DagneyGirl

Can I propose the county of North Yorkshire, which has a panhandle that goes further south than some parts of East and West Yorkshire?

DagneyGirl, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DagneyGirl! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Damwâld

Please refrain from removing useful and important information from Wikipedia. I assume you have good intentions, but the fact that the municipality considers the old name to be archaic is at the very least noteworthy. If you continue to vandalize these articles, you'll receive an official warning. --HendrikJan1968 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The source does not state in anyway that the Dutch names are archaic only that they are officially replaced by the West Frisian names. Please don't use the source to bend to something that it's not saying. Taalunie, the province, the Kadaster (see https://topotijdreis.nl/ 2020-map) and Fryske Akademy (who worked together with the Taalunie for the list on the Taalunie) still see Damwoude as the Dutch name. See also the talking page. DagneyGirl (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The source states that "De Nederlandse namen zijn vervallen", which is essentially the same. I added a second source for more proof. May I remind you that both the Taalunie and the Fryske Akademy have no authority on this subject whatsoever? The municipality gets to decide what the names of their villages, towns and cities are, and no one else. They state that the old names are to be considered archaic and that they should disappear (and they did), that's all that matters. I can decide to call Damwâld "Damforest" and maybe even convince others to do so, but that doesn't make "Damforest" the actual name. HendrikJan1968 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

No it does not, you're taking a sentence out of context to bend it to you're point. " straten en wegen te veranderen van Nederlandse in Friese namen" comes before it. It only stated that that the Dutch names are to disappear from use within in the municipality. Saying something like Taalunie and Fryske Akademy has no authority is nonsense, they are rule makers of the languages. A mission statement not proof of the fact you claimed. Please stop bending sources to you're own opinion.. DagneyGirl (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

DagneyGirl, you are doing this here too. Could you explain why? It makes no sense in English.

Please use the official names if an English exonym does not exist (which for villages is usually the case). There is no reason to use archaic Dutch names on the English language Wikipedia, especially in cases where these aren't even used in Dutch anymore (e.g., Grou, Roordahuizum). --JeroenHoek (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The Taalunie-list is about Dutch names, which includes archaic versions no longer in active use. For English there is no reason to use anything but the official name (which may be Dutch or Frisian in origin) for small villages which have no established name in English. --JeroenHoek (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Taalunie states when a name is historical or not. On the list 'Friese namen' there is no mention of this. More so other sources still use the Dutch names, for example G. van Berkel & K. Samplonius (2018), Nederlandse plaatsnamen verklaard: [http://etymologiebank.ivdnt.org/trefwoord/grou Grou (Nederlands Grouw). Claiming something is archaic most be done with sources not an opinion. Historical or archaic names are under the umbrella of 'Historische namen'. If a local/offical name is also used in Dutch it will give that information in a pop-up. See http://namen.taalunie.org/land/de as an example. DagneyGirl (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

And you're revert [1] on Leeuwarden does not make any sense in regard to official names use claim you made here, wiki-linking only the Dutch names instead of the official names. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries when you can

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! I mean this with the most sincerity; often times users read edit summaries to help them decipher the changes that are made. Whatever efforts you make are greatly appreciated! Thanks! PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. DagneyGirl (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Belgium Barnstar of National Merit
		For working to ensure some consistency in the use of Belgian placenames on the English Wikipedia, both in using commonly recognised English names where they exist and the official language of their location where there is no commonly recognised English name. Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling

You have made a large number of changes to a variety of article on the grounds of "spelling". The existing versions, by numerous editors, were correctly spelled. If in fact you meant that you preferred the half-English half-French version you have inserted it would be a good idea, as you are so far in a minority of one, to discuss the change before barging ahead wholesale. Tim riley talk 12:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I only edit for changing spellings in English, not in other languages. This is the English Wikipedia so English is the preferred language on here. DagneyGirl (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

English is very plainly not your own language. You should discuss and reach a consensus before making changes. That is not only common sense and good manners, but follows Wikipedia's rules. Tim riley talk 12:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I came about the same topic. We should link to La Monnaie, not your longish Royal ... something. Please revert them yourself We have real problems with article facts, - this is needless cosmetics. The edit summary "spelling" is misleading. People correcting spelling are welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So saying that using the French name is better then English??? The article states what the English name is. If this is not correct please discus this on the page there. Do not revert people who follow the English language. This is the English Wikipedia or not? DagneyGirl (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Without wishing to be unkind, as a native speaker of English I am not going to be lectured on my own language by someone whose grasp of it is so weak as yours, as displayed above. If you can establish a consensus for your change, so be it. Otherwise kindly refrain from imposing your personal preference on the rest of the En.Wikipedia community. Tim riley talk 16:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You're very rude indeed. Use real arguments on point not slashing down on peoples skills as an argument. The only thing you said is that you don't wanna use the English name. But not why one should not use the English one. No argument why the French one should be used instead. Again use the talking page of the article if you don't think the English name is correct. Do not just stamp on people for trying to use English on the English Wikipedia. DagneyGirl (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is stamping on you: we have explained above that if you can establish a consensus for your opinion, fine. If not, please do not try to impose your own personal preference for a half-English-half-French term on everybody else. Tim riley talk 17:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Please use a source for claiming that its a 'half-English-half-French term'. This claim should be backed. I do not, I repeat do not impose anything other than the English name that is used by themself as well. They do not use the French name in English on their website. Please use sourced based arguments. DagneyGirl (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you will find that the words "Royal Theatre" are English and "La Monnaie" French. I am sure you will understand if you read them again carefully. I have been going to opera for more than fifty years, and I have never heard any English person refer to "The Royal Theatre of La Monnaie". If you were to propose trimming references to the theatre down to "La Monnaie" tout court I, for one, would have no objection, but your favoured form of wording looks very odd indeed to an English reader. Tim riley talk 18:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes one part is French in origin but the full name is the English name that they use on their website lamonnaie.be and others like Operabase. But that said, yes 'La Monnaie' could be fine as well, maybe sometimes 'theatre of' 'La Monnaie' maybe preferred. That would be better than the full French (or the Dutch one for that matter). DagneyGirl (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS. No one agrees with you. You are changing the name from a name that English speakers recognize, to a name that is not generally used. The article name should be reverted to the familiar name. See WP:UE. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Hay, Ssilvers as I said on you're talk page please discuss this on the talk page of the article itself. And please used sourced based argument there. The full French name is not use by themselves in English so why would that be better than the English one that they do use? Or why not use 'La Monnaie' instead, as suggested by Tim above. DagneyGirl (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

"Theatre of 'La Monnaie'" is not idiomatic English, but I suggest you air your proposal at the La Monnaie talk page and see if you can get a consensus. If you do, then you can make the changes. As you are keen on sources, you may like to check in the obvious authorities such as Kobbé, Grove, Baker and the Penguin/Viking guides to see how the institution is usually referred to in English, which will help your case if they agree with you. Tim riley talk 18:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks and thank you for the helping hand. I have started new section on the talk page about the name. We wait and see then. DagneyGirl (talk)

Laaxum moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Laaxum, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Please see WP:CIT as to what information needs to be included in sources in order to satisfy WP:VERIFY.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

A bit weird, al the information is sourced. It now comes across as if it were not. So a page based on sources is not enough to post an article. It seems more like this sort of bureaucracy decides because it doesn't conform to what actually, because the sources are at the bottom instead of between the texts. There are three sources, all three are independent sources. For that reason I just moved the article back. If you do not agree so be it. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have edited the page to adapt the use of citation to the English Wikipedia. This page was partly translated from the Dutch Wikipedia, where that way of general statement at the bottom of used sources is the usual. Also added a second source on the old place names. If it is still a problem, move it again. Maybe next time first contact the user and explain why you think a article has a problem instead of moving the page and than contacting the user with only a standard text that does not indicate enough what the problem really is. DagneyGirl (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

You're changing French spellings for modern Belgian ones, it's anachronistic. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you consider doing it like this, Nieuport (now Nieuwpoort)? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, see the spelling Guides of Wikipedia. We use the official or English names, only if names are used more frequently then we can use more divers spellings, the French spellings of Kortrijk as an example, those can be left alone because they are still used in English, as mentioned in the article. French names for Flemish city's that are only are sometimes used is not really good reason alone to use French names. There where always Flemish not French. So stating that there are now something that the where already are, is a bit weird to me. DagneyGirl (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

You should also read and abide by WP:NOTBROKEN. DuncanHill (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, after following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Alternate language names. Names that are still used should not be corrected. DagneyGirl (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The French names are still used in English English and in lots of EngLang publications, I prefer to use the familiar name then (now ....) [especially with Arabic place names which sometimes have four versions in English]. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Depending on historic context and modern sources you can use, let's take Nieuwpoort as an example, in a article; Nieuwpoort (Nieuport) and follow the spelling Nieuwpoort if mentioned more than once. Or if modern sources (over the last 10 years) uses more Nieuport you can use Nieuport (Nieuwpoort) and follow the spelling Nieuport if mentioned more than once. DagneyGirl (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your talk page consists almost entirely of people asking you to stop. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you insist on ignoring them. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

To stop using English or official names according to own rules of Wikipedia is weird thing to point out. 15:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"The English name (unless archaic) should take precedence over all other names." Nieuport. Keith-264 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Please use talk page then of the place and modern sources to underline this. If the English is indeed Nieuport than the article should be renamed. DagneyGirl (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we're talking about a pattern of behaviour here, your behaviour, for which this is the appropriate place. That so many editors have objected to your edits needs dealing with in one place, not scattered over the talk pages of all the articles you've edited. It can be here or WP:ANI. Here is likely to be less unpleasant for everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, where talking about if a name is the English name or not, if so this should be discussed on the talk page of the place not a editors page. Thinking that everyone can ignore the rules because of there own opinion is a slippery slope. DagneyGirl (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Deflection doesn't address the edits you have made on the Great War pages. Nieuport is a French word used in English publications which are RS. Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This is not a (great) war-wiki, but a general Wikipedia. The rules apply across the board. But that said as I stated above, if modern sources (over the last circa 10 years) still broadly use this name you can use those. You state those sources on Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium talk page, and propose in articles that cover the (great) War I (or II)-topics in depth this or that name should be used. Maybe on the 'Alternate language names'-page, or maybe a new one. But only if it's a in depth article. If it's only in passing it still should be the official name that's preferred. DagneyGirl (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Preferred", another weasel word. Notice also the national exception. Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DagnyGirl. This monolingual Yankee believes bilingual editors can help a lot in Wikipedia. However, for example, if I knew German and were doubling over into German WP, I would certainly pay heed to the advice of native speaking editors, because my language proficiency would not match theirs. Then too, WP is based on discussion, not argument.

That said, my morning Watchlist has 34 articles you have changed. Without digging into it, I can assure you I created at least 25 of those articles, and probably as many as 30. When I create articles, I use the place names given in my sources. I try to link all possible place names except the obvious, such as Brussels or Berlin. If I discover that the place name links to a WP article under a name that has changed since World War I, my link will display the original name, but link to the article under the modern name. This is apparent in edit view.

Need I point out that this painstaking work can be nullified by a hasty edit? I am not sure how many of my researched place names you have altered. It would take me hours to dig back and discover the changes. I would rather be researching future editing than checking back to see if a fellow editor has made errors. And I don't quite see your purpose in these changes. Will they be better WP articles after the change(s)?

I close by noting that you have requested that other editors inform you of editorial changes before taking action. Couldn't you extend us the same courtesy, please?Georgejdorner (talk) 20:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hay, thanks for you're reaction. But this is not pure history-wiki, also place names should reflect modern spellings, including place names but also modern language styles. Of course sometimes in some context you can use older names, but this should regulated, or obvious. Articles are not you're own property of course, anyone can edit them. That's the point of Wikipedia. Simple spelling-corrections that follow the guide lines that the community has made as a whole are normal. We do appreciate the efforts you make of course. DagneyGirl (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You replies show that your grasp of English is a little unsure, cf "community in a hole as made are normal" I think this should be "as a whole". I don't know what the rest means but you might get ready to be reverted edit by edit under BRD. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hay Keith maybe look first at the guide lines. Attacking people is not the way forward. I have giving you steps to work with, to add and modify the guide lines and rules. DagneyGirl (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no attack, only a suggestion that your grasp of English is less than fluent. You might want to consider that before laying down the law about English usage. We have given you steps to work with and your evasions are beginning to grate.Keith-264 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, DagnyGirl, no thanks for your reaction. You have ignored every item in the message for which you thanked me. I do not know if you are ignoring me, or if you simply do not understand what I wrote. I do know that when you lecture veteran editors about their native language, you are arrogant. Likewise, when you lecture veteran editors on such WP basics as "anyone can edit". And when you insist on the right to set naming rules, you are definitely in violation of WP basics, which call for discussion and consensus, not argument and evasion. At this point, your writing has shown that you are not as fluent in English as you think you are, and that you are not a logical thinker. And, in point of fact, you are a borderline vandal.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia have guide lines if nobody wants to follow them? Calling someone who does follow them a borderline vandal does not make any sense. One of the reason why we should follow the guide lines is clarification for readers. Novelty readers and people who just starting on there journey to delve in a topic should be able to grasp what it is about. But also not be confused by different use of place names by some of the users that put down the text. Most people would not think Gistel and Ghistelles are the same place, this also goes for Nieuwpoort and Nieuport. And you might think I know this, but do not assume everyone does. Because not every page/article on the subject of WWI uses one type of spelling it can get very confusing for the reader where something takes place, and might assume that it's somewhere else. Then you say, they just need to click the link, but only a small fraction will do this. Especially when trying to read the article(s) on subject at hand. It can also be distracting them from learning more on the subject. So it not about a article or small group articles but the bigger picture, and Wikipedia is not a professional literature (platform) on a certain field subject but a broader platform for knowledge. DagneyGirl (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Platitudes Keith-264 (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

A quote from WP:ENG: "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources."Georgejdorner (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that's why we use names like Ostend instead of Oostende or Ostende. Also bare in mind that older sources can be outdated on spelling usage in English. Sources that you use do not exclusively use English names, but use direct names taken from documents, including spelling mistakes, phonetic spelling and exclusively French or German names. Sometimes it's harder to locate precisely where it is and what place it indicates, sometimes this can be helped by searching for other sources than one or three sources that you use as a standard starting point. It's unclear which Saint-Julien is meant for example. And using for example Bellewardersee and Bellewarde as the name for the same small lake called Bellewaarde Vijver, or the misspelling Lampermisse in one article and another the right spelling or Wytschaetebogen in stead of the well known English name Messines Ridge can confuse the readers and even the editors. Look we all make mistakes, but copying mistakes into article is another thing. My advise try not to copy names one on one from one or three sources. DagneyGirl (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"WP:ENG: "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." You haven't addressed this point but put up a straw man. I suggest you relent. Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I did addressed this head on: "Yes that's why we use names like Ostend instead of Oostende or Ostende. Also bare in mind that older sources can be outdated on spelling usage in English. Sources that you use do not exclusively use English names, but use direct names taken from documents, including spelling mistakes, phonetic spelling and exclusively French or German names." Please do not distort words or make claims that are not true, on thinking you got a point. DagneyGirl (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No, you're cherry-picking, please also note that it is bear (carry) not bare (naked). Most English sources use French spellings which should stay in an English article. Keith-264 (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please read above text, it is not only French names, even more its about names usages by sources that only use document names including phonetic spelling and spelling mistakes. DagneyGirl (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It's time to BRD. Keith-264 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop nonsense posting and read what is about. DagneyGirl (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep it civil please. Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Keith-264, around the middle of the 20th century most British sources started switching from using French placenames for smaller towns and villages in Belgium to using French or Dutch depending on the local name. By the end of the 20th century this was pretty universal. In the 21st century, "Nieuport" should only really be used in English in a direct quotation from an older source, not as a standard English variant of the name. I don't agree with all DagneyGirl's edits, but s/he has this right. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

"Spellings and place names follow the usage in the British Official History (1948) except in the sections where the source is in German, when equivalent contemporary forms are used. Modern Belgian usage has been avoided, because the Belgian state has French, Dutch and German as official languages and a local system of precedence, not relevant to events in 1917."{{sfn|Portal Belgium|2012}}" A footnote in Messines 1917, I suggest that it says it all. Keith-264 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

That's their own prerogative. Belgium.com is also not a native English source, but a government website. Its more that they clarify why they use those names in stead of this or that name. This because there is real language battle in Belgium that is politically charged. So it's trying to avoid backlash for one or the other. Also content on things and how its represented on Belgium.com change from time to time. DagneyGirl (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's time you stopped digging. Keith-264 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Belgium footnote explains that Belgium is a multilingual country but says nothing that backs up that article's dubious preference for 1948 spellings as a guide to 2021 writing. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Although it is rather amusing to see someone citing themself as an example of best usage. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of place names

Can we have a succinct statement of the positions on this topic, with no personal remarks. Perhaps newcomers can help. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of place names should be correct and follow the guidelines. Yes there is an argument to be made one talking on a topic sometimes it can be preferred to uses spellings that where common in the period back then. But there is a differences between using older spelling en using spellings that come from documents that are not English per se, and use a lot of different spellings for same places, small spelling mistakes and phonetic spelling.

In the case of 'List of aerial victories of' there lots of names that where copied one one from the used source, theaerodrome.com. This website does not use English names, not even English from that time but uses names from documents, that can be English, French, German and Dutch names but also misspellings and phonetic spelling. This should not have been imported if its easily corrected. Taking 'Oostroubeke' as an example, this spelling is only uses by the theaerodrome.com dostler page, apart from a forum that uses this name. But it can also lead to misinterpretations, meaning one place can be come two. 'Schaep-Baillie' for example became 'between Schaep and Baillie' in an wikipedia-article. In other article the spelling 'Schaep Baillie' was used. The actual place name is Schaapbalie. There was no real need to use the German name for the English 'Messines Ridge' as another example. Using different spellings and names can confuse the readers also. In case of 'List of aerial victories of' there is also the matter where something is taking place. It is not always clear from the document names. That's why I sometimes added the 'where template ', more of expert eye should found out where curtain location is. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

• I second DagneyGirl on this. Using period names and spellings in 21st-century English is not the way to go. Period variants should be reserved for direct quotations from older sources, not current Wikivoice. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

They aren't period names, they're the ones in use. Keith-264 (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

If I cannot directly link to an article, I have made it a practice to build links so that the source name shows to the reader, but the link is to the article under the present day name. I put considerable effort into searching for articles for links. In other words, I try to obviate the very usage of archaic terms that I am accused of fostering. Also, I write out coherent Edit summaries and give sources for my information.

Incidentally, BeenAround, this issue is being discussed at WP:ANI. I presented it in a neutral fashion over there. Your comments may be useful there.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi, Georgejdorner. The summary text 'spelling' doesn't seem vague to me, it says exactly what the edit does, spelling correction (s). One of those things that has been mentioned here and on ANI-notice / Helpdesk is that you have used sources that use not only archaic names, but also foreign names, misspellings and phonetic names.

The main source you use uses the names of the original documents which are in different languages. That means that you have to 'translate' the information so that it knows what it is about for the general reader of Wikipedia. Just because the source has decided to use document names does not mean that you should copy that one to one for another platform with a different purpose than the source.

As mentioned above, introducing incorrect names does not help the reader. You hadn't linked many of the misspellings either. Besides the fact that linking alone does not directly help the reader. Clicking on a link can distract the reader from the topic but in some cases create confusion if the name is too different.

Writing out information helps the reader more than just linking a name. It also distracts the reader when different spellings are used on different pages, as indicated above. Or when the information has been incorrectly entered by the user, as for example in the case where a place became two places.

It is all not intended personally, if it came across as that, my apologies. My goal is only to get the reader better informed when they read something, partly through clearer use of names (and spellings), whether or not across different pages, such as endorsing the Wikipedia guidelines and sometimes to clarify what it is about and sometimes what alternative spellings are used by the sources if one wants to delve further into the information. DagneyGirl (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)