner similar to the English apostrophe, between a word (or abbreviation, especially an acronym) and certain grammatical suffixes, mostly the genitive ending -s."

Also the text stating:

"It also occurs in certain names, for example Antonia Ax:son Johnson (Ax:son for Axelson)."

is an example of an abbreviation (e.g., förf:s) and doesn't necessarily have to do with a name.

–panda 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the examples.

Of course only those which are unique to Swedish should appear. On this page a couple of examples would be enough and a detailed list can be on Swedish alphabet.

1:a (första) and S:t (Sankt) are special, and so is 10:50 kronor (tio kronor och femtio öre) (in most languages it would be something like 10.50 or 10,50).

And of course the last part is pretty unique. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

When you say "the last part is pretty unique", do you mean Ax:son or the last set of examples I gave (starting with 4:e gången and 54:an)? –panda 15:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything from 4:e gången to förf:s. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

So how about this then:

In Swedish, the colon is used with numbers (e.g., 10:50 kronor = tio kronor och femtio öre = "10 kronor and 50 öre"), for abbreviations (e.g., 1:a = första = "first", S:t = Sankt = "Saint"), and all types of suffixes that can be added to numbers, letters and abbreviations (e.g., 53:an = femtitrean = "the 53", första a:t = "the first a", tv:n = televisionen = "the television").

I don't know if you had any specific examples from the last group that you thought were especially important to mention. The above text may also be clearer in tables, which I can create if you think it would help. –panda 17:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Parenthases with this many examples are always frowned upon in FA articles. You don't need to explain every single instance of use of the colon in the language main article and full fledged tables would be giving this rather obscure fact undue weight. Peter ^Isotalo 05:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about a bullet list? I don't think that this is so obscure. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that information about the colon should be in this article, and not in Swedish alphabet or Swedish grammar since it has nothing to do with the Swedish alphabet or grammar. Regardless, the current wording in the article is confusing and should be modified. Peter Isotalo apparently didn't like my suggestion, so please suggest another version. Also, if you know non-Swedish editors, it may be helpful to get a 3rd opinion from them. –panda 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with grammar. It's about orthography and Swedish orthography is currently a redirect to Swedish alphabet. A short note on the colon usage seems okay, but not tedious bullet lists with lots of awfully similar examples. Peter ^Isotalo 12:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Good that we both agree it has nothing to do with grammar. My example:

is as short as the current text and is not a bulleted list. I would also argue that it contains more useful examples which are, in fact, not that similar. Ax:son is a very special case that isn't at all useful for someone learning Swedish. We can removed the 1:a example if you really want since I've added that to Swedish grammar, but all of them are common examples used in everyday writing and signs.

Since you don't seem to be convinced that the current text about the colon is confusing, let's evaluate it piecemeal:

a colon can appear inside words in a manner similar to the English apostrophe, between a word (or abbreviation, especially an acronym) and certain grammatical suffixes, mostly the genitive ending -s.

The most common ways to use an apostrophe in English are with the genitive and for contractions (such as "won't"), and the colon is not used for contractions in Swedish. I would personally just not compare it with English unless you want to compare and contrast all of the different ways in which the colon is used in English and Swedish.
"in a manner similar to the English apostrophe" and "mostly the genitive ending -s" would imply that "Peter's" would be written Peter:s (incorrect) instead of Peters (correct).
"a colon can appear ... between a word (or abbreviation, especially an acronym) and certain grammatical suffixes" would imply that it can not be used with all grammatical suffixes. That's actually incorrect according to Svenska skrivreglar. Also stating "abbreviations, especially an acronym" is incorrect since it has as much to do with numbers, letter, and abbreviations as acronyms.

It also occurs in certain names, for example Antonia Ax:son Johnson (Ax:son for Axelson).

This is a single, very unusual example about how the colon is used, which is mostly useless for someone learning Swedish. The chances of someone hearing about Antonia Ax:son Johnson are very slim and the interest in her seems to be very low as both the Swedish and English articles about her are very small. Also, unless you can come up with another example, the text is incorrect as it implies that there is more than one name that is abbreviated this way. I personally don't know of any. I think it should be removed and explained in her article, instead of this article, especially since it is very far from being a common way to use the colon.

–panda 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The colon is used for contraction. What else would "s:t" and "Ax:son" be? I can't think of any examples of names other than Ax:son Johnson right now, and they're not overly common, but I know I've seen it before. And the comparison in this case should be with English since we're writing the article for English Wikipedia.

I think you should try tweaking the text to fix what you feel is confusing. It's easier to discuss and reach a compromise that way. One recommendation I can give you, though, is that you try to condense the parenthetical info and avoid mathematical signs. Also, keep in mind that catering to those wanting to learn Swedish is not any of our concern. We have wikibooks for that. Peter ^Isotalo 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the contraction article, "In traditional grammar, a contraction is the formation of a new word from two or more individual words" so S:t and Ax:sson are not considered contractions in the traditional/common sense of the word. Since I know you plan to change the text if I add it, it would be easier to work this out in the talk page instead of in the article. But if you prefer, I'll modify it based on your comments and add it to the article. –panda 17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I recommedn not using only Wikipedia articles to define terms. You should look these things up in independent sources instead. See for example dictionary.com. There are plenty of one-word contractions in English. Peter ^Isotalo 06:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and it does actually mention one word contractions in the Wikipedia article. I was only commenting that when someone says a contraction in English, they normally mean putting together 2+ words. That doesn't mean that one word contractions don't exist. Anyway, this is off-topic. I've already updated the text about the colon in the article. –panda 07:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How important is it that the English language Wikipedia include discussion of Swedish punctuation?

What reader will this serve?

Readers of Swedish can consult Swedish language references.

What person who does not read Swedish will need to consider the use of the colon in Swedish? Robert Greer (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's almost as important as including an article about the Swedish language in the first place.

It certainly interests me as a student of linguistics and as someone who has interest in typography and machine text processing. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The information could well be useful to someone who is learning Swedish, just as similar information about English punctuation would be useful in the article on the English language on the Swedish Wikipedia. --Tkynerd (talk) 02:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Tkynerd, Wikipedia does not cater to language learners. That's the business of Wiktionaries and dedicated WikiBooks. Encyclopedias are not written to be instruction manuals. It's absolutely no different from, say, the article about beer not containing a section on how to make beer.

Amir, I agree that some information on punctuation might be relevant, but we also need to keep a perspective here. In the scheme of things, exactly how important are issues like typography and machine text processing to a main language article? Peter ^Isotalo 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) The info about the colon is correct and relevant, so i don't see how a couple of lines is such a disaster that it had to prompt this long discussion. Here's why i think that it is relevant: If we were talking about quotation marks for example, then i'd say that it doesn't belong on the main language article, because almost every Latin-based orthography has a different style for them; but this usage of colon is almost exclusive to Swedish. (Correct me if i'm wrong.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Swedish as a foreign language diplomas

There certainly must be a diploma or certificate which foreigners can try to get for Swedish (similar the the French DELF and the Italian CILS). If there is information on that subject, it definitely should go in the article, or at least into Swedish as a foreign language. What do you think about it? -- Danilot 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Swedex seems to be a relatively new effort to do just that (Started in 2005). I'm not sure how widespread or known it is though. henrik•talk 15:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also TISUS, Test In Swedish for University Studies. But that might be more appropriate in the Education in Sweden article. –panda 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In Finland there would be the National Certificate of Language Proficiency (http://www.oph.fi/english/page.asp?path=447,574,51431), which is used to test Swedish language proficency for Finnish citizenship or government employment (different levels are required for different posts). It conforms with the common European language testing rules and should thus be of use also outside the country (in practice I don't know if Swedish authorities accept our certificates or Finnish authorities theirs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Modifying reference system?

Does anyone have anything against modifying the current reference system to one that links the notes to the references (using Wikipedia:Harvard referencing without brackets, that is using Template:Harvnb for inline citations and Template:Citation for the References section)? There's a good example of this implemented in the Scat singing article. I thought it would be a good idea since I'm probably not the only person who may not notice that there is both a Notes and References section in the article. If there's no objections, I can work on the changes, beginning with the References section. –panda 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Notes are notes. The idea that you have to have a separate system of lettered notes for general comments is as far as I know something that is rather exclusive to Wikipedia. I don't believe it's benefitial to our readership.

As for that Harvnb template, I just don't get it. It adds a few characters of code for the very uncomplicated sequence of author(s)-year-page/chapter. And it should be pointed out that the year is redundant information in a footnote unless you're using more than one source written by the same author. Peter ^Isotalo 09:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood me. This article currently has a "Notes" and a "Sources" (previously called "References") section. I'm going to refer to the items in the list in the "Notes" section as "notes" and those in the "Sources" section as "sources". All of the notes in the "Notes" section have a complete reference in the "Sources" section. Currently, the notes are plain text that do not hyper-link (a href) to its source/complete reference. I'm proposing to have the notes be automatically hyper-linked to a specific source so when someone clicks on a specific note, it shows which source it came from.

Please take a look at the Scat singing article to see how it works. Ignore the "Notes" section in the Scat singing article -- that's not what I was talking about. Click on one of the items in the References section (equivalent to this article's "Notes" section) and see how it highlights a specific item in the "Works cited" section (equivalent to this article's "Sources" section). If the references in Scat singing aren't in multiple columns and the highlighting doesn't work for you, it's probably because you're using IE.

The year does not have to be included in the in-line citation for the Harvbn template. Except for #7, this article's "Notes" section would look identical except for being hyper-linked. –panda 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that function made a lot more sense. I don't want to oppose a minor technical improvement, but since I'm overall rather skeptical to templates, I think it might be a bit unnecessary in an article that doesn't have all that many sources. In articles with gargantuant reference lists, like Scotland in the High Middle Ages, I would certainly see the point, but not here. Otherwise, I'm fine either way. Peter ^Isotalo 07:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've started to make changes to the Sources section. The place of publication, publisher, and edition number were missing for most citations, so they have been added. The ISBN was incorrect for at least one book, and has been fixed. I removed the following sources as they are not cited in the article:

(Swedish) Dagens Industri 2005-05-03
(Swedish) Kommunerna.net *Statistics Finland
US English Foundation, English in America: A Study of Linguistic Integration (Washington DC: US English Foundation, 2005, based on the 2004 US Census)

The Dagens Industri citation is incomplete and needs the article's title. Please replace if they should be listed for some reason. –panda (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The following references (in the Notes section) need page numbers:

1. Crystal, Scandinavian
19. Bolander

–panda (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please reinsert the souces you removed. For anyone that reads the article through in its entirety, it's obvious what those sources have been used for, and the article from DI is thoroughly specified (and quoted) in the notes.

David Crystal's book is a mini-encyclopedia that is arranged alphabetically. That's enough information for anyone who needs to look up the info. The citation of Bolander is a general one since the section itself is very general. It's not an in-depth analysis of Swedish grammar. Peter ^Isotalo 09:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, is it really necessary to use all that excess code for web citations? Peter ^Isotalo 10:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the sources mentioned above:

The DI article is already cited in full in the Notes so it isn't necessary to include in the Sources section, for the same reason why several other complete citations in the Notes section don't need to be included in the Sources section.
kommunerna.net: no clue why it was cited. Doesn't matter if you read the article. Please explain.
Statistics Finland: also no clue why it was cited. Doesn't matter if you read the article. Please explain.
US Census data: there is no mention of the number of Swedish speakers in the US in the article so it doesn't belong in this article. That info is in Swedish people, so I can add the reference there if necessary.
Even if something is arranged alphabetically, the page number(s) should still be stated.
The Bolander citation still needs more information about the specific section in the book that is being cited and the page numbers, regardless of whether or not it is a general reference.
The web references don't need all of the excess code if someone wants to rewrite it with all of the info that is now included. Previously they were missing a lot of details and not formatted uniformly.

–panda (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Sources" is there to make an overview of the sources more practical. Removing a source from that summary does not improve the verifiability in any way.
kommunerna.net is and Statistics Finland are as far as I know the sources for the first paragraph of "Geographic distribution".
The 2004 US Census is very clearly cited in prose. Look under "Geographic distribution".
Citations are there to help anyone who is actually going to look the source up, not to satisfy gratuitous demands for page numbers. When it comes to Crystal, the specific entry is more precise than a page reference. It's really no different from the reference to Nationalencyklopedin.
Again, general sections require only general references. We're not talking about detailed coverage of grammar here. Unless, of course, you'd like to specify facts that you consider to be controversial or questionable.
Web references do not require cumbersome code masses to be uniform; all we need to do is correct the notes that aren't conforming. There's also the very annoying date linkage that serves absolutely no practical purpose. The date that one looked up a website is in no way relevant to the articles about those dates or this article.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing sources that are not cited does not affect the verifiability of the article.
A general reference should be listed in the recommended reading section if it is not meant to be cited in the article. Otherwise page numbers should be listed -- this is standard practice when citing references. For the Bolander book, it's not clear why that book is cited at all. Is it just for the statement about how adjectives precede the noun they modify? If so, then it needs a page number. If it is for additional text in that paragraph, then it should have been cited earlier, not at the end of the paragraph.
The 2004 US Census data should have included an inline citation in "Geographic distribution". I can add that if someone else doesn't do it first. Strange that this wasn't done a long time ago.
If kommunerna.net and Statistics Finland are the sources for the first paragraph of "Geographic distribution", then there should be a specific URL that is cited, not just a general link to the main page of those websites. If you can find the specific URL, then please add it. In the mean time, I can add them to External links as I haven't found any relevant information on those web sites. There are also other references that can be used instead for that paragraph, such as [1].
The Nationalencyklopedin entry also needs to be fixed (it needs more specific info about which version of NE the info is from) but since I don't have a solution for that right now, I haven't done anything about it yet. I can always use the info from my version of NE since the numbers are the same.
This isn't a matter about whether or not "Citations are there to help anyone who is actually going to look the source up, not to satisfy gratuitous demands for page numbers" or that it's annoying that certain info in included. There are standardized methods for citing sources that should be followed in the English Wikipedia, such as The MLA Style Manual, APA Style, The Chicago Manual of Style, or Harvard referencing. For example, the date a web article was retrieved is standard practice to include when citing web references. See also WP:CITE.
Looking at the Virtual Finland reference, it actually doesn't support the statement that it cites and should probably be removed unless another reference can be found.
Barfotabarn should also be listed in Sources. I'll add it if someone else doesn't do it first. The poem actually needs page numbers since it is a direct quote from a book. If it in fact came from a website, then the website should be cited instead. (See WP:CITE.)
In general, the article could use more references.

–panda (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bolander's book is cited as a whole because it's general, relatively common and conveniently brief. If the article has one section on grammar and one Swedish grammar has been cited, there's really not much to complain about in terms of clarity. We're talking about Svenska Akademiens grammatik here.
The US Census is very clearly cited in prose. Failing to see the connection with the mention of it in the sources because there's no footnote doesn't make much sense.
The NE articles are from the online version, which is now specified.
The date in webcites isn't the issue, but rather the annoying business of wikilinking it. The webcite templates force that linkage and is one of many reasons why I find them pointless.
If you want "more references", you should try to explain where and why. Preferably without claiming personal ignorance or that the amount of footnotes isn't enough.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the article, there are several paragraphs that are completely without references. If you'd like an example, look at the Classification section. Who states that "Swedish is an Indo-European language" and that "it belongs to the East Scandinavian languages"? And who claims that "Continental Scandinavian languages could very well be considered to be dialects of a common Scandinavian language"? Where did any of this info come from? Right now, the majority of the article doesn't pass WP:V.
You may know that the Bolander book is from Svenska Akademien, but it's not obvious from the reference. So either page numbers should be listed, the book should be moved down to Recommended reading, or the in-line citation moved up. On the topic of grammar, who states that Swedish nouns are either "common" or "neuter"? My grammar book uses different English terms.
In general, I've noticed that in-line citations have been added to the very end of a section. If those citations are for the entire section, they should be placed at the beginning of the section.
Dates do not need to be spelled out. It is sufficient to put them in ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format. At any rate, a consistent format should definitely be used. I've fixed this.
It is insufficient to only state "online version" of NE. You also need to include the actual link to each article and the date each article was accessed, like for any other web citation.
Simply including something in the prose isn't sufficient. It should still contain an in-line reference of some sort. I've added that and fixed the reference since the text wasn't correct. (The date is from the 2000 US Census, not 2004.)
Are you going to find the page number for Barfotabarn? If not, I plan to change it to a web reference.

–panda (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that full dates should be linked, according to the MOS and WP:OVERLINK, for preference formatting purposes. So I'm changing the references that you modified back to reflect this. –panda (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MOS is a recommendation, and not every single aspect of it is a requirement. The date someone looked up a web reference has has absolutely nothing to do with the article topic and is there for nothing but a distraction. Insisting that they be linked serves no encyclopedic purpose.

Citations are more logically placed after the statements it's supposed to cover, as is done throughout this article. If anything, placing it after the first sentence will only result in another other zealous rule-enforces to demand that it be placed after the next sentence. And the next, and the next, and then we'll have the same footnote after every single sentence as is popular in many other articles. Placing citations at the end of paragraphs is often done in academic sources.
"Common" and "neuter" are translated terms thta to my knowledge are accepted. I don't have a Swedish grammar in English, so I can't say either way. If you have better candidates, go ahead an change them. Either way, they are merely synonyms for the same concept. It doesn't change the status of grammatical genders in Swedish. And Svenska Akademiens grammatik is not just any old grammar. At over 2,800 pages, it's the grammar of the Swedish language. That the Academy has sponsored more basic grammars is another matter altogether.
The online version of NE is sufficient. Demanding links to a commercial electronic encyclopedia when it's easily searchable (and not available unless you pay for it) is just as pointless as the suggestion that I'd have to provide give page numbers for a dictionary.
No, including something in prose is sufficient, because you have to deliberately ignore the connection to miss it. You obvious failed to do an even cursery glance at the text in that case and removed the reference merely because there wasn't a footnote next to it. To me that smacks of point-making.

As for the article failing WP:V, I do encourage you to bring up some deficiencies that should be amended, but I would like to ask you to not simply start bring up the movement and additions of random footnotes to where you prefer them as a lack of verifiability. Peter ^Isotalo 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're obviously taking a lot of the comments I've made personally so I'll ask someone else to also comment on this issue. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with how referencing is normally done in English, using the style guides mentioned above, as your comments lead me to believe you don't understand how this is done. –panda (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Common" and "neuter" are indeed the English terms for Swedish gender, according to the general works that I have. kwami (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could get a reference for that. My grammar book simply calls them the n and t forms. –panda (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which grammar are you refering to, panda. Is it in English or in Swedish? Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm referring to a book about Swedish grammar in English (written by Åke Viberg et al, translated to English by Michael Knight). To be more specific, the exact terms used in the book are "en" and "ett" words. You can see this in the TOC via Amazon. –panda (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The book you're refering to is described as "A Practical Guide to the Mastery of Swedish". In that context "en" and "ett words" is very convenient for foreign language learners, but is not very descriptive. Common/neuter is a term that is better suited for encyclopedic purposes. See this for an example of the definition of "common gender". Peter ^Isotalo 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, for Swedish grammar, "en" and "ett" words is verifiable while "common" and "neuter" are not. So a reference is needed. Just find a reference and move on. –panda (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's how dictionary.com defines "common gender" (13 b):

constituting one of two genders of a language, esp. a gender comprising nouns that were formerly masculine or feminine: Swedish nouns are either common or neuter.[2]

And here's "neuter gender" (1 a):

noting or pertaining to a gender that refers to things classed as neither masculine nor feminine.[3]

"En" and "ett words" are self-explanatory terms that are primarily used in secondary educational facilities and among foreign students. They're convenient for the purpose of learning a language, but have very little to do with linguistics and describe only the surface form of the indefinite articles of those two genders. It's like naming a verb conjugation after the associated suffixes rather than proper linguistic terms. Spelat, for example, is the supine form, not a "-t verb". Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And Viberg's book calls it the supine. There's still no reference that states the Swedish genders are called "common" and "neuter" so just find a reference and move on. –panda (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's two, actually. Bartleby and dictionary.com, but that was just to bring the proper terminology to your attention. All of this is really beside the fact that Bolander uses the term neutrum ("neuter") and utrum ("common", quite literally "that which is not neuter"). If you have a better grammar Swedish grammar in English to humor us with, very good, but don't wave around some high school-level beginner's guide as though it was authoritive. Peter ^Isotalo 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll remind you that Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If you can find a reference that calls the two Swedish genders as "common" and "neuter" in English, then add it. Bartleby and dictionary.com don't apply since they only give general descriptions of those words and do not state that they apply to Swedish grammar or even which one is considered the common and neuter forms. Really, I don't know why you're so adamantly against finding a reference for it and want to keep slamming a book just because it doesn't use the words "common" and "neuter". –panda (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved. Reference found, thanks to kwami. –panda (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your refusal to accept general sources in favor of that dinky textbook of yours is intellectually dishonest. Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

About wikilinking dates: per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Dates, dates with month, day, and year should be wikilinked to enable users' date formatting preferences. Template:cite web saves you some time by wikilinking the dates for you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The guideline has this to say about random date linking:

As a general rule of thumb, link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic.

I don't see how anyone could possibly get a deeper understanding of the Swedish language by being linked to web reference access dates. Peter ^Isotalo 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's referring to wikilinking things like "In November..." or "In 2007...", which is not a good idea. Things like "On November 28, 2007" or "Accessed 2007-11-28" should be wikilinked solely to enable date preferences. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dot, no matter the wording of guidelines, can you please explain how it is relevant to this article to link the dates a Wikipedian accessed a certain web reference? Does it in any way, shape or form advance a reader's understanding of Swedish? It seems like this is a very fitting opportunity to ignore the rules. Peter ^Isotalo 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been repeatedly stated that full dates should be wikilinked, to enable users' date preferences. The important thing is to make Wikipedia useful, how we personally wish to see dates displayed isn't important- we should give users a choice. Wikilinking does that. Lurker (said · done) 19:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)'

This is pointless. The overwhelming majority of users don't know or won't ever bother to change those preferences. In practice, linking those dates is to force everyone to view them as links, and that despite the fact that they don't have anything to do with the article whatsoever. They have nothing to do with Swedish, linguistics or even any of the facts stated in the article. Hell, they don't actually have anything to do with the web references. They only indicate that a certain Wikipedian checked a website on that day. That's it. Peter ^Isotalo 07:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last set of reverts: Besides the date linking issue, you've now removed the reference that I added from Statistics Finland that supports that 5.5% of the Finnish population speak Swedish [4]. And no, it's not the same one you replaced it with. What's your rationale for that? –panda (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That the insertion of all those citation templates obscured the addition of a footnote. It's been reinserted. Peter ^Isotalo 01:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the text or look at the history before you reverted? The reference states specifically that only in certain years did 5.5% of the Finnish population speak Swedish, something that you've left out. I'll remind you that having consistent formatting of references is also a part of WP:WIAFA, which you seem to be ignoring for some unknown reason when you write your dates. –panda (talk) 02:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I did read the source and the proper way to write the figure 5.49% (the stat given for 2006) is in fact 5.5%.

As for consistency, the dates are actually quite consistent throughout the article, even if they might not be of the exact standard you prefer. I didn't notice that you had made a footnote out of the US Census reference, because you also kept insisting on campaigning on not repeating sources under "Sources" for overview purpose. I've reinserted the footnote. Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The 5.5% is only relevant from 2004-2006 so it shouldn't be written without a time frame. Also, the statistics do not say that it is spoken as a first language, just that it is spoken by x% of the population so the text is incorrect. I didn't put the correct range in the text anyway but your revert was completely uncalled for. You could try to "put more hard work into research of decent external sources"[5] instead of just reverting, which is what I've been working on the entire time. Regarding inconsistent dates, you have used both day-month-year and month-day-year, which is not consistent. Also, I don't know where you've gotten the idea that I've been "campaigning on not repeating sources under 'Sources'" -- I wrote something about it one time, which isn't campaigning. Please try to refrain from exaggerating. –panda (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies. The date inconsistency has been fixed and the year the statistics were collected have been specified in the footnote. Are there any other specific problems you would like to see addressed? Peter ^Isotalo 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated previously, 5.5% is only relevant for a limited time range and it should be stated in the text, not in a footnote. And why have you chosen to only state in the footnote 2006 when it has been relevant from 2004? Also, all of the statistics and quotes need citations. I've already pointed out the Barfotabarn issue. There are also a ton of other statistics in the text that need citations. Also mentioned before, several sections of the article are without any citations and could use some. I've already given some examples earlier. –panda (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant figure is the last one taken, and that was in 2006. It means that the percentage of Finland Swedes in Finland in 2006 was (estimated to?) 5.49%. We're dealing with synchronious facts here, not historical demographics.

Again, specify your claims a bit more thoroughly. I don't want to second-guess what "several sections" actually means. I would also like to have your assurance that you've read through the article in its entirety. It feels like many of your complaints could be avoided if you just had a go at absorbing the article as a whole. Peter ^Isotalo 07:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The 5.5% figure is limited to a specific time frame, 2004 to 2006, and it should be stated in the text. The statistics state that in 2004, 5.53% spoke Swedish and in 2005, 5.50% spoke Swedish. So why are you stating that 5.5% is only from 2006?? Assuming it still applies to 2007 without any reference is WP:CRYSTAL. Anyway, I've specified my claims, you're the one who keeps ignoring them, much like the conversation below. Have you found the page numbers for Barfotabarn yet or not? Otherwise I'm changing the reference. –panda (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Population statistics aren't formulated as "time frames". They give the actual counts or estimates of populations at a given time. In 2006 it was 5.49% and that's what's matters. The population in 2005 and 2004 isn't relevant to the current population any more than the population in 1950. Stating "as of" doesn't mean to say that a population has stayed the same from a given year, but is supposed to specify when the last time the stats were updated.

And before we get into a heated argument about how many people speak Swedish as opposed to how many people speak Swedish as a first language, please read Finland Swedes. The amount of people in Finland that speak Swedish is much higher than the number of Finland Swedes.

You're welcome to add whatever reference you want to Barfotabarn. I thought pointing out the book title would be enough for anyone since it's so easy to find and because Ferlin is such a famous literary figure. Peter ^Isotalo 16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the Finland Swedes article uses the same source for its statistics and should also be fixed. It's still WP:OR to claim that it is the first language of 5.5% of the population when it is not stated in the statistics. If you can find some other statistics that make that claim, then use that reference instead but until then, the text should be changed. Also, you're far over the WP:3RR limit so I'll ask you to please stop reverting simply because you don't agree with WP:DATE (again). –panda (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

...and why do you keep stating that the 5.5% is only true as of 2006? The statistics clearly show that it has been true since 2004. –panda (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Date reversion

The manual of style states that Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking. This instructs the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences chosen by registered users. If anyone wishes to change this guideline, then go to the relevant talk page and build a consensus. If anyone belives that there is good reason to ignore this rule, then they should make a case on this talk page as to why this article should be exempt from that policy. Unless you can do so, and build a consensus to ignore this rule, please do not remove the date formatting. WP:IAR allows editors a certain amount of latitude when it comes to the rules, it is not an excuse for acting against consensus. Make a case as to why this article should be formatted differently to all the others on Wikipedia, or change the date formatting policy. Don't just remove the formatting because you don't like it. Lurker (said · done) 13:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are guidelines, not policy. I have an extremely good argument against this slavish following of the letter of the law which is very, very simple: it has absolutely no relevance to the article, the article's general topic or even the references themselves and they do not allow for deeper understanding of the Swedish langauge. That I, or anyone else, chose to check out the website of Statistics Finland on 27 November 2007 has nothing to do with the fact that Pope Urban II declared the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont or that Carlos Andres Perez was the target of a military coup on the same date. It does not advance any readers understanding of Swedish. Period.

And if we're going to start ruleslawyering, then why not heed this rather fitting passage from the description of what a guideline is:

It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

Articles are not written for the tiny minority of readers that happen to be registered users and especially not for the absolutely insignificant number of those registered users that actually bother changing the preferences for whether (again, completely irrelevant) dates are linked. This is a very good example of how not to interpret guidelines, i.e. as laws set in stone until proper permission has been granted from users who otherwise seem to have no interest at all in this article. Peter ^Isotalo 14:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines are just that, consensus is rather more important here. An occasional exception is not the same as blatantly disregarding consensus because you personally don't like it. That shows contempt for your fellow editors.

And I do use date formatting in my preferences. It is useful for those who are registered, and does no harm to those who aren't. But that is a topic for the relevant talk page. Lurker (said · done) 14:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S- If there is clear consensus to inlcude something then you should discuss the issue and change the consensus first. Simply posting on a talk page after making your edit does not entitle you to edit war. Lurker (said · done) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Overlinking is not a neutral act as it merely serves as a distraction. Does the date linking help anyone understand the essence of the Swedish language? No. Is it a distraction to those who might (increasingly vainly) think that links at Wikipedia should be helpful? Yes.

And as for arguing from your own point of view, which I have already pointed out is a piffling minority of potential readers, what are you trying to do? Prove me right? The MoS isn't set in stone and we don't have to go change the guidelines everytime someone argues for an exception. If you want to enforce guidelines this strictly you should be the one to redefine guidelines as strict rules that no one should be allowed to flaunt.

And as for edit warring, don't go there yourself. So far you're only bonking me over the head with mostly irrelevant guideline citations instead of trying to discuss the issue. Peter ^Isotalo 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Multiple people have given reasons why date formatting is a good idea, and you have refused to engage with them, but have simply dismissed anything you disagree with a irrelevant. Lurker (said · done) 14:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The only reasons given are that a) the guidelines (supposedly) say so and b) that a piffling minority of readers can choose not to show the dates (including yourself). What has been quite cleverly avoided by both you and panda is to comment on the encyclopedic relevance of linking random dates, which is really the most pertinent issue in this discussion. How does the article 27 November in any way further anyone's general understanding of the article topic? Peter ^Isotalo 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Per both WP:OVERLINK#Dates and WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking, full dates should use wikilinks for formatting. How does removing the links (contrary to both guidelines) in any way benefit the encyclopedia? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No-one is avoiding anything. 3 reasons have been given for keeping this formatting- it helps users who choose to set date preferences, it is an agreed-upon policy, it does no harm. If you think these aren't relevant that is nothing more than your opinion. I see no point in continuing this debate if all you choose to do is demand that it must take place on your terms and make snide comments at people who refuse to frame the debate in the way you prefer. Lurker (said · done) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the article 27 November in any way further anyone's general understanding of the article topic?

It doesn't but it's a convention. I quite agree that date wikilinking is confusing, and in fact when I first came to Wikipedia I found it quite annoying as it took me a while to figure out the date links had nothing to do with the article in question - but a guideline is a guideline, it represents community consensus, and just because you personally don't happen to like it is no reason to engage in revert wars when your preferred (minority) option is resisted by other editors. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

So we're all helpless victims of our own guidelines? I can't tell you what a crappy argument that makes. If users only spent half as much time actually improving this article as enforcing guideline fundamentalism on it, we wouldn't even have to suggest that it needs any reviewing. Peter ^Isotalo 15:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "helpless victims of our own guidelines" is meaningless unless you assume that the guidelines are wrong (in which case, why not try to get them changed). You have constantly refused to show the slightest respect for anyone else's opinion- instead you paint a picture where you are the only person trying to improve this article and everyone else is simply slavishly following rules. You seem to have no concept of the fact that someone apart from you can have a valid opinion on the formatting issue. You need to discuss the issue rather than simply dismissing anyone who disagrees with you. Lurker (said · done) 19:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We're all the beneficiaries of our own guidelines, too. I still can't tell what benefit there would be from removing the wikilinks. Are you now going to spend some time improving this article then, or is that rhetoric only for other users? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote 75% of the article content and brought in the vast majority of the references. Peter ^Isotalo 16:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

...does that mean you want to claim owernship of it? If so, then maybe you should reconsider the purpose and philosophy of Wikipedia. –panda (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And of course my point wasn't that you hadn't improved it in the past, only that you were also spending time in efforts other than improving it, and in particular spending such time chastising other users for spending such time. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the guideline fanaticism isn't improving the article one bit. Otherwise I wouldn't spend time on it. But I would be very glad to see if panda could get around to formulating some of those reference claims he made so I could actually work on the problem. Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Try re-reading the thread just above this one then. –panda (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on! I can't believe you're having a revert war over something as trivial as whether access dates on references should be linked or not. May I suggest a duel in the dawn to resolve the issue?

Peter, it doesn't really make the article appreciably worse to have them linked. Lurker, your decision to slap Peter with a template and keep reverting was in poor taste. While no one owns the article, respecting the opinions of the main author of an article is basic courtesy, especially over such a minor detail with no real impact on either accuracy or reader experience. Even though the guidelines say so, it is really just an excuse for a deficiency in the MediaWiki software and (as has been noted) can be confusing for readers. henrik•talk 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning people they have broken a guideline is not in poor taste- it stops them being blocked. And to not restore the content they delete is rewarding edit warring and encouraging edits that show disregard for consenus. Lurker (said · done) 18:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly. Nowhere did I say the warning was a problem, but slapping a template on a regular user is unlikely to be helpful. A polite note will probably be more productive. It is the responsibility of all editors to work towards deescalating conflicts and avoid behavior that exacerbates it. henrik•talk 20:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Henrik, if Peter would like to be treated with respect, then he needs to treat other editors with respect. Simply stating that he's written 75% of the article and then attacking other editors who ask for references, making snide remarks at editors with differing opinions, and blasting a book which doesn't include info that he wants only shows that he has no respect for other editors who criticize any aspect of this article. Peter could have simply gone and found some references, like most people would do. Instead, he chose to argue, complain, deride, discredit, exaggerate, etc. Anyway, you're welcome to try deescalating the conflict here by helping to resolve the issues I've brought up since it appears that he plans to ignore them. –panda (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What I said definitely applies to Peter too, but treating other editors with respect isn't and shouldn't be conditional on their good behavior. He poked me first simply isn't an acceptable defense around here. henrik•talk 07:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you defending Peter or not? Since your comments seem to be primarily directed at everyone but Peter. The only editor who has been disrespectful here that I can see has been Peter, so who are you directing your comment at? Besides his comments here, have you also seen his personal attacks on my talk page? –panda 17:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some element of that, since I've collaborated with Peter before and respect him as a good article writer. But had I thought that only Peter was at fault here, I would have said so. I don't think there is much high ground to stand on though. Frankly, you're both being stubborn and making every point a battleground instead of trying to work together. henrik•talk 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a style guideline, which is part of achieving WP:FA status. So if working towards the WP:WIAFA criteria to maintain the article's FA status is being stubborn, then you should consider that it is at least working in the best interest of the article. Explicitly working against WP:MOS by making every point into a battleground is not in the best interest of the article, and defending that kind of behavior simply because you've worked together with Peter on other articles only encouraging editors to disregard consensus. –panda 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

As Peter has pointed out earlier, the MOS is a style guideline (with guideline being the operative word) - not a detailed document that must be upheld in every aspect everywhere (even in featured articles). As it says right on the top: "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.". It would be better if you could argue why the article would be better with your suggestions, rather than to just quote guidelines. henrik•talk 17:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, considering the guidelines are based on consensus, it would be better if you/Peter could argue why the article should not follow the guidelines instead of ignoring consensus. Especially considering "Wikipedia works by building consensus." –panda 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Pushing an interpretation of a guideline with no support other than citations of said guidelines has little to do with respecting consensus. Valid arguments have been provided for why the date linking in this case doesn't add anything to the article, and one of the defining aspects of a Wikipedia guideline has been shown to be in conflict with this particular aspect of the guidelines. The only supporter of the date linking here that made an honest attempt to reply to my question about how this application actually benefited the article rather frankly admitted that it really had no point other than to enforce the guidelines. Peter ^Isotalo 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There have also been 3 arguments (listed above by Lurker) for keeping the dates linked and only one argument for removing it that I can see. So what were the "valid arguments" that you are referring to? Nor have you answered yet how removing the links benefit Wikipedia. –panda 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The arguments so far is that the dates have absolutely nothing to do with the article topic and their only relevance is to an aspect of the process of referencing the article, e.i. a form of self-reference. That means they don't lead anyone to any higher understand of anything even remotely related to Swedish. Lurker claims that they do no harm, but that's somewhat beside the point since they don't actually don't do any good either. The rest of the arguments are really just different ways of saying "the guidelines say so". Simply counting the ways they have been reworded doesn't make the point more valid. Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

For the billionth time (not by me, of course): Dates are wikilinked so that the MediaWiki software will render them according to user preferences. I have my own preferences set so that dates are displayed day-month; e.g., the above reference to the "November 27" article appears to me as "27 November." As the guidelines say, all full dates should be wikilinked so that these preferences can be given effect. I don't see what is hard to understand about this. --Tkynerd 13:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about dates that indicate that Anonymous Wikipedian X looked at a webpage. It has absolutely nothing with what the intent of the guidelines, which is to link in-prose dates. You're focusing on the letter, not the spirit, of the law.

I should also point out that it's somewhat narrow-minded to assume that everyone should have to fiddling with their preferences so that a few thousand wikiaficionados can have every single full date in Wikipedia linked. Peter ^Isotalo 14:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the guidlelines are not intended for only linking in-prose dates. The guideline is intended to allow users to decide how dates are displayed. Allowing them to have some dates displayed according to their preferences and not others would be crazy. Why should users be allowed to decide how some dates are displayed but have other dates foisted on them? Consistency is a good thing. Lurker (said · done) 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, all!

Would everybody calm down a bit? I've been encouraged by Panda to join the discussion. Before I start, I would just like to rebut one of the statements regarding the guidelines above; that they say that "all full dates should be wikilinked". They don't. They say "Full dates, and days and months, are normally (my bolding) autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking.".

The word "all" is not present - at least where I looked (and I used the link that was provided).

This guideline is partly contradicted by another guideline: "Link to one of this pages only if it is likely to deepen the reader's understanding of a topic". This indicates to me that if links are not relevant, then (maybe) "normally" doesn't apply.

My impression is that the software authors have confused two good functions: Linking and Date-formatting. The key phrase above is "as for linking". Linking connects two articles that are meaningful to connect. Date-formatting allows users to have dates displayed according to their preferences (if any).

What if we could separate these functions? There must be a way to do that. Look at the ISBN function. It's automatically creating a link to a special page, without one having to use double square-brackets. In the case of dates, the problem is probably that it's hard for the software to correctly identify a date, as it can be entered in many ways, and, in some cases, something that isn't a date could mistakenly be identified as an ISO date. So why don't we help the software along a bit? Let's be creative. Could there be "wiki-tags" - those that start with a < and end with a >, I don't remember their names - defined for this purpose? It could look like this: <usdate>January 15, 2001</usdate>, or like this: <isodate>2001-01-15</isodate>. Both would display the date according to the user's set preference, if any, otherwise as entered. Does anybody know if this is in an way feasible? (Or if tags don't work then maybe templates?) This way dates could be formatted according to everybody's pleasure, without having them linked to the date article - unless double square-brackets are also present.

As you might have guessed, I'm inclined to agree with Peter Isotalo and Henrik, links (in their original meaning) should be relevant to the article to be meaningful. As for the arguments for linking all dates, A) it helps users who choose to set date preference, B) it is an agreed-upon policy, and C) it does no harm, I would say that A) is a valid argument, but the function could possibly be achieved in the way described above, B) policies and guidelines are subjects of change, if a new consensus can be reached, and C) it actually does harm: it clutters articles with links, so that relevant ones will be harder to discriminate from the less relevant ones, and it creates links from date articles to zillions of articles, which makes it harder to find those in which the date has a relevant meaning.

So, step 1: Is this a good idea? Step 2: Does anybody know of a software guru who can assert if this is feasible? Step 3: Could we agree on a new consensus? LarRan 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A drawback of internet communications is that small conflicts easily escalate into much larger ones. A lot of the small cues we use to understand the intent and meaning behind other peoples comment are in the form of body language, which written communications lack. I'm pretty sure that if we all sat in the same room, it wouldn't take more than a few minutes to decide whether dates should be linked and no one would be particularly upset. Sometimes the best you can do is to try to take a step back and laugh at the silliness :)

However, modifying the MediaWiki software to fix the bug that dates must be linked in order for auto-formatting to work is probably not practical to resolve the dispute - I don't expect that is something that could be fixed for months, even on a fairly optimistic time schedule. henrik•talk 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LarRan, I find your argument a bit silly, especially your point C. It only takes one click on a link to learn what's typically at an article titled, e.g., November 27, and once you've done it it's easy to ignore date links, even while paying attention to others. I do it all the time. So I don't see date links as "harmful." As to point B, it's true that "policies and guidelines are subjects of change [sic]," but in this case I'm not aware of any movement in that direction, and even if there were, it would not be relevant to any argument until a consensus was reached to actually change the policy or guideline in question. As to point A, your argument here is kind of silly too: it's easy to speculate about what the MediaWiki software could or should do, if only it worked the way we want it to, but right now it works the way it works and we have to live with those limitations. I agree with your analysis and I don't particularly think wikilinking is a good way to handle date formatting (although handling it in another way would require some kind of special markup for dates, which adds to the body of what editors need to be familiar with -- also not ideal), but for immediate purposes there's nothing we can do about that. So for now, full dates should be linked. --Tkynerd 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I find links which lead to nowhere relevant mildly annoying, and I know of several users who have said they found the date links confusing. A change in consensus often start like this. A group of editors decide that a certain guideline doesn't really help them improve the article, so they decide to do without it. Later, they bring it up on the policy pages: "hey, we've managed to write a perfectly fine article while not doing this or that, and we think it's not really a helpful guideline" and the policy is discussed and changed. And with all due respect, the number of users who actually set the date preference to something non-standard is minuscule compared to the total number of readers (who see no benefit from the linking), and probably also small compared to the number of readers that get confused by the unnecessary links. henrik•talk 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. One of the basic complaints about Wikipedia I get from pepole I know in real life is (who aren't Wikipedians) is that of over-linking. Peter ^Isotalo 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand the purpose of user date prefs. The "number of users who actually set the date preference to something non-standard" is not the point; the point is that there are multiple standards, and user date prefs permit users to see dates in the (usually standard) format they prefer. I have my prefs set so that dates display, e.g., 3 December 2007, because that's my preference; it also happens to be standard in many English-speaking countries, even though it is not standard in the country that I live in and that also tends to dominate the English Wikipedia. Another point is that user date prefs permit the consistent display of dates (to whatever format the user's date prefs are set; if the user doesn't make any changes, it will probably be the December 3, 2007 format, IINM) regardless of how they are entered in wikitext by the editor. [[December 3]], [[2007]] will display for me as 3 December 2007 even though that's not how it was entered. Delinking dates puts the burden on the editors of a given article to use a consistent date format (and to agree on one, in the face of competing standard formats! How well is that likely to work?). --Tkynerd 04:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tkynerd, you may find my C argument silly, but I, on the other hand, find the urgent need of date-formatting a bit exaggerated. I, for one, have no problem understanding November 27, though I mostly write that date as 27 November. I guess that goes for all of us. As for ISO dates, they are edited with dashes, while "US dates" (when entered as numbers only) are edited with slashes. There shouldn't be a problem there either. And, also, you addressed only half of my C argument: what about the zillion of articles that link to the date articles? How do you identify those in which the date really has a relevant meaning - e.g. 9/11?

And I don't agree with what you say: "for now full dates should be linked". As I mentioned, the guidelines do not say that. They say that they should normally be linked. (No-one has contradicted me on that so far.) Thus there must be situations where they shouldn't be linked, right? Which situations would that be, in your opinion? LarRan 04:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I did miss the part of your argument that said that linking all dates makes it hard (or really, impossible) to distinguish relevant links to dates. However, that really amounts to repeating the argument that the MediaWiki software should not use wikilinking for date formatting, and while we're in agreement on that point, there's nothing we can do about it. In addition, I have a hard time thinking of any situation where a date link would actually be relevant. To answer your last question, I cannot think of any situation where it would be undesirable to link full dates. It's entirely possible that "normally" in the guideline is simply a weasel word, although I don't know that; I think it's a mistake to attach too much significance to it. Also, you say: I, for one, have no problem understanding November 27, though I mostly write that date as 27 November. I guess that goes for all of us. I, for one, have no problem ignoring date links while paying attention to others. I guess that goes for all of us. Finally, you had nothing to say about the other benefit provided by date linking, which is consistency in date formats. What method would you use to accomplish that in this article without date linking? --Tkynerd 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You see, you too are confusing the functions linking and date-formatting. I have nothing against consistency in date-formats. What method would I use? Well, I suggested a change in the software (which can be read above), separating the functions. Henrik said on my talkpage that he too thinks it's a software deficiency. If it could be done, we could have consistency in date-formatting and still link only those dates that we consider relevant to link. How does one promote ideas to wikipedia, do you know? It must be possible to accomplish that. After all, man went to moon in 1969. LarRan (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "confusing" anything; I'm just acknowledging the reality of how the MediaWiki software works right now, which is what we have to deal with right now. If you want to submit this as a feature request, go here. However, given the obvious benefits of date formatting, as long as the software works the way it does now, full dates should be linked, unless there is an extremely strong reason not to do so. I'm waiting to hear of any such reasons why dates should not be linked on this page. --Tkynerd (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines say "full dates should normally be linked". Don't cut out the word "normally". It indicates that it doesn't mean all, especially as it's contradicted by another guideline. The arguments have been listed above. So let's stick to the guidelines. LarRan (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is: If the guidelines say something should normally be done, then there should be a good reason to deviate from that guideline -- i.e., a good reason why a given article, or portion of an article, is not "normal" and should be treated differently. I've seen nothing yet to convince me that this article should not follow this guideline. So I agree: let's stick to the guidelines! --Tkynerd (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I've started a thread concerning the date formatting dispute at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Linking full dates. Peter ^Isotalo 13:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a script that unlinks all date fragments (solitary years, solitary months etc). I think full dates should not be linked either but the script leaves full dates linked in accordance with guidance. It is easy to use. Feel free to use it directly or take pieces of code from it. Ask at my talk page if you want to know more. Lightmouse (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. I'm not giving a 3O, but I'm putting the following here, since it was originally on the 3O page:

Dispute over statistics about languages spoken in Finland, and is the data applicable from 2004 vs 2006
Whether or not "first language" can be implied from the statistics (pro and con)
How much of the Swedish language article needs referencing and
Incomplete references (e.g., is it sufficient to only include the name of an encyclopedia and article for an online version of an encyclopedia?)

If someone on this page could clarify some of these points, that'd be helpful to whomever gives a 3O here. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's break this up into two separate issues:

panda has simply misunderstood how population figures are normally stated. Any article dealing with the current size of a certain population always gives the latest updated stats, usually with the term "as of X". The problem is that panda has interpreted this to mean that one should state the initial year when the approximate current population reached that figure. In this case, the population has gone from 5.53% in 2004 to 5.49% 2006, and considering that the article doesn't even state the population at more than one decimal, either way the figure would be 5.5%. Furthermore, panda has assumed that population statistics for languages in Finland are based only on language profeciency, not first language. This is easily refuted by checking out alternative (but less specific) sources like this and by the simple logical conclusion that his assumption would also mean that whoever is proficient in one language is automatically excluded from being proficient in another, i.e. that every single resident of Finland speaks only one language and nothing else.
How much of the article that needs referencing has yet to be revealed by panda. He's asked for a specific page reference of Barfortabarn, and I've replied that I don't have the book at hand and thought it enough with just a reference to the title (since Ferlin is so well-known).

Other than that, I've told several times that he's perfectly welcome to specify exactly what he feels needs fixing. If I have missed previous specifications in the heat of the argument, I urge panda to repeat them in this thread so they can be discussed and dealt with. Peter ^Isotalo 18:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

In case it isn't obvious, the two editors who are having this dispute are User:Peter Isotalo and I. Regarding the stats, according to WP:DATE#Precise language and WP:ASOF, the info should be more precise than just a general statement. We don't know if 5.5% of the population will continue to be Swedish speakers in the future and the 5.5% has only been true since 2004. Also, as stated above, the stats do not claim the language listed is the first language so adding that is WP:OR unless another reference can be found that supports it. Currently, there is no other reference in the text than the Statistics Finland stats. Regarding what needs referencing, besides the previous issue with Swedish being a first language for 5.5% of the population, that's already been stated. But this is just a repeat of the thread above. –panda (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this and then this and please don't bring up the population issue again unless you read these stats through in their entirety. I'm tired of trying to explain things that you're unwilling to accept simply because you're ignorant of them or because you can't be bothered with doing anything resembling decent research.

I'm taking a wikivacation. I'll be happy to reply to any other relevant reference claims you might have when I get back. Peter ^Isotalo 18:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you just posted some references instead of complaining about how the article doesn't need more references, this wouldn't be a conflict. The Virtual Finland reference claims that in 2003 5.5% of the population are Swedish speakers while in 2004 5.6% were Swedish speakers. At the same time, Statistics Finland contradicts that (2003 = 5.55% ~ 5.6%, 2004 = 5.53% ~ 5.5%). And the pdf only gives number for 1900 and 2006, which are identical to the Statistics Finland stats. So now what? At least they establish the %s are for Swedish speakers in Finland, which can equate to those whose first language is Swedish. But the actual number is questionable and depends on which reference is considered the most reliable. I would personally go with the numbers from Statistics Finland, since they were updated the most recently, use the PDF to establish that the numbers are for Swedish speaking Finns, and possibly comment on the contradictory numbers from Virtual Finland in a footnote. –panda (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Perhaps I am dense, but I see no conflict in these numbers. All references agree that currently about 5.5% of Finns are Swedish speakers and the minor variations that exist could be explained by rounding alone. Using the latest available figure ("As of 2006") and noting that the percentage has declined over the years (The virtual-finland ref has a history) should be sufficient. henrik•talk 07:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating "As of 2006" for something that has been true as of 2004 is simply incorrect and a misrepresentation of the data. It's like stating "As of 2006, Norway is independent of Sweden." Or for that matter, replace 2006 with 1906, 1907, 1908 or any year after 1905 when it actually became independent of Sweden. –panda 15:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Statistics that vary over the years are almost always reported that way. It is a way to alert the reader that the figure is dynamic. You are correct about the Norway example, but that is a discrete event which happened once. Had the status of Norway changed from month to month, "As of" would have been appropriate there too. henrik•talk 15:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Stats that vary over the years should be reported accurately and precisely. As of is a method for dealing with statements that date quickly. We really don't know what the stats will be for 2007 or later, and with the current trend, it is likely to decrease. In this case, the statistic 5.5% was true in 2004, 2005, and 2006. So stating "as of 2006", although accurate, would not be precise. Don't mix accuracy with precision. It is a part of the WP:MOS to be as precise as possible, according to WP:DATE#Precise language and WP:DATED. You may also want to see WP:ASOF, which gives a list of many articles that use the "As of" statement for stats and other statements. –panda 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The 5.5% stats have now been updated. I removed first language as that has an ambiguous meaning. It should be sufficient to state "Swedish speakers", since the Virtual Finland article even just calls them "Finland's Swedish-speaking population" or "Swedish-speaking Finns". –panda 16:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather than listing here what needs references since it may then be difficult to find the exact location in the article, I'm just going to start tagging the article with {{fact}} tags so that its more obvious what exactly needs referencing. Please help find suitable references! –panda 16:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means, though it would of course be even more helpful to insert references directly. I don't know enough about the subject to comment on your tagging, so I'll leave that to other editors. henrik•talk 17:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can help find references later. It makes more sense to tag the article first so that multiple editors can help find references for the article. You don't need to be an expert in the area to search for references about a specific sentence. You just need to find a reference that supports the sentence. So you can help as well. –panda 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're in danger of going overboard with the tagging, fun as it may be. Do you really doubt the truthfulness of, for example, 'Swedish in Sweden is considered the "main language" and its use is officially recommended for local and state government'? henrik•talk 23:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see is a reference substantiating that it is "officially recommended" for local and state government. I'm not questioning that it is the main language. FYI, tagging the article is a major headache, especially considering how much is unsourced. It would be more helpful if someone took the referencing seriously. Also, it's not clear to me how large or small the relevant text is from Crytal's book so yes, it needs page numbers, even if it's only one page. If you know what it is, then please add it/them instead of removing citation requests. –panda 00:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with overly tagging and putting notices on articles is that it reduces the usability for the readers, which should always be the main focus for us. As for tagging being a headache, why not take it slowly and do one section at a time, giving other editors enough time to respond to that section before moving on to the next? That would reduce your workload, reduce aggravation and still allow the readers to have a clean article. We're not on a deadline here. In the mean time, I'll refer you to WP:CRAP for articles in even more dire need of improvement. henrik•talk 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been tagging by section, in case you didn't notice. Since this article is currently considered an FA, it is kind of urgent. Either that, or it should be removed from FA status in the mean time. If you're interested in being helpful instead of only critical, I've intentionally left some easy refs that anyone could find and add. –panda 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the short story is that because I am skeptical that the recent edits actually improves the article I think it is helpful to discuss them - especially since you've made some questionable decisions before regarding this article and has driven the main author to a wikibreak. With that said, I'll leave you alone for a few days to give you a chance to actually improve the article. henrik•talk 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And what questionable edits are you referring to? Please do tell. Also, I don't know why you're accusing me of having "driven the main author to a wikibreak" when he was edit warring with other editors as well. Anyway, you and Peter seem to think the burden is on me to find the sources for the article and that's actually not the case. As the primary author, Peter should be helping with this instead of complaining about it, since he knows the most about why he added certain text and where the info came from. If you have any interest in this topic besides being critical, then you would also help instead of only criticizing. If you have specific questions about any of the citation requests, feel free to ask and I will be glad to elaborate. If you question my motives, you're welcome to list the article in WP:FAR. If they say the article doesn't need any changes, then you've proven me wrong and I'll gladly leave the article alone. –panda 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to tags

Other than those tags that have been dealt with by clarification or extra referencing, there are some the merit of which I'd like to address. Here are the replies sorted by section:

"Classification": The entire section is supported by Crystal. The statement "more recent" is relative, general information that doesn't make any claims about exactly when this new approach was taken.
"History": I see no motivation for any of the tags in this section and no indication of any attempt to check even any reference whatsoever. The implication that the last sentence is weasel wording I don't understand at all. It's merely a disclaimer that warns the reader not to take subdivisions too literally, as this languages simply never change over the course of just a year.
"Official status": Questioning that Swedish is recommended at a gov't level doesn't strike me as having any point other than adding footnotes.
"Vocabulary": Questioning that -a, the one basic verb ending in Swedish (the exceptions mostly being extremely old and basic verbs like gå, stå or dö), as original research makes absolutely no sense. There is basically no other way to create a new verb in Swedish other than to add an -a (except by making a compound with one of the exceptional verbs).
"Immigrant variants": The section as a whole is based on Kotsinas and the footnote covers the information. The status of Rinkeby Swedish as a general term for all types of immigrant Swedish is hardly something that one ought to demand a separate citation for. Other terms exist, but it's not really relevant to this article.

As for the request to clarify the origins of a boy with two Swedish parents, I can't help but wondering what exactly needs clarifying. Peter ^Isotalo 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removing citations requests simply because you don't see the purpose of them: From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." It's not my job to find references for text I never added. Citation requests should not be removed until a citation is found by someone. The editor who added the text most likely knows the source and should add the missing citations to conform to WP:V.
Classification: There are 2 paragraphs, and each paragraph has plenty of statements that need citations for verifiability. It's currently not clear that all of the text came from the same reference and it needs to be shown somehow in the text, not here in the talk page. If the entire text came from a single source, that can be made clear by a sentence in the very beginning claiming this. The same applies to the rest of the sections in the article that are based on a single source. :* History: Dates should be substantiated with references since they're not common knowledge, they make the text verifiable, and they help give references for interested readers who would like to find out more about the topic.
Re: weasel words. See WP:WEASEL. The text "the system of subdivisions used in this article is the most commonly used by Swedish linguists" needs attribution. How can the text claim it is the most commonly used with no reference to support this?
Official status: I dispute that it is "officially recommended". It might be unofficially recommended or unofficially understood that everything be in Swedish but I've never heard that it is "officially recommended". Until there is a reference backing that claim, it is a disputed statement.
Vocabulary

I see you just reverted the entire text and managed to remove the wiki-link I added. Maybe you should try editing the text instead of reverting in the future? Your reverts only create a a hostile and inappropriate editing climate.
Who claims that new Swedish verbs are created by adding -a to an existing noun? There are probably more examples of it not being true than of it being true, such as "stola" from "en stol", "skoa" from "en sko", "sänga" from "en säng", "hunda" from "en hund", etc. Just because you've found a few examples that fit the case doesn't make it true. That's pure WP:OR unless there is a reference for it. Also "bila" doesn't mean to drive recreationally, it is much closer to "to drive around", "to drive", or "to travel by car" (the last defn being the one given by Lexin).
The long text example specifically states "very long" and "produktionsstyrningssystemsprogramvaruuppdatering" is not very long in comparison to "nagellacksborttagningsmedel". Nor does it make any sense at all in English the way it is currently written.

Immigrant variants: I would agree that Rinkeby Swedish has to do with Rinkeby and Stockholm. If you now claim that it is also associated with Malmö and Göteborg, then a reference is needed. The text also needs to clarify why the survey is even mentioned in that section. What does it have to do with immigrant variants and why is it relevant there? What does it have to do with Rinkeby Swedish being "surprisingly similar to variants in geographically distant immigrant-dominated suburbs", since the previous paragraph claims that Rinkeby Swedish is also for immigrant variants in Malmö and Göteborg. To me, the author is claiming Rinkeby Swedish to only in Stockholm and the so-called variants in geographically distant immigrant-dominated suburbs are the ones in Malmö and Göteborg. (The text contradicts itself and should be corrected with references that support the correct version.) What does the boy with two Swedish parents have to do with anything? Is that supposed to be somehow related to how long they have lived in Sweden? (It's possible to take as few as 3 years in Sweden to get Swedish citizenship, so being Swedish doesn't say anything about how long someone has lived in Sweden.) Was he speaking Rinkeby Swedish also? What was his native language? That section is supposed to be about immigrant variants of Swedish but it appears to be more off topic. AFAIK, the boy's native language could have been Swedish, in which case, it really has nothing to do with immigrant variants.
"high literacy rate": That's a weasel word. How much is "high"? There is in fact a reference for the 99% literacy rate which I can add when I find time.

Removing citation requests and reverting text made in good faith without any reasonable rationale other than indicating "I prefer my text" only makes me believe that you're claiming ownership of the page and that you don't want to find the refs, especially since you chose to remove them without asking first why the text was tagged. I would encourage you to put the tags back that you didn't find references for to show that you're acting in good faith and not claiming ownership. As the author of the text, you should be adding the references according to WP:V.

From my stand-point, we're not progressing. I would suggest listing this article in Featured Article Review to get comments from the WP community on the FA status of this article if you would like to continue argue whether or not the article needs references. –panda 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving articles is a collaborative process. I've honored many of your requests right off the bat and claiming that no progress is being made is not particularly fair of you. You should be prepared to accept at least a few rounds of discussion before threatening to go to FAR to be vindicated. I've stuck to discussing the article and the accuracy issues and I think it would be prudent if you didn't try to resort to characterizing my actions as hostile.

"History": Every single date, especially not that are given as entire centuries, doesn't require separate citations. The division of Swedish into these historical periods can be referenced in even the most basic sources on Swedish. Check Pettersson, if anything. If you wish to argue on principle that there's no scholarly consensus, then you should at least try to give an example.
"Vocabulary"

The article makes only one claim, which is that -a is "very productive" as a way to create new verbs. It's a claim that is about as trivial as claiming that ”plural endings in English are often made with the ending -s". All the examples you've provided of this not being true are actually examples of the formula noun + -a. I don't understand your reasoning here.
The new long word example you introduced could never, ever be used in a normal sentence. It's more akin to flaggstångsknoppsreparatör ("flagpole knob repairman" for those who don't speak Swedish), a common example that is more or less fictional. The point here is not flabbergast non-Swedish speakers by giving completely outlandish examples, but trying to illustrate at least moderately feasible long-ish compounds that differ from how English handles words like this. As far as I remember, I didn't come up with the two example I reverted to, but I do consider them to be very good. As for your complain that the English translation makes no sense, could you expand on that a bit?

"Immigrant variants": "Rinkeby Swedish" is to the best of my knowledge the only reasonably common English term for variants of Swedish spoken by immigrants and their children. If not, maybe there can be a rewording to point out that Malmö and Gothenburg also have their particular forms of immigrant dialects. The relevant passage (including the small change that I made) says that Rinkeby Swedish may be spoken by the children of both immigrants and non-immigrants. I should also stress that all the boys in this case had Swedish as their native language, though those with immigrant parents were most likely multilingual. That the parents were Swedish in this context means that they were not immigrants. If you want clarification in this issue, I really recommend reading Kotsinas yourself. Rinkeby Swedish is a very complicated topic.
I've removed the comment on literacy altogether since it's not necessary for the text and since it only appears to breed contention.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of changes being made, when you state that you've removed something, please add a diff so it's clear what you're talking about. Reverting is always hostile unless there is a good reason for it, which you have yet to give.

Stating "You should be prepared to accept at least a few rounds of discussion before threatening to go to FAR to be vindicated" seems to at least indicate that you agree the article needs more references. So please start adding them.

Classification: Still needs something to make it clear that the entire text (2 paragraphs) is based on a single reference. The same applies to the entire History section, Standard Swedish, and Sounds.
History: If what you say is true, then add the references to prove it.
Finland Swedish: Completely lacking any citations and could use at least one. Why did you remove the cited text with stats about the percent of Swedish speakers in Finland today/2006? How do you know Swedish was the dominant language is Finland until 1917? The Statistics Finland numbers contradict this (in 1900, only 12.89% of the population were Swedish speakers).
Vocabulary:

What was your reason for reverting the text? If you only wanted to replace produktionsstyrningssystemsprogramvaruuppdatering, then you could have done that without a revert.
No matter what your personal opinion is about making new verbs, the entire sentence is still WP:OR until there is a reference that supports it. I've already stated why I contest that statement.
produktionsstyrningssystemsprogramvaruuppdatering translated as "production controller system software update" is not the best way to translate the text since it has to do with process control or product management, not "production controller", which doesn't make sense in this context. So it is better to replace it with something that makes more sense. If you're only interested in long word examples that can actually be used, then why not use something that may be used, such as uppehållstillståndsansökningsfrågor (resident permit application questions), or a real example that is used, such as rusdrycksförsäljningsförordning ("intoxicating drink sales ordinance", which means the ordinance for the sale of alcoholic beverages).

Immigrant variants:

The text needs a reference to substantiate that Rinkeby Swedish is in fact used for immigrant variants of Swedish outside of Stockholm, especially since your own reference in the 2nd paragraph (Kotsinas) seems to contradict this. There is nothing wrong with simply calling it "immigrant variants" or "immigrant dialect" instead of Rinkeby Swedish until a ref can be found.
dialects vs sociolects: needs refs to support this.
It's not my job to read Kotsinas since I didn't add the text. Since you've read it and apparently added the text, its your job to clarify the text until it makes sense to someone who reads it for the first time. It doesn't matter what you write about it in the talk page. Try editing the text or proposing text changes instead. How do you know that stating both parents are Swedish means they are not immigrants? You're Swedish and you're an immigrant. Being one does not necessarily exclude the other. Assuming so if the text does not state it is WP:OR. If the text does state it, then make it clear.

Barfotabarn still needs page numbers since it is a quote from a book. The text should also be quoted. The year in the Sources section and the text also don't match. If you copied it from a web site, why not just add the website as the reference instead?

–panda 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts are only as hostile as your perceive them. As for additional references, I have added them, so don't imply that it's not enough without examining the diffs first.

"Classification": The section is referenced. There is no guideline specifying the number of footnotes require per section, paragraph or sentence.
"Finland Swedish": That Swedish was a dominant language in Finland in the 19th century is extremely basic knowledge. It's not the kind of thing that requires a citation. The reason that I removed the statistics is quite simply because it was a repetition.
"Vocabulary": If want to introduce new words, you're welcome to do so. However, your claim about the -a-endings is entirely spurious and has nothing whatsoever to do with original research. The fact that you cited three examples that conformed to the statement as something that was supposed to contradict it is quite illustrative.
"Immigrant variants": If "Rinkeby Swedish" is such an inappropriate term, why have you spent so many edits working on Rinkeby Swedish without ever raising the issue there? As for Kotsinas, I know what I'm saying because I have read the text and I've cited it very clearly. If you're provided a reference the onus is on you to read it if you want to challange the statement. That's how verifiability works.
Barfotabarn is clearly cited in the sources. It does not require a page number since the reference is extremely obvious.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Reverts are only as hostile as your [sic] perceive them." Is that why WP:EQ states Avoid reverts whenever possible? A reminder that you have yet to explain why you reverted.
Classification: That section has a single reference for two paragraphs and it is not clear that that one reference applies to both paragraph. Explaining in the talk page does not make up for this deficiency.
Finland Swedish: You would like to continue to claim Swedish was the dominant language in Finland when I've already given you a statistic that shows that it isn't? (See previous comment) In fact, look at the Virtual Finland ref and you'll see a second reference that shows that it can't be true. That text seems to be WP:OR.
Vocabulary: The new words text is still WP:OR until you can find a citation to prove otherwise.
Immigrant variants: Talking about edits to the Rinkeby Swedish article is just a red herring since we're talking about this article. I've already told you what is wrong with the text here, so it's time to just fix it.
Barfotabarn: It's a quote and those need complete references, which includes page numbers. If "the reference is extremely obvious", then go find the book and return with the page numbers. If you've never actually looked in the book before, then it shouldn't be cited here as the source of the text.

You seem to still believe the article contains enough references to satisfy WP:V and that the references are complete enough. If that's the case, then prove it by putting this article up for review in WP:FAR. –panda 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Finland Swedish": Swedish wasn't dominant in terms of absolute numbers, but it's status. Even famous Finnish authors like Johan Runeberg, the author of the Finnish national anthem, were Swedish-speakers.
"Vocabulary": Texts aren't OR simply because you claim they are. Please be reasonable.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Finland Swedish: Prove it with a reference. Also, how can something have a dominant status but not be anywhere even close to being dominant in numbers? That text is misleading at best.
Vocabulary: Read WP:OR. Then prove your statement with a reference, otherwise remove it. It is a contested statement and needs to be verified.

–panda 01:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Finland Swedish": I'm sure you're aware that Finland was Swedish since the 13th century until it was conquered by Russia in the early 19th century. The first major settlements in Finland were by Swedish-speakers and the entire nobility spoke Swedish, which meant that the administrative language was Swedish. It gradually changed after Finland became more independent under Russian rule, but it wasn't really until the early 20th century that Finnish became properly represented as the majority language. It's certainly not the only example of a minority language dominating the cultural and political spheres.
"Vocabulary: Claiming that the statement is OR because it doesn't have a citation is like claiming that I need to cite a book on meteorology to claim that the sky is blue. Considering your second reply in this thread attempted to disprove the statement by citing examples that obviosuly confirmed it, it appears you have misunderstood this issue in much the same way that you misunderstood the gender terminology.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Finland Swedish: Once again, prove it with a reference.
Vocabulary: Sorry, I don't follow your comments. My examples obviously confirm that it isn't true as none of those words exist in Swedish. "it appears you have misunderstood this issue"

–panda 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Constructing three fictitious verbs with the formula discussed confirms absolutely nothing. It only confirms that those verbs don't exist. If anything, look at how bila and öla are formed. Your claims can't possibly contradict a statement that merely refers to a certain type of word formation as "productive". Peter ^Isotalo 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The text states "A very productive method for creating new verbs is the adding of -a to an existing noun." If it's so productive, then why doesn't it work for my examples? A contested statement needs a reference. –panda 02:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mutually intelligible?

The article claims that Swedish, Norwegian and Danish are mutually intelligible, but also that there are dialects of Swedish that are not intelligible to most Swedish speakers. I believe that the dialects are overemphasized in this article. To me, the regional variation in Sweden seems less than in England or in the Netherlands, and I find the uniformity over such large distances quite striking. As to Danish, most Swedes have tremendous problems making sense of the spoken language. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked the statement on mutual intellibility somewhat. I agree that spoken Danish can be quite difficult for Swedes to understand, but it's certainly not as different as languages like German or English. And it should be pointed out here that written Danish is certainly a lot easier to comprehend.

The dialect section has a rather long explanation on Swedish dialects where many aspects are discussed. Swedish is indeed a fairly uniform language compared to the examples you've given, but I'm not sure exactly how to reword it so that it would address your complaints. Do you have any suggestions? Peter ^Isotalo 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I recently made an adjustment to claims of mutual intellibility in the article about Norwegian. I am a native speaker of English but speak fluent Swedish and somewhat less than fluent Norwegian (I read and translate Danish but do not delude myself that I speak it.) All I did was add the words, "more or less" to the following: Together with Swedish and Danish, Norwegian forms a continuum of more or less mutually intelligible local and regional variants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertgreer (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed

Some months ago, I decided to encourage WPians not to use the autoformatting function, because it is dysfunctional in several key ways. The arguments appear in the archives of this talk page and elsewhere. A move signed by 85 WPians to ask Bugzilla to FIX the biggest problem—the entanglement with the linking functionality—has thus far failed; this is more reason to discourage its use and put up with the several major formattings for dates, just as we do the varieties of spelling.

I support moves here not to autoformat dates. Tony (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I share Tony's assessment and support the moves here on this. Lightmouse (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Then please have a debate in the appropriate place. This is the talk page for the Swedish language article. It is not the place to discuss changes to the manual of style. Do not use article talk pages as a soapbox. Lurker (said · done) 15:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go and reinsert the date links while there is a discussion going on. It is clear that there is significant opposition to them, not just from me and Peter, and reinserting them while a significant number of people think they make the article worse and the discussion is ongoing wont improve matters. henrik•talk 16:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The constructive thing to do if there is a dispute is to follow the MOS until a reason for not doing so can be provided. The MOS reflects consensus, if anyone wants not to follow it (or to change it), the burden is on them to build a consensus to do so. Lurker (said · done) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The MoS leaves room for interpretation and has been interpreted differently by many editors here. What you're doing by revert warring in this article and denying those interpretations is telling people they have to include instruction creep to counter your personal opinion in order to be allowed to choose their prefered article layout. I don't see what your actions have to do with either respecting consensus or building it. Peter ^Isotalo 07:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're doing by revert warring in this article and denying those interpretations... You are doign the same. Saying that everyone but you is revert warring is self-righteous. We are both revert warring- I think I have a reason to rv since following policy should be the default action unless a consensus to ignore the rule can be built. And other editors are restoring the dates while your actions seem unilateral. But I've requested protection to stop this revert war. to counter your personal opinion in order to be allowed to choose their prefered article layout It's not my personal opinion- it's consensus. As for your last statement, it doesn't deserve an answer, its rhetoric rather than constructive comment. Lurker (said · done) 16:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You know what's self-righteous? Going around articles you otherwise have no interest in improving forcing irrelevant layout standards on them. It's the kind of behavior that makes other editors think twice about whether it's worth writing articles for Wikipedia at all. Peter ^Isotalo 16:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Lurker, please stop. Peter has the full support of at least 4 other editors here so calling his actions unilateral makes no sense (but we've refrained from edit warring over it, instead discussing on the talk page). You're also imposing a strictness the MOS in no way supports, it is just a guideline, and the relevant part merely says that dates usually should be linked, not that they must. henrik•talk 16:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Henrik: Your comment clearly shows your bias. Why are you only asking Lurker to stop reverting when Peter is also reverting? You've also failed to mention the number of editors who have stated in this talk page that they support date linking. –panda (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, do keep in mind that the date formatting issue is hotly contested and rests on very selective reading of guidelines. It has opposed by a lot of editors in different venues and does not enjoy consensus support. The normal way of trying to convince others of a certain formatting option is to try to convince them, not to accuse them of being biased (or worse) as soon as they voice their opposition. If you encounter stiff opposition when it comes to subjective layout issues, it's usually prudent to revert to the status quo and re-think one's strategy. Try asking yourself whether this really is worth fighting for. Peter ^Isotalo 03:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have you asked "yourself whether this really is worth fighting for"? (I'm not the one reverting and edit warring.) –panda (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

panda, simply crying "no, you're a towel!" when confronted with complaints about one's behavior is not a convincing strategy. Peter ^Isotalo 03:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you answered the question yet? Is it really worth fighting for? –panda (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm going to stop arguing and roll up my sleeves and try to do something about bug 4582 since I'm a software developer by trade and I'm getting sick of the endless debate :) In the mean time, I'm in favor of letting the MoS and links be, and put our energies into other stuff. My opinion is that having the dates linked for a little while longer won't really hurt the articles and if walking away for now can reduce conflicts it's probably worthwhile. I hope you can agree.(I've posted a similar note to Peter's talk). henrik•talk 07:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I suppose. A toning down of the hostilities across the board would be helpful. Peter ^Isotalo 10:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent discussion has brought a really embarrassing problem to my attention. With the present date formatting (ISO-style), the very argument brought up by many of those who support auto formatting are in fact rendered pointless. Try logging out and looking at the footnote to see what I mean. If someone doesn't convert that to a less ambiguous format pretty soon, I will. Peter ^Isotalo 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's much more helpful if you could be more specific with what the problem is and could give an example of what you mean. –panda (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The dates are currently being displayed as YYYY-MM-DD to the overwhelming majority of our readers who don't happen to be registered users. Peter ^Isotalo 09:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the problem is...? –panda (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

We're supposed to avoid any ambiguity... Even the MoS recommends using "9 February 2007" or the likes instead of just digits. Peter ^Isotalo 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

I've made a Wikiquette alert concerning panda's behavior related to this article. You can find the report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Panda. Peter ^Isotalo 04:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Swedish language/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Colon

Swedish as a foreign language diplomas

Modifying reference system?

Date reversion

Third opinion

Reply to tags

Mutually intelligible?

Date autoformatting is sick and not being fixed

Wikiquette alert

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search