User talk:David Kernow/Archive 12

ping

• [1] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• [2]

• [3] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• [4] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• [5] Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Provinces_of_regions_in_Belgium#WP:RM Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming#National Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Category:Country subdivisions Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Country_subdivisions/Naming#National Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you a template expert?

Hi there. I saw that you edited Template:Japanese prefecture yesterday so I thought I would ask for your help. I've been macronising the pages in Ōita Prefecture recently (per WP:MOS-JP) and I noticed that the "Districts" link in the Japanese prefecture brings up a red link to the [[Category:Districts in Ōita Prefecture]] (with the macronised Ō) which doesn't exist. The MOS says that we shouldn't macronise categories, so this page will never exist. Any way of doctoring the template so that we can get rid of this red link and get it to point to [[Category:Districts in Oita Prefecture]]? Cheers, Bobo12345 11:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... In other words, if I've understood correctly, for the template to "de-macroniz/se" names automatically...?  If so, I'm afraid I don't know, although I suspect that if it is possible, the code might be cumbersome...

A solution that would seem to work with rather than despite macrons would be to permit them in category names, to which those versions without macrons are {{categoryredirect}}ed...?

Sorry not to be more helpful, David Kernow (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks anyway. :) Bobo12345 12:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There was an existing DistrictCategory parameter, which I've used in the Ōita Prefecture article to fix this. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Very speedy, thanks! Bobo12345 14:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded – thanks Rick!  David Kernow (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Hi there! I note that on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_5, you closed some debates as a delete or speedy delete. While I have no objection to that, I note that the respective cats have not, in fact, been deleted. Is this an oversight or did I miss something? >Radiant< 10:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert – I think I added them correctly to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working, but as this has since been updated, I'm not entirely sure; as they now seem to be deleted, some kind soul may've quietly sorted it out for me... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving templates

Hi, I noticed you edited and renamed our Guitarist infobox. Out of curiosity, is this project-wide, or are you just doing it randomly? --Aguerriero (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere in between; elsewhere in Wikipedia Template:Infobox X seems to be the norm for infoboxes. As infoboxes look to've become part of the furniture, I'd support the introduction of an "Infobox:..." namespace (rather than keep repeating the redundancy of "Template:Infobox...") – what do you think...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional characters by subjective quality

I decided to leave these separate to avoid the "no consensus" that happened back in July when many of them were nominated together. (Oddly enough, the one that garnered the most "keeps" back then, Fictional perverts, has since been deleted.) You sure that combining them is the best idea? I'd hate to see controversy over one category doom the rest to being kept again. CovenantD 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point; I've now separated them again. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List of massacres

Hi Khoikhoi,

+{{verylong}}

I agree; in addition to going ahead with the suggestions here, do you think splitting the article between the current sections 2 and 3 to make List of massacres (to 1500) and List of massacres (1500 to date) (or the like) might be a solution...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi David,

That sound like a good idea to me. I was thinking of separating them by countries, but as we know the maps have changed over the years. I appreciate your work on the article by the way–it looks a lot nicer than it did before (with the bolding and all). Ciao. —Khoikhoi 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!  I'm looking to resume work on it again soon... Best wishes, David (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Classification by publicly displayed opinion

[6]: This is my interpretation of Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Categorisation:

[for sensitive categories:] Try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

For example Polish Roman Giertych is a classical populist politician and anti-gay marriage is not the defining characteristic of him (and neither being "Creationist"??? or supporter of death penalty). This kind of categories gets misused by people with axe to grind and is inherently fuzzy.

Just for info, Baidu Baike does limit number of categories to 5, quite likely being influenced what has happened here. Pavel Vozenilek 09:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your pointers... Re the Baidu Baike example, perhaps articles here could be limited to (say) five to seven 'primary' categories (visibly linked at page bottoms as at present) with all other ('secondary') categories listed but {{hidden}} below... Regards, David (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The ability to have primary and (visually distinguished) secondary categories is sorely lacking but consider how hard is to push any changes through Wikipedia (due to MediaWiki shortcomings, the process of making changes "official" and resistance by typical editors). Even the stable versions, promised for years, didn't materialize yet.

A properly designed category system would also allow to attach notes to each link (explanations, references) and would allow to generate lists automatically. Pavel Vozenilek 14:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes; even with issues of consensus etc aside, I can see from Bugzilla that patching problems is more than enough work for the developers (or single overloaded developer Brion VIBBER...?) so there seems no chance for enhancements such as the above (or formaliz/sing the inclusion of metadata, or the current JavaScript hack that implements a degree of sorting in tables, or...). I've heard there is a "Summer of Code" that tries to address this problem – I think that's it's focus...? – but, as Wikipedia becomes ever more of a landmark on the internet, I'm wondering if paying some developers to code is needed... Yours, David (talk) 01:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bunker

Hi Sherurcij,

(rvt back one)

Any particular reason/s...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you moved it to a new, better, title - I felt that aesthetically, things were left off-balance by the new attempt to format the styles of the lists, there was too much blank-space, things were not center-aligned, and it took up significantly more space than the earlier version - making it more difficult for users to quickly navigate. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 00:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I'll try restoring some of the other features I introduced without compromising the above; I'd appreciate your feedback again once I've made the edit. Yours, David (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

... Have returned to the template and now feel the current version is a good balance between ease of navigation (bold headings aligned) and space usage. Hope you agree!  Best wishes, David (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

PS I could use more space by placing the April 22/23 entries and the April 30/May 1 entries on single rows; yes, table work would be more involved, but I can see how it could be achieved. David (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunker people

Hi Adam,

Thanks for creating this article!  I've been fiddling with {{Final occupants of the Führerbunker}} recently and, in order to replace its red links with blue, was thinking I might lay down a few stubs and/or try translating material from other Wikipediae. Now, thanks to your article, there's one less remaining – thanks!

Are you planning to address the other red links...?  If so, I'll happily step aside and wait with interest, as I'm only too aware that I know little about this era. Meanwhile, I think I'll try adding some categories to the Voss article.

Thanks again for your work, David Kernow (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have some material in the Vinogradov book to do Haase and Rattenhuber, plus Soviet mugshots. Adam 02:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Great; I'll try to stub or start-via-(dodgy)-translation the other redlinks sometime soon. Best wishes, David (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have done Werner Haase. I can't find anything on his education or professional career before 1945. He is not mentioned in any of my sources on the Nazi doctors so I don't think he was involved in any of the "medical" war crimes, but I can't be certain. Adam 13:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have now done Johann Rattenhuber as well. Adam 16:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I now knock up stubs/translations for the remaining four redlinks in the template...?  Yours, David (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Something is wrong with this picture

Please look at the link for this:

In one of your edits, it is added to the List of articles, an overview, and is somehow replacing the picture of the arctic map.

I can't track it down. Can you?

BTW, in case you aren't seeing what I'm seeing, I'm seeing a Techspot ad!

--The Transhumanist 22:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

When I saw your message, the image appeared as I exepcted, i.e. blank world in grey apart from Arctic in green – if I link it again below, how does it look to you now...? :

...I've just visited List of articles, an overview again and it's appearing correctly there for me. The image is from the Commons ([7]) and all appears in order there too, including the history. So... I don't know...  I just hope that by the time you read this you find it as it should be...

Incidentally, seeing the title "List of articles, an overview" again makes me realise it's a comma splice, i.e. in lieu of using a colon or slash, perhaps it ought to be "List of articles; an overview". However, I think I'd far prefer "List of overview articles" or even simply "Overview articles"... but if there's a rationale not to do so that I've forgotten or overlooked, please point me toward it. Otherwise, what do you think...?

The page and its siblings do look great and, most importantly, inviting – my visit just now reminded me that I have to stop them drawing me into browsing when I'm meaning to edit!  As pages meant to invite people into the encyclopedia, though, that's perfect. Thanks for your contributions to them.

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Quick request for help

Done. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

clear:right; ...of course!   Thanks, David (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Location of US capital

Hi David, thanks for working to improve the template I created. I like your revisions, I think it looks very good. I thought, however, the heading should say "Capital" instead of "Capitals" since there is only one capital at any given time. Indeed, the "Capital of the United States" moves with Congress. I should note, however, Markles raised the same concern in the past (see [8]). In any event, I wanted you to know there was a reason behind the the naming. Thanks again! Regards, Accurizer 12:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...Good point – I agree entirely, so have moved the template to {{US capital}} and added a comment to the code for the sake of future editors. Hope this (and col 1's align="right") is okay. Thanks for a useful template, David Kernow (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

...PS Haven't left a comment in the code but amended the title used in the template instead, hopefully removing any need for the comment. David (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, I'm very pleased with it. Thanks for being so open to discussion. See you around! Regards, Accurizer 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Top level-only TOC)

Paraphrased from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical):

Is there a template that produces a TOC listing only the top-level sections within an article...?

There isn't one, it would require css changes or changes to the mediawiki code. However, it wouldn't be hard to create one by adding some css to MediaWiki:Common.css, such as:

.toclimit5 li.toclevel-6 {display:none}
.toclimit4 li.toclevel-6, .toc4 li.toclevel-5 {display:none}
.toclimit3 li.toclevel-6, .toc3 li.toclevel-5, .toc3 li.toclevel-4 {display:none}
.toclimit2 li.toclevel-6, .toc2 li.toclevel-5, .toc2 li.toclevel-4, .toc2 li.toclevel-3 {display:none}
.toclimit1 li.toclevel-6, .toc1 li.toclevel-5, .toc1 li.toclevel-4, .toc1 li.toclevel-3, .toc1 li.toclevel-2 {display:none}

And then creating a template to handle this:

<div class="toclimit{{{1|5}}}">__TOC__</div>

You might convince them to add it to Common.css if you explain it is purely aesthetic and fails gracefully (worst case scenario: it displays all the levels).

Alternately, you can remove the TOC via __NOTOC__ and create your own menu with anchor links (will have to be updated manually as sections change).

A third option is to remove the section headers and use large text (not advised).

--Splarka (rant) 07:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Major edits?

Perhaps if you're planning "major edits" of a template like Template: Astronomical locations in fiction you might like to discuss or at least mention them on the Talk page for that template. No offence, and most of your edits have looked good, but I'd like to have some idea of what's going on. RandomCritic 22:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies; I forgot that {{inuse}}'s message can sound perturbing. I reckon it's probably simplest if I finish the alterations I'm currently making and if there's any (or all) that you're not keen on, discuss their amendment/reversion. Hope that's okay...?  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...Okay, have finished amending the template with the exception of reducing the table's rowspacing; I can't recall or seem to be able to find how to do so... A reminder gratefully received!  Yours, David (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Census & all that

Hi again Luigizanasi,

Have finally taken a look at your corrections to the above in the wake my attempted revision – thanks for looking through it. Given your amendment to its opening, I'm wondering if it needs renaming as Census geographic units of Canada...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do think that the Census Divisions of Canada should be renamed to Census geographic units of Canada. The main Census division article should be a disambiguation page as the two terms are used quite differently in Canada and the US. I don't know what the generic term should be, but I suggest it shouldn't be "census division" as this will lead to confusion. I sort of like the US term, : "Census geographic entities". Luigizanasi 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your message:
  1. Census divisions of Canada (plus Census Agglomeration, Census agglomeration, Census Metropolitan Area and Census metropolitan area) now redirect to Census geographic units of Canada;
  2. Census division: Yes, pending a little more research (re "census divisions" elsewhere in the world), it's my intention to convert this to a disambiguation page. At the same time, the article to which currently redirects, Census divisions of North America, will be deleted as obselete.
  3. Generic term: I suspect "Census geographic entity/ies" might yet be parochial on the world stage; hopefully this will or won't be indicated by the research just mentioned. In order to align with other kinds of country subdivisions, it might need to be "census division"-with-note-re-Canada...

Best wishes, David (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Also pending my own further research, I've left the section header "Dissemination areas" on Census geographic units of Canada as if these areas form the fourth level of units alone. My apologies if this is incorrect (e.g. if they are a form of or alternative to (say) census tracts).

IMO it is better to have such discussion not on user talk pages, but on project or article pages. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

national

pls dont put the word national in. that other folks didnt mind is another thing. they are not into it so much. I am happy to get rid of "subnational" and then "national" invades again via another door. CN and RU of have nation (nationality) based subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

First, my apologies that I forgot to remove "national" from those proposals when I pasted them back into CfD. However, I'm now glad I did forget, as I think the category names need to indicate what kind of administrative divisions they contain. Yes, we and other folk involved in country subdivisions might think 'Well, what else could they be?!' but I can recall when my attention was first drawn to this topic and it wasn't at all obvious. But what I don't properly understand is the strength of your dislike for the word "national"; I realise it's used as the adjective for "nation" as well as "country", but I don't see how that's a big problem. If you can indicate why it is – is it something I've missed, some potential clash within category names further along the path...? – then I'll happily withdraw/revise the proposals. In fact, I want to know about anything I've missed, for, as we know, it takes time to amend features such as category names etc!  So please let me know why "national" is a big problem – thanks.

CN and RU of nation based subdivisions...

I don't understand this – sorry if I'm being slow...

Best wishes and thanks for your patience, David Kernow (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CN and RU of have nation (nationality) based subdivisions.

Hope I'm correct to read your amendment above to mean the problem you see is with the republics and other ethnically-based subdivisions of Russia and the autonomous areas of China...? If so, I don't think it is a major problem; I reckon the majority of English speakers use "national" to mean "of a country" before "of a nation", even though "national" derives from "of a nation". I realise, though, that this is just my guess, so perhaps a poll somewhere to find out whether or not this is likely might be useful...?  In any case, one or more notes could be added to the relevant Russian and Chinese categories in order to minimiz/se the chances of misunderstanding...?  Yours, David (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...How about "administrative divisions of countries" in place of "national administrative divisions" (e.g. N-th level administrative divisions of countries, etc)...?  David (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(Discussion then moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country subdivisions/Naming#National)

Template:Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada by area

You had "Champlain Regional County Municipality, Quebec" as the smallest but List of Quebec regions and the Quebec Government say that Laval, Quebec is the smallest in area. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting and correcting!  Have also propogated {{Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada by population}} and am about to propogate {{Census metropolitan areas by size}} – hopefully I've compiled these correctly... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I noticed it was because the Inuvik Region showed up as a red link but I knew it was there. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

CATEGORIES

I am too lazy :)

Medical genetics ‎(11 members)

Medical genetics WikiProject participants ‎(12 members)

Medical genetics articles by quality ‎(10 members)

Medical genetics images ‎(12 members)

Please add them to discussion --Endgame1 03:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Then find enough motivation to overcome your laziness!  Sheesh!  Regards nonetheless, David (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Continent templates

{{Africa}}

Hi Cool Cat,

(moved Template:Countries and territories of Africa to Template:Africa: moving back to proper location)

Just noticed your move; please help me understand why "Africa" is this template's "proper location". Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the intended function of the Continent template navboxes such as {{Africa}}, {{Europe}} etc. was to link to countries (defacto or not) on a spesific continent. There are several reasons for this. Two of the important reasons are:

• To limit the number of entities that appear on the template for practical purposes: There are way too many countries in africa.
• POV concerns: Some people decide to add random "territories" of contraversial regions. If official UN territories are allowed, unoficial ones must be allowed as per WP:NPOV which only creates problems.

There are probably other reasons but I am at the moment focusing on these two.

For teritories a seperate {{Teritories of Africa}} may be used.

--Cat out 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

1. Unfortunately, I don't see how the name "Africa" will dissuade folk intent on adding "entities" and/or territories to this template from doing so. Secondly, when found within code, {{Africa}} does not indicate what aspect/s of Africa the template addresses. As the template (still) carries countries and territories, {{Countries and territories of Africa}} seems particularly appropriate.
2. You may not be aware that {{Navigation Template}} alone does not seem to accommodate smaller screen or window sizes, producing poor linewrap. That, at least, is the result here.
3. As the region names are (currently) no longer aligned, distinguishing between each line of countries/territories is now not so straightforward. I suggest the small images further assisted this useful feature.

I am copying the above to Template talk:Africa in the hope other folk may comment.

Ok. I'll try to sort this with you w/o involving other parties since so far you sound to be a reasonable person.

1. The intention of contient templates have always been to link to political entities: countries (defacto or not). Yes the template does have teritories which is infact problematic.
   • If we are to include a single teritory, we have to include all of them. Which may not be all that problematic for africa (since there arent that many border disputes in africa) but it is for asia, europe and etc. We have to apply the same standard to all continent templates.
   • I have been meaning to remove (more like move) the continent links from the africa template but didnt really have had the time.
2. I am not sure I understand that. Normaly there should not be a linewarp problem at all. The "navigation template" has a generic fixed div size. Can you provide a screenshot?
3. I am inclined to remove the images with the continent names. They hare already hard to see. If they get any smaller (as they need to), they will become useless so we might as well remove them completely.

--Cat out 23:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Glad that I seem reasonable – so far...! <chuckle>

The intention of contient templates have always been to link to political entities: countries...

Understood. In that case, suggest these template names become {{Countries of X}}. Meanwhile, I'd steer away from referring to them as "political entities"; some folk may take exception to either or both these words, especially if they live in or know a "country" with a complicated history. (Perhaps this is so with yourself and Belgium...?)

...there should not be a linewarp problem at all ... Can you provide a screenshot?

See Image:Screenshot showing template.jpg.

I am inclined to remove the images with the continent names...

The images may indeed be a cosmetic extra; first, though, I'm more concerned that, in a template such as {{Africa}}, it's now not so easy to see which line refers to which (compass-based) region, as both their alignment and thumbnail images have gone. Hope you understand what I mean.

Yours, David (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgiums case is relatively straight forward when in contranst with places like the balkans or middle east. I intentionaly used the referance "politcal entities" since for instance Taiwan is no county as far as China is concerned. Infact China considers Taiwan to be a part of itself. Taiwan claims to be in control of all of mainald china and does not consider it to be a country. What is a country and what isn't can be very complicated by itself so we do not need "territories" and "wanabe countries" such as Scandinavia, Basque, Kurdistan, Assyria, Greater Armenia (last three overlaps actualy) and others on the continent templates.

I'd like to evade a {{Countries of X}} since people will object to defacto countries then. It causes problems even though it shouldn't.

I have updated template africa in a bold move. I intend to do the same to Oceania template. Removing images and teritories would fix the linewarp problem.

--Cat out 01:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indentation)

I intentionaly used the referance "politcal entities" since...

I'm intrigued by your approach as the kind of examples that have arisen (Belgium, Taiwan, etc) are one reason why I feel avoiding descriptions such as "political" might be wise – this does not mean, however, that I'm opposed to your approach as (1) I'm still learning about it and (2) it may well be an improvement!

I'd like to evade a {{Countries of X}}...

I hope you understand, however, my point that seeing say {{Africa}} while editing a page is not as useful as (say) {{Countries of Africa}} unless you already know (well) what the template contains. My experience thus far indicates that succinct but informative template names (or category names, or...) outweighs any misguided amendments people may or may not make to the templates themselves; if that were a significant problem, I'd discourage making it (too) easy for people to edit templates by including {{Tnavbar}}s in them!  Also, a <noinclude> explanation on the template's could also serve to dissuade mistaken edits, or be something to which people could be referred.

I have updated template africa in a bold move...

Now seen. Suggest for now that, as the country names are in a small font-size, the bullet-point dividers are correspondingly smaller, i.e. &middot;s. Also, recommend the syntax [[Country]] · to ensure consistent linewrapping. Yours, David (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Oh, I am merely trying to be carefull :) I wouldn't dare put "political entities" in the template, I merely use it for the sake of argument here.
2. Perhaps that would be better given that logic. How about {{Countries in X}}?
3. You are welcome to do all that however I don't particuarly understand the reason for &nbsp.

--Cat out 01:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 1. Understood. I wonder if using "political entities" is wise in any context, but for now am happy to let that debate rest.

Re 2. I believe the geographic / country subdivision preference is for "of", but may be mistaken; what knowledge I have of naming conventions etc etc is primarily via WP:CfD. Whether "in" or "of", however, either would make the template's name informative and can always be switched later.

Re 3. Will do. The reason is to avoid divider characters (bullets, middots, vertical-lines) appearing at the beginnings of lines.

Unless you fear making unnecessary contributions to these templates, perhaps what might be best is if you format them in the way you feel is most effective, then I (and hopefully others...) provide feedback...?   Yours, David (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Re divider characters, do you like me prefer middots or bullets as being less obtrusive than the vertical-line character...?

Right.

1. Happy to see that.
2. I think both may be problematic. Cyprus is not in Europe noe is it a part of Europe while it is diplomaticaly considered a part of europe.
3. Oh thats fine.
4. I do not "fear" making edits. Just my enthusiasm had caused problems in the past. :)

• re P.S.: I'd prefer the larger circle (bullet I presume) over the other two. The verticle line may break the template and the smaller circle is harder to see, especialy on larger resolutions.

--Cat out 02:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2. Perhaps it's best to stick with "of" for now, as this is the conjunction used by country subdivisions (cf WP:WPCSub).

Re 4. I'll keep the templates I've found thus far on my watchlist (plus any similar I find subsequently) and when it looks as if no-one is making any more amendments to them, I'll let you know what I think. Here's another observation already: the {{Africa}} ({{Countries of Africa}}) template may now look compact, but it also looks dense; perhaps too dense. Perhaps some separation by region might assist people consulting it. Since it now includes the NavHead [Hide] function, using a little more space might not necessarily be to its detriment. (Perhaps, however, the current non-stop string of countries is sufficient; I'm just sharing a thought that occurred to me which may be more relevant elsewhere.)

Re PS: I was wondering how far your screen/window size and/or resolution might be influencing your formatting... For instance, here is how your talk page looks when I open it in my browser and jump to this discussion – somewhat to the right!  (This is on a 21" monitor at resolution 1152 by 864 with my browser window (Firefox) maximiz/sed. Yes, switching off the sidebar will help, but I (and other folk) don't always wish to browse in this way.)  I grant, however, that middots can appear too insubstantial; unfortunately, as was the case with {{Africa}}, bullets appear too boldly, detracting from their role as dividers. I had toyed with the idea of creating a {{·}} template to produced bold middot characters (·) but then thought the occurrence of many such templates (e.g. as would be the case in {{Africa}}) might make undue demands. On the other hand, I guess the vertical-line template {{!}} is used heavily... What do you think...?  Do you reckon people would accept {{·}}...?   Yours, David (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2.:Well, honestly speaking I do not care either way. My only concern is people complaining later on.

Re 4.:I merely listed them in an alphabetical manner. If there is a better way to do this, I wouldnt object to it provided we dont deal with territories again. :)

Re P.S.: Whenever I design a template, I design it for a 800 x 600 resolution. I however causaly work with 1024 x 768.

• My userpage is unnecesarily wide atm due to an image on a debate a bit higher. (the 3rd solar system image I believe). Normaly it doesnt crate an issue. I'll correct this.
• I still think dark larger bullets ("•") would be better. They look fine to me. On my screen (17" - 1024 x 768) a <small>ified "·" is very hard to see. I believe it occupies a single pixel. So for all practical purposes, it is not there.

--Cat out 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: Go with "of" and redirect any flak my way!

Re 4: I'll let some time go by, then revisit the template (and siblings) in situ somewhere and see what I make of it. Re resolutions/current state of your talk page: understood.

Re bullets etc: I agree that middot can seem too small or insubstantial. On the other hand, bullets seem to prominent, especially in templates using smaller-sized fonts. My preference in lieu of a character midway between them is the middot; but do you think a "bold middot" template {{·}} (producing ·) has any mileage...?  Do you reckon you or other editors would balk at seeing (multiple instances of) this template within a template...?  (Don't worry, I won't hold you to your answer; I'm just fishing for feedback...)   Yours, David (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: I'll let you handle it. I cant be doing all of the work ;)

Re 4: Thats fine.

Re resolutions/current state of talk page: I restructured my talk page per your comment. For me, it is very important for pages I touch to appear perfect on all reasonable resolutions.

Re bullets etc: The template is a nice idea. While I do not oppose/object (nor support) the template, from experience I know people will complain for it being redundent. They would argue that a {{.}} is practicaly the same amount of work as '''.'''

--Cat out 04:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: Happy to oblige. (Is there a single category in which these templates reside...?)

Talk page looks dandy now. (Hope your Wikimood improves soon!)

Re middot template as redundant: Yes, I guess so... Perhaps I should give a trial on a non-major template and see how folk react...

Before I forget: Thanks for your time and input to this thread. I appreciate the opportunity to understand something of people's Wikipedia experience. Best wishes, David (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: No such category but see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes. I would not mind if you "applied" {{Navigation Template}} to those footer templates.

My wikimood can only improve if I run into more people like you. :)

--Cat out 04:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Re 2: I'll add Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes toward the top of my slightly-lengthy to-do list. by the time I reach, it'll probably also be a good moment to see how I feel about the {{[[Template:Countries of [Continent]|Countries of [Continent]]]}} templates. (As it was my request, I'll locate and rename these to "Countries of" during my next Wikipedia session.)

Re wikimood: Ditto!   Until my report back (or sooner), David (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

plus {{Oceania}}

I notice you have also amended this template in a similar manner. Unfortunately it too now suffers from unmanaged linewrap. However, distinguishing between each line should still be straightforward once this linewrap is addressed, as there is some alignment provided by the images and bold links. As with {{Africa}} above, {{Oceania}} does not indicate the template's content, so recommend {{Countries and territories of Oceania}} or the like.

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Copied to Template talk:Oceania.

Same as above. It should be about countries only and w/o images. Same reasons. --Cat out 23:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood; will therefore continue above only. David (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

{{Navigation Template}}

Hi again already, Cool Cat!

(adding margins)

I did this as some of the country names in the templates using {{Navigation Template}} looked a little too close to the side of the NavFrame. Hope you approve. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
PS Since Wikipedia templates seem to use sentence-case, how about {{Navigation Template}} → {{Navigation template}} – or even simply {{Navigation}}...?

Me likely. I made the move :P --Cat out 09:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Do you know the user Tasc...?  Unfortunately I'm in the midst of a tricky situation with him/her as of this very moment. See here and his/her recent User contributions reversions...  David (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(For example, one of them was my adding margins to this template...)

It is often unnecesarily stressfull to work on templates. I'll join the discussion. --Cat out 20:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I really hope I don't regret drawing your attention to this user's behavio/ur. This is a Wikipedia first for me: it's less than 24 hours since I first came by this user and his/her self-centred posts and uncollaborative/incivil manner are already very perturbing. By all means let go if s/he starts refusing to communicate, which unfortunately I fear is a real possibility. I just hope s/he has a more mellow mood somewhere!  Regards, David (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help. Just keep your cool. --Cat out 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe template

Hi Saxifrage,

I think we need many more than the three voices currently engaged in the above if any semblance of a consensus is to be found. I've posted requests to a couple of the Village Pump's corners, but perhaps you know somewhere else or some other users to ask...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, the Village Pump should get a few more voices. Another place to post it would be at WP:RfC. As far as I know there may be very good reasons to leave the name alone, and hopefully with enough voices we can be sure that if that's so somebody will mention it. tasc isn't being very helpful on that count. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. I don't feel WP:RfC is needed yet; hopefully not at all. If so, however, I'd wish to propose something more general, e.g. that &nbsp;s are welcomed as the means to handle linewrapping, that unaligned flags (in templates such as {{Turkic-speaking}} that I've seen recently; Turkic-speaking what – persons? nations? (rhetorical)) are either aligned or removed, etc. Since posting the above, I had a brainwave and posted a request to the WP:WPC talk page; activity there, however, looks uneven... Regards, David (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully RfC won't be necessary, though reading through tasc's Talk page makes me worried.

Yes... You probably noticed I tried something more terse and assertive (more "tasc-like"?) but, as I feared, no joy. I'm logging off for a while now and will return to a more circumspect approach if/when it's required.

On the subject of formatting code, I'm somewhat taken aback that it's even an issue—from what I've seen, anything goes in Template: space in order to make the templates work well and look good. If consensus for using results-oriented code in templates really needs to be demonstrated, then you certainly can count my voice in support. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You put it in a nutshell – thanks!  Best wishes, David (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! Sometimes I hit it on the head and it's considerate of people to let me know, else I miss it. ;-) Further on the subject of code, I replaced all the boxes in that template with unicode (as opposed to HTML entity) middots, which shouldn't suffer the same code-legibility complaint. It's something of an improvement in the meantime.

I too am signing off soon; best of luck in your new approach when you return. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

just for the record You replaced unicode bullets with unicode middots. -- tasc ^words_deeds 00:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I did. I believe you have misread what I said above. I did not mean that I replaced HTML entity middots with unicode middots, I said that I replaced (unicode) "boxes" (meaning bullets) with unicode middots. The reason that I mentioned HTML entity middots at all is because, previously you had objected to HTML entities on the grounds of legibility. You removed the unicode middots before because of the unrelated HTML entity nonbreaking spaces, so I thought it was a relevant point that I maintained the distinction. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bunkerfolk

• I did a stub for Johanna Wolf but I haven't had time to look for more on her. I know nothing of the remaining redlinked names.
• On the template, surely it would make more sense for the people who were still in the bunker when the Ivans arrived to be the last line in the template, since that is the end of the story.
• Finally Haase was not in the bunker at that point, he left after Hitler's death and went back to the public shelter where he continued to operate until the Ivans arrested him. Adam 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Adam,

Sorry not to acknowledge your message more promptly:

...I know nothing of the remaining redlinked names.

I was thinking of checking de.wikipedia, otherwise create stubs from internet info.

...surely it would make more sense for the people who were still in the bunker when the Ivans arrived to be the last line in the template, since that is the end of the story.

Maybe... One factor in favo/ur of the current approach, however, might be that it groups together those people whose dates of departure are definitively known (or so I'm led to believe!)...

...Haase was not in the bunker at that point, he left after Hitler's death and went back to the public shelter where he continued to operate until the Ivans arrested him.

In that case, should his name appear under April 30...?

Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Peri-Antarctic

Dear David:

You are right Antarctic claims are not included in the template, 'peri-antarctic' refers to territories north of the Antarctic Conhvergence not south of it.

On the rest however, please restore the original list of countries and territories. The template is about countries and overseqas territories that are per-Antarctic themselves. The UK and France are not included as it is their relevant overseas territories that are peri-Antarctic (and duly included in the template), and which are not part of the UK and France proper. Argentina (like Chile) is included not because of its Antarctic claim but because of its southernmost territories in Isla de los Estados and Tierra del Fuego being close enough to the Convergence; those territories were not specifically listed because of being contaguous extensions of the mainland, unlike the listed South African, Australian and New Zealand islands which are proper parts of the respective countries (not overseas territories) but distant from the mainlands of those countries. Apcbg 09:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Having removed Argentine Antarctica, I then forget what "peri-Antarctic" means...!  Time for a break, I think, once I've corrected the template... Thanks for spotting my error so promptly. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks! Best, Apcbg 09:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Autonomous area

Hi, David! I've just spotted this edit of yours, and, of course, took a look at Russia. All in all, the information there is correct. One thing I would recommend, however, is to get rid of the "autonomous areas of Russia" main article link at the top of the Russia section. Traditionally, "autonomous areas" was one of the variants of rendering "autonomous oblasts" in English, and since the usage is still fairly common, it can create confusion.

I'm sure now that if I ever have the misfortune to be conscripted, I will try to join the air force, as I don't think I'll survive any minefields I meet!  Thanks for confirming that everything else seems okay; I'm nearly ready to start believing in miracles...

As you may've guessed, I'd hoped "autonomous area" would be a globally-neutral term, but, of course, that's asking too much (!) so I'm now thinking of:

• Moving the current Autonomous area (back) to Autonomous region, then converting the remaining Autonomous area into a disambiguation page pointing to Autonomous region and Autonomous oblast;
• Moving Autonomous regions of China to Autonomous region (country subdivision);
• Moving Autonomous areas of China to Autonomous regions of China;
• Creating Autonomous region (disambiguation) with links to Autonomous region and Autonomous region (country subdivision);
• Moving the other Autonomous areas of X articles to Autonomous regions of X.

Dare I ask what you reckon...?...!

Since the purpose of the section is to list all administrative entities of Russia possessing some degree of autonomy, I would suggest a more neutral title, such as "Autonomies of Russia". Please let me know what you think.

...and, more generally, Autonomies of X. I like the compact nature of "autonomies", but I wonder whether most folk reading it would know to what it referred...?

I am also not completely sure what you meant by "country-sized" in the "autonomous okrug" section. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a lazy description I forgot to remove/improve before submission; I'll amend now. I've also just seen another...

Thanks for the alert, David (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

PS tasc seems to've gone quiet; I hope it's nothing more than a wikibreak.

Hi, David! I hope all is not as grave as you are painting it, although, lest you got that impression, I cannot confirm[] that everything else seems okay, because I did not look at everything else, just at Russia! Sorry if that's a disappointment.

To further clarify mud the Russian issues, "autonomous areas" isn't really all that established as a formal term. If you look at Russian autonomies, the terms "autonomous okrug/oblast/district/area/territory/region (yes, that too)" are used interchangeably to refer to either AOkrugs or AOblasts. Moving autonomous area to autonomous region isn't really going to fix anything, if that's what you were hoping to achieve. The best we can do is to accept a set of terms that are to be consistently used all across Wikipedia, and only mention all other variants as valid alternatives.

I am sorry I am not of much help here. I have no idea what other pitfalls exist for other countries, but I trust you'll be able to coordinate it all in the end.

As for the term "autonomy", it was just a suggestion. Having consulted with the dictionary, I see that the term may indeed be potentially confusing, because it refers primarily to the quality (of being self-governed), not to the entity. Merriam-Webster, however, defines "autonomy" as a "self-governing state", although it's only the third given meaning of the word. Anyway, that's something to consider. I see the term as not ideal but acceptable, but then again, I am not a native speaker and some very fine nuances may escape me.

In any case, let me know if something in my ranting above is unclear or if there is anything I can help with. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your follow-up, Ëzhiki:

...Moving autonomous area to autonomous region isn't really going to fix anything, if that's what you were hoping to achieve. The best we can do is to accept a set of terms that are to be consistently used all across Wikipedia...

Well, if there isn't a neutral, generic and recogniz/sable term that isn't already used by a country somewhere, I guess "autonomous region" plus PRC disambiguation is preferable to "autonomous area" plus Russian disambiguation as the former seems to be used more regularly. Tobias, I think, would agree...

As for the term "autonomy", it was just a suggestion. Having consulted with the dictionary, I see that the term may indeed be potentially confusing...

Whither progress without suggestions... The idea of using "autonomy" itself as the term hadn't occurred to me, so I'm glad you thought of it; it's just I feel that using it (as in "Autonomies of Country") would not create sufficiently informative article names. Yours, David (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

My idea was that the term "autonomies of Russia" would cover all "autonomous whatevers of Russia" (including historic entities!) very nicely. I did not imply this solution would work for other countries, however. Sorry if my comments were misleading. Let me know if this changes anything. We do need to come up with a name if we are to keep the "main article" link at the top of the Russia section. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You were originally involved in the Al Aqsa discussion

Here [9] Perhaps you'd like to comment on the related matter here [10] Amoruso 20:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies not to acknowledge the above sooner. I see that no consensus emerged and reckon any contribution I might've made would've been unlikely to alter that outcome; religious issues are something I know I know little about (to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld!). Thanks nonetheless for your invitation, David Kernow (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Cate Prescott article

The reason that I have so many footnotes in the articles, even though it is primarily from the Goldblith biography on Prescott, is to avoid another editor from posting the citation requirement on this. I have seen several different detailed articles with citation requirements all over the place and I want to avoid this at all costs. Chris 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's one particular editor who you know would otherwise apply them, then understood, with sympathy and hope that they soon move elsewhere. Otherwise I reckon most folk would say they're not needed. I guess, though, that the situation is, unfortunately, the former... Thanks nonetheless for your work!  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		Rescue From Deletion Award
		"Awarded to editors who rescue a stub or an article from deletion with excellent writing." - For being the first person I can recall who, following closing a Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion nomination with the result of "Listify", actually created the list! - jc37 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks jc37!  I hope I won't regret trying to continue in the same vein... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar edits

Greetings just wanted to let you know that I modified your edits... I removed the <!--comments--> as in my view they add more clutter than is necessary...

Ironically, I feel they reduce the cluttered look of the template code and make it far easier to see where the 'then' and 'else' conditions begin. I was hoping it might even be possible to add a few carriage-returns for the sake of the code's layout without affecting the output...

and I edited your spacing code and template. I'm not sure that an actual template ({{·}} is needed for the spacing.... (with all of the & nbsp; code) there's a CSS no text wrap code that allows for plain space characters to be used. What was your thinking on that listing template? Please answer here. (→Netscott) 09:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Not being as expert a CSS/HTML user as yourself, I had no idea there is a "white-space:nowrap" option and didn't spot it within the code. So, {{·}} may well be redundant; its purpose was to aid linewrapping (i.e. make sure a wrapped line didn't begin with the divider/separator character) but perhaps white-space:nowrap takes care of this... On the other hand, how does white-space:nowrap handle wrapping a string such as "item1 · item2" if there's no indication where a linebreak may occur...?  Sorry not to know more, David Kernow (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

ping

• geo ping as someone editing Geography articles, you may like Talk:Hyderabad,_India#Requested_move Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirsten Bråten Berg

Dave, I have answered you on my talk page. You may not have seen it. Send me your e-mail address and I will sendt the translation immedeately. The other versions were sent throug Bill.

e-mail: fihellan@online.no

Frode

European countries/Isle of Man

Can you explain what you mean by 'm template (not a country)'? Do you mean the Isle of Man is not a country? As this is wrong, as it is a country and is a part of Europe (but not directly a member of the EU). Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 12:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

According to ¶1, the Isle of Man is a "Crown dependency". The template {{Other territories and entities in Europe}} currently redirects to {{Countries of Europe}} (previously {{Europe}}, i.e. it needs (and is slated) to become its own standalone template carrying the {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}}. Hope that helps!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk)

Template:Countries of Europe

David, there is a debate on which entities to include in the template. See talk page Template:Countries of Europe. The dispute is contentious which is why this page is currently protected. We are currently in the middle of seeking to work out consensus.

Apologies; my impression was that a consensus to remove any and all territories that were not standalone countries recogniz/sed by the UN was established some days ago. I'm about to create {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}} as a consequence (thence {{Dependent and other territories of X}}).

However, your edits today can appear a little "dictatorial" (if you don't mind the word) because they come in the middle of a controversial discussion and you did not participate in the discussion.

I believe I did...?

Some users could seen this as a potential abuse of admin powers, although I know from your past participation in the talk page that this was not your intention. The best thing to do is probably to either unblock the page or else revert your changes so it does not appear that you are the only one who have a say in this particular template. You should also participate in the current, ongoing discussion in Talk. - Pernambuco 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it appears to you as if I am the only one to have a say in this (or indeed the other related) template/s... Do you start reading from #This and similar templates' names...?  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you left the discussion right when it was heating up. After the page got full protection, we did not see you again. It is still ongoing. Many important points have been raised since then. It has several editors involved and one of the participants (Wissahickon Creek) crossposted to another page to get third party comments, which we also got. - Pernambuco 13:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh... Well, I was under the impression that (for once!) there was some consensus over this issue. I'll post an explanation/apology to the talk page. Meanwhile, I've now created {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}}, consisting of those sections of the (former) {{Countries of Europe}}/{{Europe}} that aren't fully-fledged, UN-recognized countries. Together, therefore, {{Countries of Europe}} and {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}} reconstitute the former template. Are you / do you think other folk will be content...?  Thanks for your thoughts, David (talk) 13:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I will! Just, I can not speak for the others. It is best to discuss this. - Pernambuco 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David. David made good edits since I requested that the page should be protected. We have to reach consensus and I've explained maybe too much what and is not an unrecognized country. --Wissahickon Creek ^talk 14:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your approval. I've revisited Template talk:Countries of Europe and wonder if a specific one-issue poll – viz. whether {{Countries of X}} and {{Dependent and other territories of X}} templates are kept separate or are combined to make (say) {{Countries and territories of X}} templates – might reveal a consensus if more folk are invited to comment via WP:RfC...?  Regards, David (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like polls David WP:Poll. But we can make one if you want. However, I tried to explain why can't be place for unrecognized regions in that template, and why via RfC, what exactly do you suggest? :) Wissahickon Creek ^talk 18:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that if there's a wider consensus out there, let's try to identify it, for the sake of Pernambuco and anyone else uneasy about the status quo. If nothing conclusive were found (which is my suspicion) then that's not a cause to change to status quo (cf. category renaming/deletion/etc). With perhaps the exception of the "For dependent and other territories, see Dependent territory and List of unrecognized countries" pointer, I'm happy with the status quo, so am not gagging to set up a RfC; I'm just sympathiz/sing with the idea. Yours, David (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too, dear David. Wissahickon Creek ^talk 20:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Apologies if I trashed some of your other work with a rv I only noticed the 'country' bit.

I usually scan a diff just in case, but, as above, I forgot to alter the edit summary, so your action understandable.

The current term seems to be 'UK Overseas territory' per the FCO website. The term 'colony' is no longer fashionable or appropriate and 'Dependent territory' was dumped quickly in case anyone asked for money. I rather liked 'British Overseas Territory' but that was also obsoleted, I suspect because of the EU.

I don't know what the official description might be – I'd've assumed the latter – or even how many "official" descriptions there might be...

The term in Spanish is 'La provincia de Cádiz, al territorio no autónomo de Gibraltar, cuyas relaciones exteriores asume el Reino Unido.' But we don't take too much notice of them.

There is a lot of tidying up needed on wikipedia to bring all this in line. --Gibnews 18:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Amen!

Meanwhile, are you (and do you think fellow Gibraltarians (sp?) would be) happy with the article's current status quo...?  Sometime in the (probably distant) future I'll see how {{Gibraltar topics}} looks...

Yours, David (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The official designation is 'UK Overseas Territory' however there is a lot of work in sorting out the pages on the previous designations. The article is good, the subject of 'country' remains a sensitive matter, due to the policy of the neigbours to deny our existance.

Perhaps that causes us to shout loudly at times :)

--Gibnews

Was just trying to make the references to Gibraltar as an "overseas territory" within the infobox consistent and have now recalled your saying "UK overseas territory" is the official description (yes..?). The link I put in place, however, was to British overseas territory; is there a substantive difference between the two...?  If so, apologies and I'll amend the infobox accordingly. Yours, David (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It may seem to be a picky point, however I do see what they are getting at, and everything should refer to 'UK Overseas territory', all mention of 'British Overseas Territories' should be changed. In some ways it might be missleading, but thats the Foreign Office !

To make things even more complicated Gibraltar is part of the UK for the purposes of EU elections, but not anything else. Don't even think about the currency, I am still awaiting clarification on that from a little old lady in threadneedle street.

--Gibnews 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Denmark

Hi David

I noticed that you've updated the infobox regarding Denmark to a new format. It seems fairly obvious that you wish these boxes to follow a common format, so I'm not going to attempt editing the content myself,

Just trying to follow the format that already seems in place...

but please update the section regarding the royal motto. "Guds hjælp, folkets kærlighed, Danmarks styrke" is merely the personal motto of HM the Queen, it is not a national motto and Denmark never had any such thing. ("God's help, the people's love, Denmark's strength" is simply a translation.) Would you mind making this situation a bit more clear?

Thanks for letting me know; I must've missed what would otherwise be a self-referential motto, i.e. Denmark, "God's help, the people's love," and... "Denmark's strength"...?...!  Have now amended it, hopefully satisfactorily. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I shall be the first to admit that this motto is somewhat cumbersome, but I've so far kept a translation very close to the original. It simply means that the nation's future derives solely from the affection of its people and the help of God. It is easy to see where HM got the inspiration from, but Frederick VII's original was prettier (I have a feeling the reference to God was added because her father died very unexpectedly, so the choice of the word "strength" probably refers a little too much to her own situation back in 1972). Thanks again. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)