User talk:Jähmefyysikko

Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Whilst Kiev has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name Kyiv has recently become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject.^{[note 1][note 2]} However, a move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.

An RfC closed on 11 November 2020 discussion established the following guidance for whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:

• For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content.
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:

• From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
• From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.

Please read Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian names for further information.  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am generally aware of this controversy, although previously not with all the details. However, the changes here were not on the article text, but on the citations: diff. Surely the guideline does not imply that we should modify the titles of the references? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I don't know how I missed the context (twice). Sorry for the interruption, Greetings from Los Angeles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Cheers, Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Magnus III of Sweden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birger Magnusson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is not what we do when there is an unresolved move discussion on the talk page. Please never do anything like that again! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the move discussion is about the article title, and the article text itself can be improved during the discussion. I did reread MOS:FIRST, which states that If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, and acknowledge that to comply with that I should have left the ordinal there for the time being. However, there is also an exception to the above guideline given by MOS:FULLNAME, which recommends giving the full name in bold (which may not be the short name chosen for the title); in this case, that could be e.g. Magnus III Birgersson "Ladulås", if we include the ordinal. Whether Ladulås needs to be given in quotation marks is debatable. Regardless of the exact format of the first sentence, we should definitely include the names Magnus, Birgersson, and Ladulås, probably also 'Barnlock' in the introductory paragraph, as they all feature in most sources. Your revert removed some of that information from the lead. It would have been better to just restore the ordinal.

Perhaps we'll see after the move discussion whether we even need to include the ordinal number directly in the lede or only later in the article. Currently I don't see too many sources that call him Magnus III, and retaining it in such a prominent place seems like undue weight, especially when there is another tradition which calls him Magnus I Ladulås. (e.g. Britannica and SNL.no, both of which are written by subject-matter experts) And we currently do not have the sources to decide which numbering scheme is the "correct" one. Sources discussing this question would be useful. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no excuse for making any change at all to items where consensus currently is being sought at talk. It's called jumping the gun, diplomatically, and I trust you won't do that again, nor attempt to justify such behavior. That's what this is about here. The rest goes on the article's talk page, preferably later. I will be responding to that there. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).