User talk:Dohn joe

Hello, Dohn joe (cute name) and welcome to wikipedia! A lot of help and suggestions are available here. Also, I'll be glad to answer any questions or give any advice. I'm not any kind of official here, but I have been editing Wikipedia for several years. I got involved the same way you did: by reading something and saying "hey, wait a minute, that's wrong."

I was especially pleased to see you working on various aspects of the Point Loma articles. That's one of my main areas of interest on Wikipedia and I'm glad to have some company. Please continue to chime in on those articles whenever you have time; some of them are pretty bare bones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you have input from the main expert on Port Loma above. Mine will be somewhat redundant. As Melanie has said, we are glad to have another serious editor for the article, though she is "more serious" than I!

"Fauna" is pretty much a subtopic of geography. Or maybe "Fauna and flora" if it comes down to that. I can probably find references to support this if I am forced to, but I am too lazy right now! "Nature" is not a normal heading for this topic. But good marks for guessing! And even better ones for talking it over! Another positive sign of a good editor!

I object to "home of" as informal language and have changed it whenever I have found it. Other editors have not been so picky, I admit. But it is inelegant IMO. If I am lucky, I could probably find something in "Elements of Style" to support this contention.

I am on less solid ground with the wording of "population of." It just seemed like extra words to me. Not short. I would cite "Elements of Style" there as well. KISS. But if you really insist, I can hardly argue unless some other editor agrees.

I've forgotten the "ecologically sensitive" removal. It probably seemed unecessary. Some of the stuff we paraphrase comes from WP:RELY material, but is often phrased in WP:POV terms. I am sort of leery about everyone claiming that nearly everything is "ecologically sensitive", that all of their initiatives are "green," etc. etc. This is often unencyclopedic because it is overstatement; exaggeration. Has the state or county labeled it "ecologically sensitive" compared to x? Or just simply labeled it "ecologically sensitive" along with everything else in the county/area? So unless the focus of the article was ecological in intent, I would tend to omit it as a "throwaway" phrase. Nothing wrong with exploring this in a "Ecology of Point Loma" BTW with a summary here.

The Port Loma article is very mature for a neighborhood article. One of the best around. Most towns and few cities are as good. So talking about a forked article on "Ecology..." is very near facetiousness!

Again, thanks for the edits and the willingness to discuss changes. Glad to have you! Student7 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the location of the pushpin on the map in the Tijuana article - basically offshore from San Diego! I'm sorry to say I haven't a clue how maps work here. I wondered if the map was somehow generated automatically from the latitude and longitude, and I tried changing the lat/long to a slightly different version that I found online - the article lists 32 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds north and 117 degrees 2 minutes 0 seconds west, but online sources had 32 degrees 32 minutes 0 sec north and 117 degrees 1 minute 0 secs west. But my change had no effect on the location of the pin when I did a preview, so I didn't save the change. It must have something to do with that item in the infobox called "pushpin_map = Mexico" but I couldn't find any information about how it works.

So I have struck out on this one. I would suggest you post your query at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, where they have a way to request that a map be corrected. If you can't figure out the template, let me know and I'll give it a try. --MelanieN (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on further experimenting, when I made a drastic (and wrong) change in the latitude and previewed it, it DID move the pin. So it must have something to do with the lat/long. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the same thing is true of Ensenada, Baja California and Playas de Rosarito, Baja California. The map shows them too far north and too far west. In fact it shows them all in about the same place. Something must be tweaked with the Mexico pushpin map. We'll have to call in the map experts to figure out what. --MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the Map Workshop and asked for help. Let's see if they can figure it out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: somebody posted saying that he had fixed it, but it didn't solve the problem; all three cities are still offshore.--MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see - my computer was reading the cached version of the map instead of the current version. About Playas de Rosarito vs. Rosarito Beach, I see you have posted that question on the discussion page, that was the right thing to do; let's see what kind of response you get. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Complicated proposal?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn Joe, Actually, I didn't want to undo your entire edit, but I didn't know how to just undo part of it. These are the 2 points I wish to consider:

1. Where to put "replacement of "y'all" within a context". Should it go into "usage", where you had moved it? Maybe. But to me, the importance is more related to theory; no other pronoun behaves like this, so what does that mean? In fact, is "y'all" a pronoun, or is it a contraction of the pronoun "you", combined when contextually necessary with "all", which in this case, functions as something like a "collective"?

2. SNL/Chesterton material. What is the value of this? To me, its relevance is to the origin of "y'all". So I think this should go into "origin", where possible British roots of "y'all" are discussed. In fact, I think I'm going to move it there now.

Let me know what you think. --PN, MA Ling (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)PN[reply]

Hi there. Here's what I was thinking with those two edits -

• SNL/Chesterton stuff - I know that "you all" and "you-all" in general are relevant to the development of "y'all". But I don't see how the SNL quote in particular has anything to do with that development - the paragraph is talking about how the Scottish ye aw may have influenced "y'all" - but there's nothing to connect this one usage of "you all" by a modern-day Scot to either ye aw or "y'all". As for the Chesterton material - it's a hypothesis that his use of "you all" in that chapter may be used as a second-person plural. But that's original research, and it's not connected to the development of "y'all" either. So that's why I took those bits out.

• Replacement of "y'all" - I'm not sure this is as interesting as you think. The reason it seems interesting is because in modern English 1) the second-person plural is the only plural pronoun with two forms (in some dialects) - "y'all" and "you"; and 2) the second person pronoun has the same form in nominative and accusative. The combination of 1) and 2) is why "Y'all have the craziest stuff happen to you" is acceptable. In this sentence, "Y'all" is the plural nominative, which means that it requires a plural accusative - "you". In your sentence "They have the craziest stuff happen to *him", the plural nominative pronoun ("They") also requires a plural accusative. It just so happens that in modern English, "you" and "ya'll" are the same form for both nominative and accusative, while "they" and "them" are different.

Incidentally, this is not a "y'all"-specific phenomenon. It works in the singular form, as well. So you can have "You (singular) have the craziest stuff happen to you", but you can't have "He has the craziest stuff happen to *them". It's a question of agreement, that looks more complicated because of the abundance of uses of the form "you". My edit to that section hinted at that, but I could flesh it out if it makes more sense. Anyhow, that's where I was coming from. Thanks for asking me about it. Let me know what you think - and if you'd mind if I redid my edits. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I appreciate your comments. Sorry it took me a few days to get back to you. I see you've made changes already, but here is what I was thinking anyway:

I propose that I add some additional sentences to try to show relevance of SNL/Chesterton material. I want to say that we should take into account any existence of "you all", "y'all", and/or "ye aw" in Britain, past and present, with special emphasis on Scotland.

Your two points (1) and (2) are both correct of course. But it's not just that we have 2 forms, but their distribution that invites attention; if one form seems to be behaving as some kind of emphatic of the other, then it's not just a simple case of synonymy as per "small" and "little", but rather a case of patterned variation. Is this similar to pronoun-dropping that occurs in languages like Spanish (the subject pronoun is present largely for emphasis, but tends to be absent otherwise), which have grammatical person shown in the verb-ending? Is it like optional plurals or collectives which may be added in Mvskoke (Creek Indian), only when lack of context makes them necessary? Is it along the lines of auxiliary "do" in English, which we use for the negative, the yes/no question, the emphatic, topicalization, and the short answer, but not for the declarative?

I don't have the answers to these relatively theoretical questions. Of course, your move of this material to "usage" makes sense if we're not considering theory, but usage, which also needs to be covered. At this point, I propose we put a short entry under "usage" noting that "y'all" can be replaced by "you" within a context, and directing the reader to see the other section for more specific details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PN, MA Ling (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you pose interesting questions about the nature of "y'all". The problem is, as you point out, you and I don't have the answers at the moment. And Wikipedia isn't the place to pose questions or postulate on answers. Our task is merely to survey and report. Thus the WP:OR rule against posting original research. I'd love to read a journal article by you about these issues (and I might even use it as a source in WP!), but WP is not the forum to post your ideas.

Of course, if there are sources out there already that talk about these things, use them. Until then, I think it's better to leave the "you/y'all" material in the Usage section. Sourcing is also important with the British material. If you have sources that talk about the historic or continuing relationship with British English and "y'all", put them in, and use SNL and Chesterton as examples. But just using the quotes without context is unhelpful, and original research can't be used for the context. So I'd also ask that you leave those out for now. There is plenty of research out there about "y'all" already - we should be able to make this a better article by finding and using it. I hope that makes sense. Dohn joe (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn Joe: I actually wasn't aware of this rule against original material -- I _thought_ I had read the ground-rules, but I guess I didn't read them thoroughly enough. No, this seems like a good rule if we are to make Wikipedia the most reliable and authoritative it can be; I just didn't realize its existence, perhaps partly because (it appears to me) so many others are not following it, though that's not an excuse for me to do it. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. PN, MA Ling (talk) 03:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I could tell you were making good-faith edits and contributions. And I agree that not everyone follows (or knows) the rules. All we can do is take each article and do our best. Happy editing! Dohn joe (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per our previous discussion, are you going to help cleanup and verify your contributions to the burrito article? Since you have an interest in the history, perhaps you could also help take the most important data points from the timeline article and merge them as prose into the history section. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your lead and moved much of the "Varieties" material to the talk page. There were a lot of blogs, dead links, and other questionable sources (including a student restaurant guide at Northwestern University - twice?!), and a lot of flat out unsourced stuff. I'll try to work on getting it all back in, in a better form. Dohn joe (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, you did not. You made a POINTY edit removing OTHERSTUFF after I removed your contributions to the talk page. Please fix your work and leave the other material alone. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in your attempts to positively contribute in good faith content on the Burrito article. Especially the stuff regarding the San Diego Style Burrito, and expanded content on the California Burrito. In the past user Viriditas has unilaterally removed material claiming that the sources provided don't pass WP:RS. My impression, and thus only my opinion, has been that he has come very close to WP:OWN and not following WP:CIVIL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, RightCow. The burrito article was actually the very first edit I made on WP, last May. If you follow the edit history, I think the back-and-forth between me and Viriditas last November helped to strengthen the article. I agree that he has seemed a little possessive regarding certain things, but now at least the San Diego/California burrito stuff seems removal-proof. It's a difficult article to source, as there aren't many articles about burritos. But I'll keep trying. And any help is appreciated.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment here. Thanks for discussing this issue. — AjaxSmack 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I replied to your comment here. — AjaxSmack 04:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted the common English spelling to the lede of the Lech Walesa article (you originally added it, and a diacritics fanatic removed it). There's an interesting past discussion at Talk:Lech Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Move request, and there's a related discussion now at Talk:Facundo Argüello (tennis)#Re: nonsense .22known professionally as.22 clause ;-). LittleBen (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to it. See Talk:Alta_Vista,_San_Diego,_California#Requested_move.. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't agree. English-written books about Brazilian history (and even Latin America) use the name "Cisplatine War" and "Paraguayan War" (such as in this biograph about Pedro II: [1]). What would be considered confuse was to someone who is reading a book about Brazilian history and see names such as "Argentina-Brazil War" and "War of the Triple Alliance" in here, and not the ones used by historians. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial indications are that neither your idea for mediation nor my idea to identify broad principles is going to be accepted. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Might be time to review how to go through all that, eh? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I haven't quite given up hope for mediation. If you'd like to look more into arbitration, though, feel free. Dohn joe (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this back and it is move protected for an extended period of time. Let me know if any problem develop on the talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind, I expanded this article and added references. I also expanded the definition of the geographic area. As far as I have always heard, the term describes BOTH sides of Catalina. Are you OK with that, or should I seek references? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you would like to create an article about the Rosecroft Gardens - I see you wikilinked it - you can be assured that it would pass muster as notable, because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places which gives it automatic notability. I added a second source about Rosecroft, plus I am very familiar with the site (I'm old enough to remember when you could visit it - it was even a stop on the tourist-bus rounds). It turns out that the gardens were originally part of the grounds of the founder's mansion (which still stands); he was also the founding president of the San Diego Floral Association. --MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I mind? I think your additions are great. I put Catalina and Gage as the boundaries because that's what's in the community plan (pp. 15-17). And as someone who's also very familiar with the area, I was never sure what to call the couple of blocks between PLNC and Catalina. The community plan puts it in Sunset Cliffs, which seems wrong. But to me at least, it's not the Wooded Area proper either. (Although apparently the SDPD puts both those blocks and the college in the Wooded Area. Hmm....) What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding and usage is in line with the Police map, that the Wooded Area is the hilltop area on both sides of Catalina, as far north as Talbot St. and Hill Street. (The police map extends south onto the federal land all the way to the end of the point, which is probably just a convenience for them since nobody would consider those areas to be part of the Wooded Area.) The Theosophical Grounds/PLNU seem to me to be an inherent part of the Wooded Area, in fact the "woodsy" quality of the area is pretty much due to them, and Theosophical buildings and influences are found on both sides of Catalina. It could well be hard to define this area, since for a long time "Wooded Area" was an informal name mainly used by Realtors. I had a link to the PLOBRA neighborhood map in the Point Loma, San Diego article, which showed the Realtor's understanding of Point Loma neighborhoods, but there is no longer a map at that link and now I can't find it online. I'll have to delete the link. It seems to me that map listed the section west of Catalina as the "College Area" - a term I have personally never heard for that area. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the map here, using the Wayback Machine - do you know about that? I recently found out about it, and it's fantastic - you can go back and actually look at archived versions of web addresses. Feel free to update the link in the PL page.

As for the definition of the Wooded Area, I think it has expanded somewhat. Talking to my folks (one of whom is a PL real estate agent, and one of whom lived off of Silvergate in the 50s and 60s), they both thought the boundaries were Talbot, Catalina, and Gage, and they both used "College Area" when I asked them what was west of Catalina, although my mom suggested that the definition of the "Wooded Area" had been expanding over the last 20 years. Anyhow, that's all original research, but backed up by the Peninsula Community Plan map and the real estate link you had. Is there a non-OR way to suggest the expanding boundaries? Dohn joe (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fit in the "College Area" term. (I doubt if that is used outside of Point Loma; most San Diegans would think "College Area" referred to UCSD, SDSU, or USD.) Your parents thought the Wooded Area ended at Gage? What would they call the uphill slope east of Gage - streets like Loma Valley Rd. and Bangor St.? --MelanieN (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for the link, I replaced it! --MelanieN (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also usually associate "College Area" with SDSU (as does Wikipedia). My dad thought that La Playa started on the other side of Gage. Either that, or it was just generic "Pt. Loma", without its own specific neighborhood. Dohn joe (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think an article on the Rosecroft Gardens would be great. The founder looks like he was an interesting guy, too; lured to PL by the Theosophists, and an amateur horticulturalist who invented the lath house famously employed in Balboa Park. We'll see how motivated I get on this one. :) Dohn joe (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been digging through the archives and have assembled the following notes, so far, about how the guideline came to be. Thought you might be interested.

• User:Born2cycle/USNChistory

--Born2cycle (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have made a proposal at Naming convention discussion on de jure vs. de facto names. A similar discussion is going at Heyvali village talkpage. I would appreciate very much your updated opinion on both sites. Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your following note: [2]. Wouldn't it be a good solution to ask that no WikiProjectArmenia and WikiProjectAzerbaijan members take part in the discussion for a while? -- Ashot  ^(talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had that thought. For now, I think I'll see how the discussion goes, and if Travelbird has any bright ideas.... :) Dohn joe (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dohn Joe. I would like to know what you think on reopening the discussion (at least with enforcement of non-participation of potentially biased parties). Thanks. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 07:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I definitely think it's an important discussion to have. It still might be a little soon to reopen it, though. You're certainly welcome to start it up again, but I'll probably not jump in right away. Maybe I'll revisit it in a couple of months (assuming no major de jure/de facto disuptes have flared up in the interim, as I think this is a topic best debated when partisanship is low). Let me know if there are any developments. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, this type of discussions will always be a matter of partisanship. I'd reopen the discussion, but I think it would be more legitimate if a more unattached editor does this.

Can there be another solution like topic ban for parties with vested interest in the subject? Otherwise "partisanship" will always win. -- Ashot  ^(talk) 14:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right that the "San Diego Bay Area" article should probably be deleted. The term just doesn't seem to be in general use, in the sense described in the article. As you saw I challenged its premise on the Talk page, but I thought I would give it a few days for discussion rather than nominating it immediately. The discussion is not supporting the concept so I think it should go.

I don't think it's appropriate for a "prod" (the "proposed deletion" process where there is no discussion), I think it should go through an "articles for deletion" discussion. I am out of town right now so I thought I would nominate it when I get back, giving "unverified" as the basic reason. If you want to nominate it in the meantime go ahead; the process is kind of cumbersome but it is well explained at WP:AFD. Could be a learning experience for you! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie. I didn't get around to it today, but I might give it a shot tomorrow. (Of course, you can still feel free - I'm sure I'll get my "learning experience" at some point.) :) Dohn joe (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done nomination! Just one other thing, you should notify OBSanDiego on his/her talk page. I'll join in the discussion when I get back to my computer. It's hard to post from my iPhone! --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Melanie. I just let OB know. Enjoy your mini-semi-Wikibreak! Dohn joe (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did I miss the South Bay article? I actually did look. Weird. --MelanieN (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert the closure one more time you will be blocked. Ruslik_Zero 11:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed your new redirect from Vallecitos to Vallecitos, Califonria while working through a list of broken redirects. Generally I'd delete it (CSD G8), but if you're going to be creating the latter article (looks like you do quite a bit of work in SD-area geography), I'd be glad to hold off, just let me know. Can't promise someone else won't G8 it in the meantime, of course. Have a great week! --joe decker^{talk to me} 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, go ahead. I may or not get around to creating it, and if I do, I can always re-do the redirects. Thanks for asking, though! Dohn joe (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, no there is nothing that you need to fix :) The reason that I and the other editor placed the template there is because that template goes on all disambiguation pages, which Mountain Empire (disambiguation) clearly is. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the page or that something needs to be fixed, it is simply there to show that it is not an "article", but a disambiguation page. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making that edit. It isn't fun being outnumbered and demonized by the German speaking crowd on here. I'm still in the opinion that both Alto Adige and South Tyrol are used very commonly in English. Mai-Sachme's book search is a good data point, but my impression still is that usage is about 50/50. The thing that is so frusterating, is a lot of these editors who are not English speakers come here from the region and have an obvious political/ethnic bias to their opinions. I know we should assume good faith, but reading what Sajoch says on his talk page sums up the attitude that a majority of the German speaking editors have. I don't want to slam them for that, I think a lot if it is natural due to cultural sensitivities, but it is there -- and it really shouldn't have a place on English Wikipedia. Of course this isn't the only page that gets caught in this lingual/ethnic warfare.. -sigh- Anyway, take it easy. 76.89.129.139 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out some data I posted to the page that shows Alto Adige is also commonly used in English. Basically it fits, because by far the English usage when describing the combined region is Trentino-Alto Adige. At one time, the same person who is requesting this move forcibly and unilaterally changed Trentino-Alto Adige to Trentino-South Tyrol. This helped ignite years of arguments. It is clear though why he would want to do that. The folks who want South Tyrol to dominate English usage and want to erase Alto Adige have a marketing problem when the term Trentino-Alto Adige is most commonly used. It is always and completely a political and ethnic fight that has been brought into Wikipedia. In my opinion we should ask a few English speaking administrators to come in and evaluate the data for all three pages and settle it once and for all. Having Italian speakers or German speakers with their cultural baggage makes it unfortunately impossible to 'assume good faith'. I'd for one be open for independent folks to come in and settle things.. and what they choose, fine. I don't expect those people voting for this move to promote this idea -- maybe you can. I'm tired of the nastiness and the ganging up these people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.129.139 (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Dohn joe,

thank you for your message. Please read through all the reasons given in the last discussions and polls here [3]. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask me again. Gryffindor (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dohn joe. Yes, I think I gave an argument back then, that even though policy stipulates that we should use the most common name, the guideline says it should be in English Wikipedia:NCGN#Use_English. Surely you will agree with me, that the name "Trentino-South Tyrol" is more English than "Trentino-Alto Adige"? The policy of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Naming also comes into play here on top of that. This is something that the Italian state recognised and accordingly the name in the constitution was given to be more neutral and accompanying to the minorities in that region, thus "Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol". Gryffindor (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hi there Dohn joe,

concerning the bolding issue, the area has more than just one Italian name, such as Sudtirolo. All the different names are explained in the "Name" section. If you insist on keeping the AA name in the intro, it should be italicised: "Foreign language

Do not boldface foreign names not normally used in English, or variations included only to show etymology. However, some foreign terms should be italicized. These cases are described in the Manual of Style for text formatting." Although the word AA is used in English, it clearly is not English, and thus should be left in italics. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gryffindor. I think the main issue we're having is that even though "Alto Adige" is an Italian term, it is also widely used in English. Lots of people who go to the South Tyrol page will be looking for "Alto Adige", and we should make it clear that it's the same place. The easiest way to do that is with bolding. As I wrote on the talk page, I think the manual of style and the bolding guideline both back me up on that. Thanks for discussing it - and if you still disagree (and nobody else chimes in), would you be up for a third opinion? Dohn joe (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it could be worth a try although I suspect it may be best to start with the case where one has a natural disambiguation and the other doesn't as otherwise I think the whole idea may get shot down on how we decide which one should go at the base name. If that gets accepted and seems to be working then we could think about trying to expand it. Dpmuk (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to you on my talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to provide more specific objections to any particular guideline change you revert. Simply noting that the change has lacked consensus support in the past, as you did here [4], is a very weak and poor justification for reverting. It's sufficient, especially for a guideline page, but definitely on the weak end. The point is, do you object, and, if so, why? That should be the basis of a revert, not a hollow reference to a lack of consensus support. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please also see here [5]. Gryffindor (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me one instance in that talk section where anyone besides you and Patavium discuss using Ladin names in Trentino. Dohn joe (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sounds really interesting, I'll have to see to get it somewhere. But since I had to pay 2€ at the National Library to get a view into the article of Heiss, I wanted to ask you something, before it falls into oblivion: Does the book also source the "increasingly"? Because that's why I needed Heiss. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to the book, so you should be able to see it now, but yes, it says that Sudtirolo is becoming more common in vernacular and printed Italian. Dohn joe (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know, how I missed the second diff. Thank you. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I don't see what's hard to understand. Dividing Aircraft into the enormous subset of Airplanes and the tiny subset of Unpowered Aircraft seems exactly like dividing Cat into Siamese Cats and Unsiamese Cats: lopsided. A useful classification of cats would be into roughly equal groups: Abyssinians, Persians, Siamese, Manx, mixed-breeds, coon cats, and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the assorted others might be; but let us take that as a basis for discussion. The point is that that division is not level, and so not economical; a paraglider is one kind of thing, an airplane can be many kinds of things: biplanes, jets, rocket-driven fighters, and so on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dohn joe, thank you very much you're welcome. I hope it helps explain the provenience of the name a little bit and sheds some new light. I have reverted the article back to the original name Haut-Adige, because I would like to give other editors the chance as well to participate, I hope you understand. I would say give it a couple of weeks. Once other users have also seen it, we can revisit the issue about keeping it or renaming it to "Alto Adige", either way I am open. Gryffindor (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.

• The original place the subject came up is Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania
• A broader discussion of the topic is here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
• The Category talk:Townships in Pennsylvania by county link. Gerry D (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Everything looks okay, and I like what you've done with the page. The bot doesn't generally edit the Requested moves page in any case, except to add or remove that backlog template, and from what I can see that shouldn't be impacted by your restructure. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 01:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for removing that acronym. I must remember. Tony (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. Dohn joe (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Everyone here" comment is trying to INFLUENCE the vote. At Wikipedia:Canvassing It clearly states "...(however) canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour." Please strike your comment or be reported. Mugginsx (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just expressing an opinion, which people are free to accept, ignore, or investigate on their own - which isn't canvassing. Canvassing would be if I went around to other editors on the sly, that I thought would support my position, and told them about the discussion without telling other people. I try to be very open about my participation in WP discussions - please check my record, and I hope you'd agree. Dohn joe (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull, just strike it all and comment to the editor all you want on his or her talk page. I am in the middle of a complaint. If you do not strike it I will finish it. I will wait awhile. Mugginsx (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead. I responded over at the James I of England talkpage. If you're not happy with my actions, you're free to report them - but I really don't think I've done anything blameworthy. Dohn joe (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, a copy will go to Jimbo Wales since he is overlooking this discussion I am told. Mugginsx (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Alot of people are working hard to get an a FAIR vote. Your remarks are totally inappropriate and you very well know that, even after you "fixed it up". We'll see. Mugginsx (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any Wikipedia discussion, the probability that some participant will belligerently threaten to appeal the matter to Jimbo is inversely proportional to the probability that Jimbo would actually intervene in that dispute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my complaint was that you two were working together to disrupt the vote. Thank you for again proving my point. Have a nice day. Mugginsx (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn, I didn't understand your re-capitalizastion at Fallacies of Distributed Computing. I was thinking of moving it back, but if you think it's controversial, I'll do an RM instead. Why do you think it's a proper name? If the article is about a titled document, we should fix it to say so. Dicklyon (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly looking at how sources treat it, and it seems like a large majority treat it as a proper name - often putting it in single or double quotes: "We're here to discuss the 'Fallacies of Distributed Computing'" - things like that. Here's what I found at Google Books: [7]. If you still think it should be lowercase, I think an RM would be a good way to go. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that, too. I saw 5 of the first 10 book hits using lower case, and the others mostly just using it as a title or heading (you have to actually click on the book to see, sometimes, since Google tends to prefer titles and headings in snippets). That's at least enough evidence that capitalization is not necessary, in which case MOS:CAPS says not to capitalize. I'll do an RM if you're not convinced. (by the way, Tom Lyon is my brother, and I've worked with (or near) Deutsch and Gosling) Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll do an RM even if you are convinced, since the page won't move otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We may have been looking differently at the Google Books results - I certainly found much more than half using uppercase. (There were some that used both.) I'm still in favor of the caps approach here, as you'll see at the RM talkpage. (And, by the way, thanks for the optical mouse - I always hated cleaning out the gunk from the bottoms of mouses.) Dohn joe (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per your PROD comment at Warren Middle School — if you read the A7 speedy deletion template, you'll note the following line: "Note that books, albums, software etc., or schools, are not eligible under this criterion." There's enough debate about schools, and schools are generally important enough, that their deletion is generally controversial: A7 speedy is for obvious cases. PROD is a good way to go about deleting this page; you'll see that I support your action. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info - I missed that line. Dohn joe (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, but calling this simply Passmore Edwards Public Library is also misleading because P.E. endowed several libraries, as his article shows: leaving it at this title would give the impression that this was the only one. Will you revert or shall I?  —SMALLJIM  23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that he endowed many libraries. Are any of them also known as "Passmore Edwards Public Library"? If so, do any of them have an article on WP? If not, and this is the only WP article by this name, then there's no need to disambiguate. See WP:Article titles for guidance. Dohn joe (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're all known in their own towns as "Passmore Edwards Public Library" or "Passmore Edwards Free Library" or similar. A quick Google will confirm that there are many instances. So if I lived in Falmouth, Cornwall, for instance, and searched for my library, I'd get the wrong article - better no article, I think. Is that good enough to persuade you?  —SMALLJIM  23:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me ask you this: is there an alternative way to disambiguate? Going to the Passmore Edwards website, I see that this library is variously referred to as "Hammersmith (Uxbridge Road) Library", "Passmore Edwards Free Library, Hammersmith", and "Hammersmith Free Library". Are any of those common enough to use as the article title? If not, are you in a position to create a list of all the buildings known as "Passmore Edwards Public Library"? If so, we should make Passmore Edwards Public Library a set index page. Thoughts? Dohn joe (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I was thinking along those lines myself. I've no objection to some other name. Making Passmore Edwards Public Library a list page (with a lot of redlinks) would be a possibility - I don't think the Hammersmith one is more notable than others, and they're probably all listed buildings.

It's late here, will sleep on it - more ideas perhaps, in 9 hours or so... Cheers,  —SMALLJIM  00:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's my proposal. Move Passmore Edwards Public Library to Passmore Edwards Public Library, Shepherd's Bush. Create Passmore Edwards Public Library, Hammersmith as a redirect to it. Maybe create similar redirects from the "Free Library" variants. Redirect Passmore Edwards Public Library to Passmore Edwards#Legacy until articles are written on his other libraries, when it can turn into a dab page. How's that?  —SMALLJIM  11:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds pretty reasonable. Feel free to go ahead with that plan. Thanks for working together on this - a good example of wiki-collaboration! Dohn joe (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Till someone else objects, at least ;-)  —SMALLJIM  16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi- I see you are moving articles from "articlename (city, state)" to "articlename (city)". There's a fairly strong precedent for not doing so. Are you aware of it? I'm happy to research and link to the guidelines if you aren't aware of it. In either case, please stop moving articles. tedder (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just happened upon the disambiguation page Salesian College, and saw two entries that didn't seem to match the others. The ones in the U.K. and Australia that were located in places that get disambiguated on WP didn't include the disambiguation in the school article title (i.e., Salesian College (Chadstone), not Salesian College (Chadstone, Victoria); and Salesian College (Farnborough), not Salesian College (Farnborough, Hampshire).

I know about the guideline that says articles on U.S. cities are titled "City, State", but I haven't seen a guideline that talks about what format to use in disambiguation. If you could point that out to me, I'd appreciate it.

How about Salesian High School (California) instead of Salesian High School (Richmond) - does that work? Dohn joe (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The school guidelines are never official, but here's the recommendation. The rest of it is implied at WP:NCDAB. In other words, to follow the NCGN for a disambiguation. Yes, dabbing to state-only is okay- so the options are no dab, state, or city+state. The last option is only needed if there are several in the same state with the same name. (yes, it happens, even outside of CA/NY). tedder (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. Let me ask you this - do we (or should we) care about consistency between U.S. and non-U.S. schools? Like I said, at the Salesian College page, the non-U.S. schools disambiguate with just the name of the town (even when the town name itself is ambiguous). Dohn joe (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should care. I don't know what the naming convention for non-US locations is. tedder (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a broader conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguating_when_the_disambiguator_is_ambiguous. Feel free to join in - or take it elsewhere, too. Dohn joe (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent- thanks! tedder (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Spider Bones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scribner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see that you deleted the See Also link to List of museums in the Southern Border Region (California) from the San Diego County article. What you may not have realized is that the title of that list-article had just been changed from List of museums in San Diego County, California, which IMO would be appropriate to link under See Also. I have posted a discussion section about this name change at Talk:List of museums in the Southern Border Region (California). Be glad to have your opinion. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn, technical requests at WP:RM is not a place to invoke WP:BRD. Read what it says there: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the advice at WP:RM#Requesting technical moves, where it says: "If the page has recently been moved without discussion, then you may revert the move (although this is not required, and may not always be possible) and initiate a discussion of the move on the talk page of the article. (See also: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.)" Since I'm not an admin, I couldn't revert those moves, so I asked an admin to do it on behalf as part of BRD. Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed that you moved K Street back to K Street (disambiguation). There was actually some discussion at Talk:K Street (street) as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#K Street, and a group of editors reached a consensus that K Street should be the disambiguation page, between K Street (street) and Lobbying in the United States. The grounds for this were that, if you look at the article views for K Street, it gets several times the amount of traffic as comparable DC streets (e.g. H Street (Washington, D.C.)). So it's unclear how many readers are going to K Street to learn about the street qua street vs. how many are going to K Street to learn about K Street as a metonym for lobbying in the United States. If you disagree, please take it up at one of the talk pages, but if it's not a big deal to you, would you mind moving K Street (disambiguation) back to K Street? Thanks! Meelar (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Didn't take the time to read through what I should have. I just saw what looked like a silly dab (K Street (street)), and tried to "fix" it. Accept my apologies. Dohn joe (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the quick reply. Meelar (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The name 'Brunsvik', derived from the German 'Braunschweig', is also spelled 'Brunßwick' or 'Brunswick' in German, 'Brunšvik' in Czech/Slovakian, and 'Brunszvik' in Hungarian (see Steblin 2009, p. 91)." in: John E Klapproth: Beethoven’s Only Beloved: Josephine!, CreateSpace, Charleston, SC, 2011. [8] [9] They called themselves "Brunsvik" (and they spoke German and French, hardly Hungarian). John E Klapproth (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I didn't replace "Brunsvik" with "Brunswick". It's important to include the latter, however, since that's how the family is often known - in English-langauge sources. Dohn joe (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has to be mentioned there because one line below are two links to family members, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I undid your tagging the redirect Holy Cross High School (New Orleans) for speedy deletion. Nothing wrong with having redirects. Your comment about a "move" suggest you might have had something to do with moving a title in mind; if so, you might wish to bring such a proposal up on the talk page of the relevant article. Thanks. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of adding a notice of page move request on the page you have requested to move, Talk:Holy_Cross_High_School,_New_Orleans. This alerts people who might be interested in the subject of the article that the article has been proposed to be moved to a different title. -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already added it to the technical move requests here. Do we need both move requests? Is this likely to be controversial? Dohn joe (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nowikied your code for the db-whatever template, as without it the template activated and put Infrogmation's page in the category for speedy deletion. A short cut for this is the W in a barred circle on the tool bar above these typing boxes. Peridon (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my gosh - thank you! Dohn joe (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done it myself before new... Peridon (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this idea? Right now Aeroplane and Airplane both redirect to Fixed-wing aircraft. Of course, as you noted, that's problematic because nto all Fixed-wing aircraft are airplanes (namely Gliders are not).

So why not simply develop an Airplane article in user space, and, when it's ready for prime time, just copy/paste the text onto Airplane (or Aeroplane if you're not American), overwriting the redirect, and changing Aeroplane to redirect to the new [{Airplane]] article? The other articles would need some tweaks, but overall it should take care of the problem, don't you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'd thought about that, and it's not a bad idea. The reason I went the move request route was to see if we could get consensus, mainly on the scope issue. The naming issue has blinded people over the years to the fact that the current title either 1) leaves us without an article on the aero/airplane, which I think is ludicrous for an encyclopedia, or 2) leaves us with an article title which doesn't match the scope of the article - also not acceptable. So if we get consensus on the scope issue, then hopefully we can work out the naming issue. The other reason for going this way is to preserve the history. I know that the current history could stay with Fixed-wing aircraft - it wouldn't disappear - but since that article has been the "stand-in" article about planes, it might be better and less messy to keep the history and new title together.

We'll see how the discussion goes. I wouldn't necessarily be adverse to that idea, though. Dohn joe (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if the move goes through, then Fixed-wing aircraft becomes a redirect to Aeroplane (or whatever it's called). But we could take the current article content, pare it down, and create a new stream-lined Fixed-wing aircraft that covers planes and gliders, primarily focusing on what they have in common (physics and some history... anything else?), with WP:SUMMARY sections on both, and links to the full-blown articles. In other words, this move doesn't mean losing the Fixed-wing aircraft article. I think some who are opposed are thinking it does. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less my thinking - Fixed-wing aircraft could be patterned after Rotary-wing aircraft. Dohn joe (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still suggest:

1. Create an Airplane article on top of the current redirect, heavily basing content on what is currently at Fixed-wing aircraft, but taking out unpowered content, etc.
2. Redirect Aeroplane to Airplane
3. Edit down Fixed-wing aircraft to remove duplicate information that is now in Airplane.

Since the history of Airplane will show in the edit summary that the content came from Fixed-wing aircraft, and the history of Fixed-wing aircraft will show that most of the airplane content was moved to Airplane, nothing will be lost. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ. I had not noticed your question to me at the RM for Strange Sensation, which has now been closed. I do like to answer questions! In fact I had already written this: "In fact, Strange sensation ought to be [a] DAB page that includes all articles listed above, and more." So your question had already been answered when you asked it, unless you meant the capped version. That, plainly, ought to have redirected to the proposed DAB page bearing the uncapped title. Readers do not typically distinguish by capitalisation, as we who are so close to Wikipedian ways might. Anyway, it's all finished now. Best wishes Noetica^Tea? 21:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noetica. I was talking about the capped version, actually, so thanks for answering that. If you don't mind answering another moot question, try this: Assume your suggestion had been implemented, and Strange Sensation were redirected to a dab page at Strange sensation, which would house links to the songs and Robert Plant band along with the various other things you mentioned that have been described as "strange sensations" - Itch, Paresthesia, etc. Paying attention to the latter group in particular, couldn't they also be described as "weird sensations", "odd sensations", "funny sensations", or "funny feelings"? Should we create dab pages for Weird sensation, Odd sensation, etc. and populate them with Itch and Paresthesia, as well? I'd love to have your answer and rationale at your leisure. Dohn joe (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange is more encyclopedic and likely as a search term than weird, odd, and funny, perhaps. But if not, and if there were a DAB page of the sort I had envisaged, redirects to it from Weird sensation and the like could easily be supplied, whenever editors discover a need. Opportunities for redirects are virtually limitless, and they do no harm. Many redirects, one DAB page. Noetica^Tea? 00:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. Let me ask a related question: If there were no Strange Sensation, would we need Strange sensation? Let me know if you find my meaning unclear. Dohn joe (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand immediately. Well, sometimes we don't see a need for a page (especially a DAB page) until the matter comes up incidentally in the course of another discussion. That's what happened at the RM, right? Like many in the public eye, the band used "strange sensation" (and capped it) because it was a common enough phrase. Compare novelists who get a free ride by coopting well-known phrases, sometimes with a twist of syntax or sense ("Far From the Madding Crowd's ignoble strife"), or by stealing an existing title (Lemprière's Dictionary: a very useful dictionary for classical antiquity that I consult often enough, but also a novel!). So with "strange sensation": we are strangely alerted to a strangely useful potential DAB page. Will I start one? Nah. Would I add entries to one? Yep.

Noetica^Tea? 01:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This can be a Gray area, can't it? But let's return to the color scheme later. First, as I understand your concern, in cases where an article title is also a "common enough phrase", we should take a reader's likely search habits into consideration when we decide whether or not to include a disambiguator. Am I right so far? Am I also right that you would agree that there are some "common enough phrases" that can be used as article titles without disambiguation? Returning to the color theme, I can think of White House and Red Cross as examples of common phrases that nevertheless should point directly (and do) to articles (the latter as a redirect).

On the other side of the spectrum, I could see phrases that are potentially generic, but so unlikely to be used as a search term that an article title might freely use it: Green Day, or Blue Oyster Cult, for example. These also do not seem to require disambiguation, correct? Or am I guessing wrong? Does their very inscrutability as phrases mean that we need to show that we're not talking about an oddly-colored day or some weird religion?

In any event, that leaves us with run-of-the-mill phrases like "strange sensation" that have been coopted. Is it only the latter category that concerns you, or would you also add qualifiers to any of my colorful examples? Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, DJ. Other concerns have taken priority.

• First, I am not happy to call them "disambiguators", which plays into a whole lot of politics. It invites such strange confections as "predisambiguation" – as if being prudently precise were tantamount to "apprehended violence". No, these are qualifiers. They are not a move in a private game for Wikipedia editors with opposing views about recognisability, precision, conciseness, or (heaven help us all) "primary topics".
• Second, yes: we should take into account readers' likely search habits. This is done very little in determining titles, but I think it should be a central concern. These are matters of linguistics and cognitive psychology, of great interest to me. When a computer-science driven algorithm all but supplants such human considerations, you get a broken system.
• Third, yes of course: some phrases are so common that invoking them as counterexamples is an easily discoverable straw man. There is nothing wrong with White House, or Oval Office, or Red Cross.
• Fourth, yes: some cases are difficult. That's why we have RMs. Ivy Day is an interesting example (see the subsection "Other uses").

I hope that clarifies my position. Much as I would like to discuss this further, I think other matters will continue to demand my time and energy. Would you be content to leave it at that for a while?

Noetica^Tea? 00:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we can leave it at that for now. Thanks for the back-and-forth. Good luck at ArbCom. Dohn joe (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning that you may be blocked for edit warring, for continuing with your plan that did not gain consensus at the recent RfC: Talk:Fixed-wing aircraft#Clarification of article scope/requested move. Please do not initiate a group process that you will ignore if it does not go your way. Binksternet (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn Joe, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an amendment to the RM proposal, here. Comments are invited: what do you think? Moonraker12 (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

for common sense on RMs In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, and for your comments on the RM page. I've replied there, also. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please STOP these inappropriate and undiscussed page moves. Now I will have to get all (or most) of them reverted. What a nuisance. A move like your last one [10] shows you have absolutely no knowledge of the subject area, as the British Library has literally hundreds of notable gospel books, and several dozen have articles. Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the British Library has dozens and dozens of gospel books. The new title would be a touch ambiguous, wouldn't it? If you have a better idea for a title that follows our naming conventions, please be my guest. How about "Egerton 768", which is what the library itself calls it? I had come across a category list with some pretty poor titles, and I would object to simply reverting any of them. Perhaps we can work together on improving the lot? Dohn joe (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing scheme has some slight inconsistencies, but is generally fine, and reflects standard scholarly convention. It has been in place here for many years without problems. I looked at all your changes, and none were improvements. If you want to change some manuscript titles, try the appalling Category:Greek New Testament minuscules (ie gospel books) or Category:Greek New Testament lectionaries, etc, where I'd be happy to discuss a better scheme. How would a move to the pure catalogue number go with your expressed view that "WP is aimed at a general, not a specialist, audience, and titles that don't read as catalog entries is part of that"? Your moves were exactly in the wrong direction; we should be adding information to titles like Minuscule 117 and Harley 1775, not removing it. Johnbod (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you're saying about how my expressed view could appear to be at odds with pure catalogue numbers as titles. My concern, though, is not with what something is called - it can be completely opaque jargon - but that whatever it's called, that's what we use as the WP article title. If something has a name, whether it's Minuscule 117, Sd.Kfz. 251, or Aframomum melegueta, then we should use it. If something has multiple names, then we decide which one best fits our purposes and guidelines. When I see an articled titled [[X]], then I assume that there's something out there called "X". And presumably I have some reason to look it up, so I'll either have come across the name before, or I can quickly figure out what it's about by reading the first couple of lines of the article.

The problem I was having with most of the titles I moved today is that they were non-names being used as titles. There's nothing called "Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care", which was the previous title of one article I moved. There's a manuscript of a writing called "Pastoral Care" by Gregory the Great, which happens to be at the Troyes Bibliotheque Municipale, and which has been assigned the number 504. So for me, the catalogue issue is more about formatting or style. The author, location, number, etc. can all be used to disambiguate, but they shouldn't be part of the title itself, unless that's what they're called. So that's why I think "Harley 1775" is acceptable as a title, while "Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care" is not.

I know that's long-winded, but does it make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid not. The conventions we mostly use reflect the standard way of referring to MS, or one of them, but using brackets in a WP fashion. We aim to reflect how a book would be referred to, not in a catalogue of that library, but in a reference to the book in a scholarly context, which reflects the fundamental naming policy WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously where a book is famous enough to have a really widely-used name like Book of Kells, we just use that. Referring to everything by a number alone is clearly unhelpful even to scholars. Obviously internally the British Library does not keep adding "British Library", but we have to. What is wrong with "Minuscule 117" is that it is actually Greek Gospel book (British Library, Harley 5731), although Minuscule 117 is its name in one of the standard global catalogues of such books. Your names were all just useless, mainly because they assumed eg the BL has only one MS of Pastoral Care or Moralia in Job. They should all be reverted before we continue discussing this. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My actual assumption was that there was only one WP article on a Troyes library Pastoral Care manuscript. It also assumed that the title of the manuscript (as opposed to the original writing itself) is "Pastoral Care". My concern, again, was that we were using citations as WP titles, as opposed to what they would be called in running text, or in titles where the work is named. I do see that some of the formats I changed are used in running text, as here. Let me ask you this: in "Greek Gospel book (British Library, Harley 5731)", is "Greek Gospel book" actually part of the title of the manuscript, or is it simply a description or category? If it's the latter, why would it be in a WP article title at all? (Or at least why wouldn't it be reversed, with "BL, Harley 5731" as the title, and "Greek Gospel book" in parentheses?) Just trying to get a handle on the situation.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manuscripts don't generally have "titles" contemporary to their creation in the modern sense. There is no particular reason why we should not use a different order among the elements, except that this is not the convention we have been using for the last several years, and that it would make more sort codes necessary. But the number of articles affected runs well into 4 figures, & drive-by edits of a handful are not the way to proceed. Johnbod (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I had simply come across a category page that seemed very inconsistent - both within itself, and with broader WP titling principles. So I tried to fix it. I should've known it wouldn't have been that simple. As for "title of the manuscript", I just mean the title that we have given it, not what some 8th-century Frankish monk would have called it. It can be "Book of Kells", or it can be "British Library, Harley 5731", but whatever best identifies it under our guidelines is what we should try to use. Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where are we now then? Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose starting over. I don't object to reversing my moves (except Leiden Aratea ‎- that one seems to be justified), and perhaps starting a discussion about manuscript article titles. Any thoughts on venues for that discussion? Dohn joe (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can accept Leiden Aratea. There are few editors still writing on such matters but Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts or possibly Wikipedia talk:GLAM/BL (British Library collaboration). But to my mind the outstanding examples of wrong titles are those 1,500 odd Greek uncials, miniscules & lectionaries, & who is going to tackle those? Or talk at WP:VAMOS, where a new section covering illuminated MS could be added. I'm not sure the Books project would be any help, but they should be notified. I've complained to their creator in the past with no real response. Johnbod (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about this: WP:Naming_conventions_(manuscripts)? If anyone pays attention to that, that would be a great place to go, don't you think? (And the talkpage is an interesting read, already.) Dohn joe (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; most of the articles you moved were started by Dmsgold, as indeed were most illuminated MS articles. Sadly he edits little now. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat belated, but I moved all the pages except Leiden Aratea to their previous titles. I still hope to revisit the convention at some point, but for now stability would seem the prudent way to go. Dohn joe (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I paste in your message to me to give User:Volunteer Marek whom I've cc-ed in by note on his Talk page context:

Hello In ictu oculi -

First, I'd like to say that I don't consider myself a fanatic in the intractable WP diacritics debate. I have both added and removed diacritics on occasion, depending on the situation. So, with that as a preface:

A few days ago, you reverted a few instances where I had added a common rendering of a name to an intro, citing WP:FULLNAME and WP:OPENPARA. I'm not sure how those apply to that issue, so if you could explain, that would be great.

Also, I'd like to hear from you why you think removing a single early instance of a rendering that is seen in the vast majority of English-language sources improves the encyclopedia. Someone who has only ever seen the rendering "Walesa" (for example) may be slightly disoriented or uncertain when they see "Wałęsa". Adding "Walesa" to the first sentence immediately reinforces that the reader is at the correct article, and the rest of the article can then go on to use whichever rendering has been chosen. Isn't that a benefit to the reader? No information has been lost, and some helpful information has been added. What do you think? Dohn joe (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dohn joe, the reason I reverted your changes Gerhard Fritz Kurt Schröder (commonly rendered Schroeder) and same to Lech Wałęsa (commonly rendered Walesa) was as I gave in the edit summary, WP:OPENPARA, and is the same as Volunteer Marek explained in the his reversion of your change of lede to Gdańsk: (Dohn Joe, we don't put those kind of qualifiers in article ledes just because they have diacritics - see any other article with diacritics for comparison. And there's no need to, anyone who types in "Gdansk" will be redirected). German "Danzig" exists as a German exonym for English and Polish "Gdańsk," just as English Warsaw is an English exonym for Polish "Warszawa", but "Gdansk" with no accent is not an exonym, it is just a low-MOS spelling found in newspapers and websites. In the same way "Lech Walesa" is not an exonym for Lech Wałęsa, it is a low-MOS spelling found in sources only equipped with Latin-1 fonts. Compare Britannica Lech Wałęsa, (born Sept. 29, 1943, Popowo, near Włocławek, Pol.), labour activist who helped form and led (1980–90) communist Poland’s first independent trade union, Solidarity.. In the same was Łódź (commonly rendered Lodz) is incorrect because "Lodz" is not an English exonym for Łódź, it is just a font restriction. For example:

In the counts of section 2.3.5, such cases as Lodz and Malaga (as variants of Lodz and Malaga) will not be counted as full exonyms, because the data was for methodological reasons set around 1967, at a time before text processing made diacritics easier to produce in print... Exonyms and the International Standardisation of Geographical Names. Approaches towards the Resolution of an Apparent Contradiction. Peter Jordan, Milan Orožen Adamič, Paul Woodman - 2007 Page 22

The edits you made are highly unusual in en.wikipedia as Volunteer Marek's edit summary states. The only other cases I'm familiar of someone doing this are another user recently made similar lede changes to several articles such as François Mitterrand, but also US lawyer Zoë Baird. Another controverted case is Saša Hiršzon. Those are controversial lede edits not in line with WP:OPENPARA. To justify such an inclusion would require a special case such as (i) change of nationality, (ii) WP:STAGENAME, (iii) monarch, (iv) a consonant generally not rendered, particularly ß. These cases (i-ii-iii-iv) are effectively English exonyms for foreign people. There is no case of (v) "commonly known in low-MOS newspapers which drop accents outside Latin-1 character set." One other comment, you say "intractable WP diacritics debate" - how many articles are there on en.wikipedia which don't have diacritics in lede, article body and title? Lede - I would say zero. Article body - varies but generally yes. Title - I estimate of 10-20% of en.wikipedia's 3,900,000 articles, that is to say 390,000 articles should/could have European accents or carons, and 389,900 do - the remaining 100 are predominantly Czech and Slovak ice-hockey stubs created with history-edit-redirects to prevent moves to Czech and Slovak spelling. So I do not agree that there is an "intractable WP diacritics debate", there is in fact broad consensus on use of accents and carons in ledes, article body and titles. Again, you're welcome to try and find an article with a lede such as you have edited, beyond the Saša Hiršzon example above. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response, In ictu (let me know if you have a more preferred abbreviation). I really do agree with much of what you posted. Do you see my point about reader-friendliness, though? If 90% of English-language sources use "Walesa", then that is the visual cue that the readers of this encyclopedia associate with the subject. "Wałęsa" might not be recognized immediately, redirects notwithstanding. Why risk alienating people if we can confirm - once - the rendering they are familiar with? Does that make sense? Dohn joe (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, no sorry that doesn't make sense. It's a big world out there and people will have to face Polish accents if they want to read encyclopedia articles on Polish presidents. As Volunteer Marek said, inputting Walesa will go straight there in WP or Google. Besides, en.wikipedia has already agreed on this, hence WP:OPENPARA. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that we wipe WP clean of Polish accents. I'm saying that including one instance of a rendering that our readership is most likely to have encountered improves the accessibility of the encyclopedia. Consider it this way: even a speaker of a language that doesn't typically use diacritical marks will know that using diacritics has an effect on a word. If you see pina and piña side by side, you assume there is a difference in meaning. And there is - in Spanish, pina means conical mound, and piña means pineapple. Likewise, someone encountering "Wałęsa" for the first time might well assume that it and "Walesa" refer to different people, or that "Lodz" and "Łódź" are different places. Three words - "commonly rendered Lodz" - solves that issue, does it not?

And this is not just for English speakers. Isn't it useful for a native Polish speaker to know that in English, "Łódź" is often rendered as "Lodz"? Dohn joe (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you see wikt:pina and wikt:piña side by side yes - but you won't see wikt:Łódź and wikt:Lodz side by side, because there is only Łódź.

And that's the point isn't it, why one instance? We could legitimately add ledes like Charlotte Brontë (known as "Charlotte Bronte" in tabloid sources) or Zoë Baird (Zoe Baird) etc. to 100,000s of articles on en.wp. But we don't because it would be silly. Polish readers are already aware that tabloid English sources don't spell Polish accents. But sources which can do. "Łódź" doesn't have an exonym form Lodz, see Lonely Planet Central Europe - Page 386 Lisa Dunford - 2009 "The region has long been a base for industry, the traditional mainstay of Poland's second largest city, Łódź." Wikipedia doesn't do this. If you want it to do so then go to WP:OPENPARA and seek a change in en.wp's OPENPARA guidelines. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case...[edit]

I see that you are active in a number of other language Wikipedias. Would you have any interest in helping me put English words at their proper orthographies? I've seen examples on the French, Spanish, and Portuguese wikis, but I'm sure there are more. What do you say? Dohn joe (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are exonyms. Like Varsavia is an exonym for Warsaw in Italian. But Huddersfield doesn't have exonyms in these languages. Do you know how linguists distinguish? ...and of course people except monarchs almost never have exonyms. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm confused. How can "Oregón" be an exonym in Spanish, but "Lodz" not be an exonym in English? They both differ from the original only in diacritics. Dohn joe (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The generation of exonyms varies from language to language, but the general rule is that if the spelling is the same in quality sources - like Lonely Planet - it is not an exonym. But to stick to the two examples above:

Spanish has exonyms for about 20 of the 50 states es:Categoría:Estados de Estados Unidos. The reason Oregón‎ has a Spanish name is that is was claimed by Spain until 1819 as an extension of Spanish California. Hawái‎ also has Spanish name for a similar reason, though the claim was not as formal.

The list of English exonyms for Polish toponyms is found on English exonyms - these are established in common usage and confirmed by practical usages such as Anita J. Prazmowska A History of Poland 2011 "Present day place names are used in the final chapter. Otherwise names which have passed into common usage and would be recognisable to English-language readers are used, thus Warsaw and not Warszawa, Cracow and not Kraków."

In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Spain never had a claim to Michigan, and Portugal never had a claim to Georgia - how can you call those exonyms? Dohn joe (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They evidently are exonyms, it isn't a random definition - look in a Spanish or Portuguese dictionary. The US state takes its name in Spanish from Lago Míchigan, an old name on Spanish maps. Geórgia in Portuguese refers to the country first, second the US State. There are accentation and pronunciation rules in each language which affect these. But again es:Huddersfield pt:Huddersfield aren't exonyms. Just as English, Danish, Spanish, French, Italian, Hungarian, Romanian, Swedish, Swedish don't have exonyms for Mariánské Lázně. What is and isn't an exonym is firmly established and defined in dictionaries and grammars and quality sources which carry accents. Tabloid sources are just that, tabloid. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So if Merriam-Webster (a quality dictionary that employs accents) were to have both "Ceauşescu" and "Lodz", would that mean that "Lodz" is an exonym? Dohn joe (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's hypothetical since Merriam-Webster isn't a quality dictionary, never has been. No it would need a larger survery of better sources, including grammars. M-W does have accents for Gdańsk, Wrocław but doesn't for Poznań and Łódź. M-W is unreliable about more important things than accents as well. I trust you can see from that example that M-W is simply unreliable, it isn't "my preference", it is crap because it is crap. There's no justification for Gdańsk, Wrocław but not Poznań and Łódź.

A respected dictionary like British Oxford American Oxford not only has the diacritics right, but also IPA right: Pronunciation: /wʊtʃ/ , likewise Oxford American "Gdańsk" Wrocław Poznań. The only directly equivalent to accent-stripped form exonym is Zurich, though that is coincidence, Zurich isn't accent stripped it just happens to coincide. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case...[edit]

I was hoping we could have an intelligent conversation. But calling M-W "crap" is simply ridiculous. It's one of the most highly respected dictionaries in the English language. Don't believe me? See here, and how about this: "Today, Webster's Third is regarded by virtually all language experts as one of the great dictionaries of our time." Finally, this edit was well over the line. I understand your strong feelings about the use of diacritics - but WP:POINTy, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR edits are not the way to go. Dohn joe (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings - not as much as yourself I would imagine since you are the one making edits to ledes out of line with WP:OPENPARA. And in a normal sane environment this wouldn't even be an issue. As for M-W. A fanboy book like The Story of Webster's Third: Philip Gove's Controversial Dictionary and Its Critics (Herbert C. Morton, 1994) may well say "Today, Webster's Third is regarded by virtually all language experts as one of the great dictionaries of our time." but that doesn't change the fact that the web-edition is badly proofread and inconsistent. In the sector where I work I rarely if ever hear M-W cited. You saw yourself that the way it dealt with 4 Polish cities was inconsistent wheras the Oxford was consistent. That is typical. In any case you have seen that a reliable source, Oxford, distinguishes Zurich (exonym) from non-exonyms like Łódź. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind I'd prefer not to cooperate on Chantilly Codex articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Dohn joe (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally work on composer articles on my own though there are one or two editors who help out. But to be honest the above all strikes me as rather odd. In this day and age it shouldn't be necessary to have to explain at length to someone what an exonym is and why foreigner's names aren't exonyms. Particularly someone with a long edit history on the issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I've learned a lot about diacritics since I first came across it here at WP - and I find it a fascinating issue. One thing I've learned is that authorities are split about whether a word has to differ in something more than orthography in order to be considered an exonym. Some scholars hold that differing pronunciation alone can create an exonym. So "Paris" could be considered an English exonym, since English speakers say, "Pair-iss" instead of "Pah-ree". Even our article Exonym and endonym is of two minds, saying at one point "Madrid, Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam, with identical names in most major European languages, are exceptions [i.e., not considered exonyms]", but two sections later saying "Over the years, the endonym may have undergone phonetic changes, either in the original language or the borrowing language, thus changing an endonym into an exonym, as in the case of Paris, where the s was formerly pronounced in French." Under the latter definition, "Lodz" (or even "Łódź") could be considered an exonym, because it has an English pronunciation (see Oxford online dictionary). That would also affect the other languages we've been discussing. Since "Virgínia" in Portuguese differs from "Virginia" in English only by use of an accent and in pronunciation, is it a true exonym? Does the etymology matter? These are interesting questions that I don't think anyone has a solid answer to.

As to the ars subtilior stuff, you're welcome to keep working on your own - I was just hoping that we could find some common WP ground to build on. I may stick around and work on it a bit on my own, too - it's such an intriguing period in music. Dohn joe (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which authorities are you referring to? Can you give the name of a linguist/grammarian who considers that removing the accents from a French, Polish or Serbian person's name creates an exonym? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's this, from the Second International Symposium on Geographical Names, GeoNames 2000, where it was recommended that certain lists of exonyms "should not contain selected categories of exonyms, including those which differ from...endonyms only by omission, addition or alteration of diacritics." Which would mean that words that differ from endonyms only in use of diacritics constitute a category of exonyms. Or here, from Ferjan Ormeling, K. Hans Stabe, Jörn Sievers, Training course on toponymy: "Exonyms may be subdivided into pronunciation exonyms and orthographic exonyms. The first are visually similar to endonyms but would be pronounced differently, i.e. according to the pronunciation of the alphabet in the respective countries." Dohn joe (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These two sources are only tangentially related to the question I asked. An name exonym is something like "John Calvin". In ictu oculi (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources happen to be in the context of geographical exonyms, but I don't see why they shouldn't apply to name exonyms as well. Do you know of any source that addresses the issue of the effect of diacritics specifically on name exonyms? If not, why shouldn't these two sources apply to name exonyms as well? Dohn joe (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is so odd I doubt that it has ever even occured to anyone. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may - nothing in the sources I gave limited themselves just to place exonyms, so why wouldn't they apply to name exonyms as well? Dohn joe (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't exonyms, they aren't "translated".

"The names of monarchs, popes, and non-contemporary authors as well as place-names are commonly translated. Foreign names for geographic proper names are called exonyms. Fourment-Berni Canani (1994) discusses the (im)possibility of translating proper names. He gives the examples of the place-names Venice and London. The Italian city Venezia has been renamed Venice in English and Venise in French. A city in the American state California is also called Venice, but this name is not changed into Venezia in Italian and Venise in French. Similarly, the English city London has been renamed Londres in French and Londra in Italian. However, the Canadian city called London is not translated into French and Italian in this way. Thus, as Fourment-Berni Canani concludes, a place-name can be translated if the place, as a unique referent, has already been renamed in the target language. ---- Loulou Edelman (2009). What's in a name? Classification of proper names by language. In E. Shohamy & D. Gorter (Eds.), Linguistic landscape: expanding the scenery (pp. 141–153). London: Routledge. Goh, CL (2009).

In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole point is that there are scholars and professionals who do consider diacritic-changed words exonyms - that's what I meant by "authorities are split". I agree that there are some who do not - do you agree that there are some who do? Dohn joe (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've found two sources - partially visible in Google Books, one of which says that a catalogue should not list exonyms, and the other which talks about "pronunciation exonyms" (which means like English saying "Parriss" instead of French "Paree"). Authorities are not split. In any case en.wp usage is stable. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's simply a matter of more sources, or of clarity, see this: "We propose to treat as exonyms all names in which a diacritical mark (Peru and Perú) an article (Gambia and The Gambia) or a declension form (Andy and Andes) was added, omitted or altered." (see snippet here). Can you be more explicit than that? Dohn joe (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supercapitalism (concept in Italian Fascism) seems rather longer than necessary. It rejected my move to "Supercapitalism". Tony (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of that article and of Supercapitalism, my inclination would actually be to restore the latter as an actual article instead of a dab page, and merge the former back into it, thus eliminating the need to craft a better qualifier. That was the original setup (see here for its most recent incarnation). Since the creation of the dab page over three years ago, the only two items there have been the fascism article and a redlink to a book by Robert Reich (later changed to the concept as espoused by Reich). Despite the most recent edit summary at Supercapitalism, I think we should assume for now that there will not be a separate article on "modern" supercapitalism, and merge the two together. That, of course, can be done without admin tools. Further, looking at Google Books convinces me that there should be an overview article on supercapitalism - Mussolini and Robert Reich not being the only people to espouse the concept. What do you think? (If you think the current setup is fine, then I'd suggest Supercapitalism (fascism) as an alternative.) Dohn joe (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did read your reply shortly after you posted it; thank you. I'm full up with the Signpost news cycle right now (Wikimania). I'll get back to this next week. Tony (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just spaced. It's a ratio of speeds at the tip: the speed of the tip and the speed of the wind. Modification with "tip" simply means that the speed of the rotating blade is measured at the tip. Sources have evenly divided for almost two decades. Tony (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the somewhat delayed response - it's been nuts in real life lately. I actually think the hyphen is the way to go here. "Tip speed" is an actual, defined term in aerodynamics - see here for example. As such, it's better thought of as a ratio of "tip speed" to "wind speed", and so the hyphen would be the preferred usage. I think the relatively common hyphenation found in the sources reflects that - as you know, sources often tend to underhyphenate even when the hyphen makes more sense. I don't recall any cases of the reverse, where significant hyphenation happens when it's not strictly called for. That's how I see it, at least. Dohn joe (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dohn Joe, did you realise Hồ Chí Minh Prize was my work? Not being WP:OWNER about, but I'd be interested to know given our previous discussions about your views on foreign names. Please reply here, I'll check this page. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I haven't been around much that last ten days. To answer your question - I did not know it was your work. You are one of about a dozen editors whose contributions I take a look at periodically, out of shared interest or just out of curiosity. I saw the article there and looked into it. There's nothing wrong with a little ownership, but I would encourage you to look at the Google Books search I posted when I moved the article. Sorry again for the delayed response... Dohn joe (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article again. I hope you can objectively consider the reasoning I gave there. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were left this message 5 Sept, you reply here 15 Sept expecting me to be watching, and then 17 Sept move it and THEN send a message? you're being intentionally disruptive and WP:POINTY. Please leave it alone. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons explained at Talk:Beverly_Hills,_California#Premature_close, I've opened a new RM request/discussion at Talk:Beverly Hills,_California#Requested move. You're receiving this notice because you participated in the last one. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (Discuss) – Buôn Ma Thuột city → Buon Ma Thuot

This is one of a group of geography titles IIO moved. This notification due to your participation in Talk:Hồ Chí Minh Prize Kauffner (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dohn, I trust you'll abide by WP:CANVASS here. FYI After an RfC with 23 to 16 in favour of use of Vietnamese titles (or 23 to 10 if you discount CANVASSing similar to this) I restored 80 of 800 undiscussed moves geo articles which were moved contrary to geo RM results at Talk:Ca Mau - geo RM results which were hidden with deleting RM notices and IP puppet activity archiving contrary RMs. If you really want to get involved be warned this is a bitey cesspit. The anti-foreign-names cause may be sincere with some, but the behaviour in this case is not. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without looking into the canvassing issue - I have no idea how impartial Kauffner was in his notifications - I can tell you that I have no intention to wade into this particular cesspit at this time. Dohn joe (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Threatening editors with a "bitey cesspit" if they choose to participate in an RM strikes me as highly inappropriate behavior, as I mentioned here. Kauffner (talk) 05:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Nice work improving the article La Playa, San Diego! It reads much better now. --MelanieN (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and nice work on the new article! That's something I had halfway planned to create for years, but never felt like I had enough sourcing. What you dug up is great! I would like to find a source for the "oldest commercial trail" thing because that's a pretty broad claim. If we can't find a source online, maybe we could take a picture of one of the plaques, upload it to Commons, and then pull it into the article. Is that something you are able to do? I am clueless about images. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on the ref. You beat me to it! I found one in a document by the SD River Conservancy, but yours is more of a secondary source, so it wins. Thanks! As for images, I'm likewise clueless. Dohn joe (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a second link for that fact, because I am planning to nominate the article for DYK, so we'll have to have the hook thoroughly cited. (I'll do the nomination - since you wrote the article; if I nominate it, there isn't a quid-pro-quo requirement to review another nomination.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of images - there's this from the La Playa Foundation website, which they claim comes from a US government survey from 1850. How can we use that image for the article? There are other images of the plaques online - any idea how we can use them? Thanks for your help with the article - I knew once I posted it you'd jump in and make it better! Dohn joe (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this map from Commons, which is unlabeled, but clearly shows the portion of the trail from La Playa past Old Town on magnification... Dohn joe (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good map, dated 1857. I wonder if there is some way to convert the magnification into a file of its own? I know somebody who is good with images, I will ask him. --MelanieN (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! We fell into the hands of one of the "DYK articles must meet GA standards" people, who insist that every sentence or even every portion of a sentence must be referenced. (The last time I encountered this kind of DYK review, seen here, I swore I would never submit another DYK nomination. In this case I really care about the article, which I have wanted to see in Wikipedia for years, so I stuck with it.) Thank goodness you had such good references to start with. And hey, the reviewer did add your map to the article, that was great! --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome about the map. Sorry you've had to run around looking for cites for every clause in the article. It probably makes for a better article, but worn-out editors... Hopefully it'll be worth it to see that hook on the front page! Dohn joe (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't gripe, it does make the article better. And one of the references I found in that search turned out to be good for an interesting additional paragraph at La Playa, San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that paragraph - interesting stuff! The tangent I was hoping to explore next was the early history of Roseville. Nail factories and railroads and Chinese junks - we'll see if my enthusiasm lasts long enough to make it to the article.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK is all approved and you can find out the exact schedule for the hook to go on the front page here: Template:Did you know/Queue. It hasn't been slotted into a queue yet, but I'm guessing it will go into Queue 6 - which would be tomorrow, the 23rd, from 5 pm till 1 am San Diego time. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks again for all the time and work you put in here; you really made it an article to be proud of. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I'll look forward to learning more about Roseville. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly 2,000 views - not bad! --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Playa Trail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ballast Point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article La Playa Trail, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the historic La Playa Trail in San Diego is the oldest commercial trail in the western United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/La Playa Trail. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.