→Tadija: reply to Tadija |
→Liburna: new section |
||
Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
:::As you can see, we ''are'' simply talking, and I have little doubt that we will find a mutual solution that is in accordance to our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. – By the way, I'm from Argentina. Pozdrav :-) [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev#top|talk]]) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
:::As you can see, we ''are'' simply talking, and I have little doubt that we will find a mutual solution that is in accordance to our [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]]. – By the way, I'm from Argentina. Pozdrav :-) [[User:Ev|Ev]] ([[User talk:Ev#top|talk]]) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Liburna == |
|||
Recently you've added detail about Alb coin and liburna on it. Why do you think it's important for that article? [[User:Zenanarh|Zenanarh]] ([[User talk:Zenanarh|talk]]) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:31, 27 March 2009
- Please remember to sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Hello!!
I see that you are editing lot of articles that i helped. Tell me, is there any thing that i am not doing good, so you must fix? And, yes, tell me what is that, so i can do it better! Greetings!!!
Tadija (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Tadija, I have noted your presence in Kosovo-related articles. :-) From what I have seen so far, there are a couple of things worth mentioning:
- Please, do not "move" articles by cutting & pasting, as you did when copying the content of "Bogiçevica" into "Bogićevica" instead of using the move function or requesting a move.
When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is very undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons.
- In the lead sections of Kosovo-related articles, when mentioning the Albanian and Serbian names in parenthesis, try to place the names in alphabetical order: the Albanian one first and the Serbian second. By following this simple and "neutral" convention, we aim at reducing sterile edit wars over which name takes precedence in the listing (none really does).
- Please, do not "move" articles by cutting & pasting, as you did when copying the content of "Bogiçevica" into "Bogićevica" instead of using the move function or requesting a move.
- If I see anything else, I will bring it to your attention. :-) Best regards, Ev (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Name
But that is pointless, and not NPOV! Article name is our guide, and with that, it is written in other languages, there are no need for 2, 3, or 4 names! There are only one name! Only London, and 100000 other names of that place!
And yes, it can be compared! Like Belgrade. There is no Belgrade or Beograd. Just one. Tadija (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, others would argue that mentioning both names in the leads is the most neutral approach, and that mentioning the Serbo-Croatian only is biased towards Belgrade's position. After all, the Albanian names are also used in some English-language publications (although less frequently than the Serbo-Croatian ones). – There's no need to mention more than one name, but in the particular case of Kosovo it is probably better to mention those two (not three or four).
- You're right in mentioning that (per our naming conventions for geographic names: "Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title") article's titles are our usage guide. However, in the first sentence of the lead section alternative names can be mentioned, as their are seen as a desirable part of maximizing information available to the reader (see Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names).
- The difference between London, Belgrade and the towns of Kosovo is that English-language publications refer to the first two cities as London and Belgrade respectively, always, without exception. – That is not the case when it comes to Kosovo, since some English-language publications use the Albanian forms instead of the Serbo-Croatian ones (cf. English-language publications using Peja instead of Peć, or Podujeva instead of Podujevo). Our articles' leads merely report this double usage, while the titles and subsequent usage in the rest of the articles use the form most common in English-language publications only (in our examples, Peć and Podujevo).
- Of course, if at a future time some English-language publications start to refer to London or Belgrade by any other name (be it Thamesville, Beograd or anything else), then the lead sections of those articles should report that usage too.
Italics
Hi, I've seen you've put 2 original names in italics in the list of national libraries (Kosovo and Northern Cyprus). I have nothing against this typographical and stylistic change BUT:
- it should be applied to the rest of the list (big work of questionable benefit).
- the results with non-Latin scripts is unknown and might be counter-productive.
I suggest you remove the double apostrophes. Best Clpda (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hello, Clpda. While changing some instances of Kosova into Kosovo in various articles I added the italics to the non-English names in Latin script of that section quite automatically, without really thinking about it (or about consistency within that article). My apologies for that.
- By the way, the current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting incorporated the mention that "[t]ext in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page" following my proposal. :-)
- In any case, here are the two internally consistent versions of "List of national libraries": the one without italics, and the one with italics. Since you are the one maintaining that entry's quality, I leave the choice between the two at your entire discretion. :-) - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt reply and action! First, I'd say that I don't contest at all the change from Kosovo to Kosova. The future will tell us which form dominates and WP will just adapt!
About italics and your updated version (big work indeed!), I wouldn't revert such a change without a little discussion. Italics generally suggest a quote, a translation or any other kind of external source. In this respect, the translated names of the libraries would rather be better candidates to italicization than the original names. Out of simplicity, I would come back to non-italicized texts at all levels (OK: exceptions). Best Clpda (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- The current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting mentions that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages", but also that "[a] proper name [in other languages] is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to".
- The lead sections of articles on "non-exclusively-anglophone topics" usually include relevant alternative names in foreign languages, which are commonly italicized, to the point that our {{lang}} templates for languages written with Latin characters already include the italics by default:
- {{lang-fr|Bibliothèque}} gives you "French: Bibliothèque".
- {{lang-de|Bibliothek}} gives you "German: Bibliothek".
- {{lang-it|Biblioteca}} gives you "Italian: Biblioteca".
- Thus, some (although not all) of the articles on each national library that use English translations as their titles currently give the local names in italics, as in:
- "The National Library of Algeria (in French: Bibliothèque nationale d'Algérie, in Arabic: الجزائرية الوطنية المكتبة) found its..." [1]
- "Library and Archives Canada (in French: Bibliothèque et Archives Canada) is a..." [2]
- "The Royal Library in Copenhagen (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) is the..." [3]
- "The National Library of Estonia (in Estonian: Eesti Rahvusraamatukogu) is a..." [4]
- "The National Library of Ireland (Irish: Leabharlann Náisiúnta na hÉireann) is a..." [5]
- "The National Library of Latvia (NLL) (Latvian: Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka (LNB)) is..." [6]
- "Poland's National Library (Polish: Biblioteka Narodowa) is a..." [7]
- ...in my personal opinion, marking a very practical visual distinction between Wikipedia's passive voice in English and interesting details about other languages (in this case, the "original" names in the local languages).
- But, really, it's entirely up to you. Your reasoning is sound too. If you consider that our anglophone readership would be better served by not using italics in that entry, go ahead and revert my last edit. :-) And thank you for keeping an eye on that article's quality. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Košare - why do we bother
Hi Ev! I see you're a glutton for punishment when it comes to patrolling the Kosovo pages. I started to try to raise the standard on this article by asking for WP:RS and all I got for my troubles was repeated assertions that a Serb-language documentary made by a state-sponsored journalist fit the bill. Over the following weeks I've watched both sies playing every conceivable tune on the info box data - everybody won the battle, casualty figures rise and fall by orders of magnitude... There's nothing encyclopedic about this article, it's just a forum for propagandists and revisionists. Can't we just delete it until someone comes up with some reliable sources? -- Timberframe (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi there, Timberframe. :-) Indeed, could we... ? I would really, but really love to delete that particular entry, and a substantial part of all the entries on genocides, massacres, attrocities, minor battles & skirmishes... all those "look how bad [radom ethnic group] are !!!" type of entries that plague Wikipedia. In my opinion, the tiny encyclopedic significance of most of those entries do not justify the amount of time they demand from non-partisan editors trying to make them compliant with our content policies.
- Based on our deletion policy, the English-language Wikipedia has a deletion process that includes articles for deletion. That it would be the proper venue to propose that entry's demise.
- Since you have already looked into at least some of that entry's details, I would ask you to write a rationale for deletion to present to the rest of the community (in this case, probably mentioning a lack of reliable sources to verify the entry's content). – If you wish, I will be more than happy to help you with the bureaucratic steps ot articles for deletion, and to counsel you about the deletion rationale. :-)
- Simply write why you think the entry merits deletion; why you think Wikipedia would be better off without it. If you wish, you can draft a rationale in your user space first (e.g. at User:Timberframe/sandbox), to polish it without time constraints, and then copy it to the page where the actual deletion discussion will take place.
Tadija
Hi, please watch Tadija closely. I think what he is doing is totally unacceptable: [8][9][10]. The above examples are from Commons (which is not a language-specific project by the way, and where all languages are welcome in description). He seems to be engaged in a very similar activity here. Also I don't think that this [11][12] is civil. What Tadija have done on Commons is much closer to vandalism than that. Colchicum (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC) And marking substantial POV edits (such as removal of alternative names) as minor is not a good thing either. Colchicum (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Colchicum. I have been keeping an eye on his edits (although clearly not as closely as I should have), cleaning-up assertions of Serbian sovereignity he often adds to articles.
- For his actions at Commons, it would be better to raise the issue with a Commons administrator. I'm afraid that, not being active there, I'm not familiar with how these issues are handled.
- For the moment I have only explained to him the meaning we give to the word "vandalism" and the proper use of the related warning templates. But I will review his latest edits, and keep a closer eye on him from now on. - Thank you for brining this up, Colchicum. Best regards, Ev (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- My friends, there is a lot of word about me, but it is not that much terrifying as you represented. First of all, i must ask you to understand my position. As all of you know, i am from Serbia, and my extended family member was brutally killed by Albanian terorist, member of KLA. I am sad that you think that my minor edits are threat to you, and your NPOV, commons, administrations, etc... About all of that i surely know much more than any of you, but those edits are moves of the despair! Ev, you are from Spain, i suppose? Imagine that some other people enter Catalonia, by long years settle and live there, and one day, Catalonia is out of Spain, you cant enter, all names that you give to Catalonia is renamed, all of your people there is killed or expelled, And there is no Catalonia any more, now it is something different, something from outside.
- Regarding this edit, "Ura e Fshejte" is Albanian name of the bridge, renamed year ago, and it is not Drini, it is Drin.
- Regarding this edit, category is empty, and i forgot to put redirect code. But this was definitely done, by me, or someone else.
- Regarding this edit, it is Šar mountain, not sharr, and it is as much winter in Serbia, as it is in Kosovo.
- Regarding this edit, you all know what is right name of the articles, so it in unneeded to talk about this any more.
- Regarding this edit, well, it is not too bed to inform that it is not good to edit wiki, if you are unaware of your edit ideas.
- Regarding this, and this edit, i undo it. It is written as Medieval Monuments in Kosovo, but in SERBIA! this must be here. This monasteries was built by our medieval kings and emperors, and it is the heart of Serbia historical memory. But it is in Kosovo, too far for us to reach now. It is not sincere to delete Serbia here. Just look the flag.
- Please, be carefully. There is much more than little things you see, miles and kilometers away. If you have any problem with me, or my edits, talk to me. We will surely find solution. Only if you are willing to seek for it.
- I do not think that your edits are a threat to me or to Wikipedia (nor are they terrifying :-). I apologize if my previous words gave you that impression.
- Although I do not pretend to understand exactly how you feel about this whole situation (especially considering that you have lost loved ones; you have my sincere condolences), I do get a general impression of your position. – Do consider, however, that probably the same circumstances also apply to some of our Albanian editors. Perhaps so you can understand their edits better.
- In any case, being emotionally involved in a situation does not excuse infringing our policies and guidelines. Quite the opposite in fact: it means that you have to be even more aware of your own biases and possible misconceptions, and work harder to work collegially. – I for one simply do not edit subjects about which I have strong feelings, because I doubt I can put aside my own strong biases (and because I would get angry in the process :-).
- I will not comment on your edits at Commons.
- Your edit at Peć itself was correct, of course. The edit summary you used was not. As I mentioned above, it's by no means certain that those edits were vandalism. You should have restricted yourself to described your edit, without commenting on the IP's intentions. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
- Please, take a look at my own contributions. You will see that I seldom use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, except in cases where "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" is the only possible explanation I can think of.
- You're correct also about the benefits of informing editors that their edits are inappropriate. However, plastering three warning templates in their talk pages is not the way to do it. Instead, explain politely to the editor what he did wrong, and what policies or guidelines he could read to avoid commiting the same mistake.
- As for the Medieval Monuments in Kosovo, their naming must conform to the source used (UNESCO itself). The facts that Kosovo is considered by some as an integral part of Serbia, and that the monuments were built by Serbian kings in lands that at the time were part of the medieval Serbian kingdom must be mentioned in an unbiased manner in the article's body. But directly asserting current Serbian sovereignity is not a neutral approach, so it's out of the question. Our neutral point of view policy is not negotiable.
- As you can see, we are simply talking, and I have little doubt that we will find a mutual solution that is in accordance to our policies and guidelines. – By the way, I'm from Argentina. Pozdrav :-) Ev (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Liburna
Recently you've added detail about Alb coin and liburna on it. Why do you think it's important for that article? Zenanarh (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)