User talk:David Kernow/Archive 4

Má vlast

I'd removed the tag and added explanation on the page. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Pavel; I enjoy learning these kinds of details!  Best wishes, David Kernow 20:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your willingness to engage in debate regarding the EEG move. I'm often afraid that my responses to such matters where I'm presenting facts to support my assertions come across as terse or rude. Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote and for considering carefully the ideas presented. Little things like this matter not at all, but people so often get riled up by them. So yeah... thanks for being a reasonable human being. :) Semiconscious • talk 19:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to leave your message and its sentiments. For me, your writing "If people still disagree with these assessments, I will step down from this matter gladly, but I must at least continue to make my case. Cheers!" meant you were being anything but terse or rude. I appreciate the opportunity the talk pages provide to practise pursuing ideas or points of view out of interest rather than investment or attachment, so I'm grateful for your contribution. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
PS I hope all that doesn't seem grandiose.

Cupid?

A redirection is great! I'm quite happy with that. Thank you. Should I remove the move requests? Millsy62 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, except strikethrough your entry on the Requested moves page, don't remove it. (Put <del> and </del> or <s> and </s> either end of the text.) Clearing Talk:Cupid?#Requested move should be fine. Cheers, David 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

St. Petersburg

Thank you for your well-intentioned intervention in this issue. I've just left a message for Ghirlandajo, and I hope we can all three discuss it on the Talk:Saint Petersburg page soon. ALC Washington 18:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks in turn for your acknowledgement. I wonder, though, if discussion (perhaps renewed discussion?) on Talk:Saint Petersburg might invite more cans of worms to be opened rather than scoop those presently free back into one. Perhaps Talk:St. Petersburg more appropriate?  Best wishes, David Kernow 13:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Just posted to ALC Washington's talk page:

On second thoughts, since there seem to be only two (notable) places in the world named St./Saint Petersburg, I reckon the status quo ("St. Petersburg" redirects to "Saint Petersburg"; "St. Petersburg, Florida" and "Saint Petersburg" each include {{otheruses4}} directs to each other) is fine. Worldwide I'd guess the Russian St. Petersburg is significantly more well-known than the Floridian (correct adjective?). Best wishes, David Kernow 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you felt unable to say hello. Best wishes, David Kernow 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote where?

Hi-- it is not obvious where to vote on the Jim Crow change. Is there a link? Thanks. skywriter 17:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi skywriter – I think this is what you're looking for. Thanks for your interest!  Best wishes, David Kernow 17:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Redeemer speedy deletion request

Hi, I've deleted the talk page redirect for that page, but I've left the article redirect in place for the reasons stated in my edit summary. If you need it deleted because you want to move another page there, let me know which page you want moved there and I'll do it. --kingboyk 22:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, kingboyk; your action understood. I'll add starting a disambiguation page to replace the redirection to my already-overly-long to-do list, although if inspiration strikes... Best wishes, David Kernow 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

See Redeemer (disambiguation). If you want a dab page at Redeemer, you could tidy and use that. I can speedy delete the redirect currently at Redeemer any time to make way for a move. But,if you want that I'd ask that you undertake to disambiguate incoming links, tidy the dab page and so on. I have enough to do already and I hate dab work :) --kingboyk 02:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I didn't think to look if such a page already existed, but am glad someone did. I've just reorganised it a little and redirected Redeemer toward it; will that suffice?  Thanks, David 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Redeemer. All you need to do now is go to Special:Whatlinkshere/Redeemer and fix the incoming links so that they point to the relevant article and not to Redeemer. Job done! --kingboyk 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was nifty. Will therefore attend to said links promptly. Thanks! David Kernow 02:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Should you come back here to fix a link, the links on this page can stay intact to report what we've done. Thanks for the thanks - did I mention the $10 service charge? :-) --kingboyk 02:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Abraham

Could you please explain your objection listing Abraham as "Father of many" on List of people known as father or mother of something? As it is the original meaning of the name Abraham, it seems most appropriate. Dforest 04:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. Now I see that it wasn't you who reverted it. Dforest 04:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I agree that if Abraham is to feature on the list, it would be more useful as the father of monotheism than "of many (see Abrahamic religion)". People discover that the name "Abraham" can be translated as "father of many" within the first few words of the article on him.

Regards, David Kernow 11:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agree that "Father of monotheism" is an apt title. But as "Father of many" is the literal translation of the epithet of which he has been referred to for several millennia, I believe it is best to include both. Dforest 16:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just rephrased the entry, in order to indicate that Abraham's name itself has the "father of something (=many)" meaning, unlike the other people listed (so far). Hope that's okay. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Abraham has of course been called the 'father of' many things; what should the criteria be for inclusion in the list? The thing I preferred about the previous version is that it included a link to Abrahamic religion, which discusses in some detail why he would be known as father of monotheism. Yes, the name itself means "father of many" but his original name was said to be Abram; thus I see it is an acquired epithet or title not unlike the others listed on the page. Regards, Dforest 04:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Have just rephrased Abraham's entry; what you think now?  It seems to fit the criterion of brief (mostly one or two-word) descriptions of each field in which someone is known as a "father". Regards, David Kernow 05:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(subst:ing tildes and self-subst:ing templates)

Hello again, O template master:
If you have a moment, I wonder if you might take a look at Template:Rpn and advise – you'll quickly see the little problem. I just hope I haven't missed the obvious.
Thanks in advance, David Kernow 15:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
PS Have started to see more and more of your fab {{archivebox}} and {{talkarchive}} templates; how about my moving their listing from the very bottom of here to somewhere more prominent...?

~<includeonly>~</includeonly><noinclude>~</noinclude>~~ should work, both to show four tildes when viewed, and expand to the sig when substed. _→AzaToth 16:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that is cunning. Thanks – also for making the change at {{rpn}} !  Best wishes, David Kernow 16:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

PS Do you know if a template can be set to "self-subst", i.e. for {{Something}} to behave as if {{subst:Something}} – or I suppose that might be prohibited in order to prevent looping or the like...?  (As you might guess, I've been toying with a {{Srpn}} = {{subst:rpn}} template, but no joy as yet...)
Thanks again, David Kernow 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, a template can not be automatically substed. _→AzaToth 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected. Thanks for the confirmation.  Best wishes, David Kernow 21:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Settlement

Re [1] - I'm afraid the disagreement here on Wikipedia is totally unrelated to the leftover of the unresolved civil war in 1949. Mainland China is the official and standard nomenclature the PRC itself uses to refer to the rest of itself with Hong Kong and Macau, its two special administrative regions, excluded. In other words, mainland China is part of the PRC. The trouble is resulted from a few editors' refusal to accept the reality that the terminology is used frequently to refer to the remainder of the PRC for purposes when Hong Kong and Macao are excluded. FYI, mainland China is the preferred terminology used in cross-strait relations, to avoid the contacts being portrayed as state-to-state relations. — Instantnood 17:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh I see - I think...!  I'd better leave this to folk like yourself more acquainted with the twists and turns. Thanks, though, for taking the trouble to leave an explanation. Best wishes, David Kernow 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input and positive feedback. :-) — Instantnood 19:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

David, I don't want to bring our editing disputes to your talk page, but nood when he says things like "mainland China is the official and standard nomenclature" - well, if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you... I'm sure if you wanted to know more, you'd ask, so I won't go into it. Cheers, SchmuckyTheCat 20:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Schmucky; all I know is that I don't know anywhere near enough to say I know something about the situation, so before I turn into Donald Rumsfeld, I'll leave it to folk like yourself, Instantnood (and hopefully others) to sort out. Just thought a passing vox pop might help. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ECT

Hi David, Thanks for your messages. I was going to reply to your first one, and hadn't noticed that the 'occasional' qualifier on the anti-psychiatry page was yours. I agree that the ECT effects need specifying, but felt that the adverse ones weren't only occasional. As I understand it they are quite commonly associated with the procedure, and as the statement stood it didn't make a claim either way. I will try to source and specify these and other claims throughout that page, as I hope others can. Franzio 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you removed the "occasional" as I agree it is misleading; I must've been tired when I added it. My concern is the characterisation of ECT's common side-effects as "adverse effects"; to me, that reads as a non-neutral description. For those people benefitting from ECT, these side-effects are not necessarily adverse relative to the relief they receive. Best wishes, David Kernow 22:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, just wanted to say that my understanding of the frequency of, or evidence for, these issues may not be accurate, and I will try to be balanced. I think a lot of people disagree with the term 'side-effects' because they often aren't side issues to those concerned, or often appear inherent to the main effects of procedures or drugs. I take your point about the alternative issues in using the term 'adverse'. Best wishes, Franzio 09:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate the laugh on the pic you added to my userpage -- I'm afraid it's gone now, but I thank you very much for the thought and the smile. (No, definitely not Caroline Munro -- just Catherine). Cheers! — Catherine\^talk 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Moving Category:Possibly living people to "Category:People who may still be alive")

Keep as is with the (or a shorter) version. User:Docu who is still alive.

Am intrigued to learn your rationale for the above; is it simply that you prefer brevity to syntax, or think the category a little frivolous, or something else?  If the first, I'm sure there are a significant number of non-native English speakers who use the English-language Wikipedia... Thanks, David Kernow 19:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the parenthesis. My concern is mainly brevity, not that it matters much when adding the category, but the displayed list of categories just gets longer. BTW I added the category to quite a few articles. -- User:Docu

I suppose brevity is second on my priority list. Some articles, however – usually those on very well-known people – already have so many categories associated with them that brevity would make little difference; however, I don't see this is an argument to ignore brevity, but perhaps a prompt for the option to display category lists in a different way, say as a vertical list that may be shown or hidden as with TOCs. Thanks for your thoughts. Regards, David Kernow 21:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

American Revolution People

category change to People of the American Revolution. I notice your change. 1) Do you also plan to change the other American people categories in a similar way. The others are currently named 'People of .... ' That is a lot of change. 2) Do you plan to recategorize all the individual articles still under American Revolution poeple to People of the American Revolution. If so, manually or by AWB or ? Thanks Hmains 16:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Harold – thanks for your message:

category change to People of the American Revolution. I notice your change. 1) Do you also plan to change the other American people categories in a similar way.

Not at present, but ideally I would like to do so; I believe "People of X" is a more consistent formula and more neutral in overtone – and has some precedent in Wikipedia – but I'm aware some folk don't think so. (NB I didn't create the People of the American Revolution category.)

The others are currently named 'People of .... ' That is a lot of change.

Yes. I suppose I would begin working my way through them, using the task of recategorisation to visit each article and also tidy up any obvious blemishes.

2) Do you plan to recategorize all the individual articles still under American Revolution poeple to People of the American Revolution. If so, manually or by AWB or ?

I hadn't planned to do anything more until I saw some similar movement or some reversion, or someone contacted me, as you have done. What are your thoughts?

Best wishes, David Kernow 16:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

• It seems like a whole lot of work (with possible introduction of error) to make this type of change for each of this people type of category. And if the change is not going to be made everywhere in American history articles, it should not be started here. I don't see any obvious reader benefit to the change. My thought, as I am writing this, is to abandon the People of American Revolution Category and let it die quickly. Your further thoughts. Thanks Hmains 17:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

It seems like a whole lot of work (with possible introduction of error) to make this type of change for each of this people type of category.

Viewed as a whole, then yes, it seems a lot of work; and yes, it might (probably will) introduce some errors, but more may be removed as a result.

And if the change is not going to be made everywhere in American history articles, it should not be started here.

Well, Category:American Revolution people is where my attention was drawn.

I don't see any obvious reader benefit to the change.

Puts "People" first in category name, in alignment with many other Wikipedia categories; syntactically better (many non-native English speakers refer to the English-language Wikipedia).

My thought, as I am writing this, is to abandon the People of American Revolution Category and let it die quickly.

Understood. Thanks nonetheless for your input!  Regards, David 18:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Was this change posted for approval/disapproval in Wikipedia:Category deletion policy

If not, please do so; if so, please show me how to find it. Thanks --Hmains 18:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It was amongst a number I proposed eariler this month, to be found here. I've worked through the French Revolution categories as their names were out of kilter anyway. Best wishes, David Kernow 20:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just spotted your recategorisation of Comte de Rochambeau, so I'll stop my Category:American Revolution people recategorisation forthwith. Regards, David Kernow 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Year of death missing

I removed your {{cfr}} from Category:Year of death missing, after seeing that you'd proposed both C:YOBM and C:YODM for renaming, and then apparently changed your mind and removed the notice from C:YOBM (but not C:YODM). For what it's worth, I would have strongly opposed such a move anyway; if someone's year of death is truly "unknown," that person probably belongs in Category:Disappeared people anyway. The implication is that the date is known (to somebody, anyway), but "missing" from our encyclopedia. If that sounds modest, well, it is! :) --Quuxplusone 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

...which is exactly why I withdrew my proposal. Apologies, though, for overlooking the {{cfr}} at Category:Year of death missing and thanks for sorting it out!  Best wishes, David Kernow 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Nationality vs. ethnicity

In the leads of quite a few articles, you have changed [[France|French]] to [[French people|French]]. In all the cases I've seen, this is wrong, and I've been changing it back. This is about nationality, not ethnicity. This is about being from France, not being ethnically French. We only occasionally mention someone's ethnicity in the lead of an article, but when someone is from a nation state and their ethnicity is the dominant ethnicity of that nation state, we normally leave that to go without saying.

Thus, we might write that someone is a [[France|French]] [[Jew]], or [[Breton people|Breton]] [[France|French]] person or (conversely) a [[French people|French]] [[Switzerland|Swiss]], but if we are reducing to one of these, we always give the nationality rather than the ethnicity.

In the case of the French living in France, this should be very straightforward. The kind of place where it gets tricky is, for example, a 19th-century Russian-speaking Jew born in what is now Ukraine. It may not be entirely appropriate to call that person a "Ukrainian Jew" because they might have identified as a "Russian Jew". At that point, it usually becomes an entire paragraph to explain their complex status. - Jmabel | Talk 22:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit I'm not that sure when a distinction between "Xish people" and "People from X" is intended on Wikipedia – not just in articles, but in category names too – so I am also not sure how inclusive the "we" above might be. I'm not on some crusade, though, so will happily leave such descriptions in place, unless I do recognise a conflict between an ethnic and national description. Thanks for your concern!  David Kernow 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, "people from X" doesn't usually merit an article—that's handled in X, Culture of X, etc. If there is a title "Xish people", it is on an ethnicity. There is no consistent rule for forming titles: if you take a glance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups, you'll see an enormous variety: Baltic Germans, Jew (singular, which is relatively rare), Finnish people, Finland Swedes, Magyars. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)