User talk:Jao
|
|
| Contents |
Old discussions
Naval Officers (and Army and Airforce to come I assume)
Excellent (and possibly better) delvelopment on comparative military ranks. Perhaps also include Russia and China as signiifcant to World military Dainamo
- Certainly they should be there, and at least Japan as well, probably several more. To tell the truth, I have stuck to latin alphabet languages for simplicity. I hope someone more suited will complete the task. And yes, I will begin the army and air force officer rank tables too, if nobody else does. -- Jao 10:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Lady v The Lady
To reproduce the information Proteus placed on my talk page:
"The" should always be there, and if it isn't it's simply been missed out, and isn't a sign of some deeper pattern. (The only exception is Lady Marion Fraser (no "The"), who is not the daughter of a Duke, Marquess or Earl but is a Lady of the Order of the Thistle (all other Ladies of that Order and of the Order of the Garter have higher styles), since her style of "Lady" is equivalent to "Sir" and is not connected to the similar style of "The Lady" given to the daughters of some peers.) To make it even more complicated, the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms don't like the definite article being given to such daughters, while successive Lord Chamberlains have insisted they are entitled to it, along with courtesy peers, who are referred to in the Court Circular as, for instance, "the Lord Seymour", a practice condemned by the CoA. So, with even the experts in disagreement, there's not much hope for any of us to know for certain what's right and what's wrong. Proteus (Talk) 10:20, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anglicised Monarch's names Pedro versus Peter
Thanks for assisting so quickly our quandary over the proper name for the page on "Pedro II of Brazil." I moved the page name back to "Peter II of Brazil."
But I have a question. Should I move Wilhelm II of Germany to William II of Germany? ---Rednblu 08:46, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- That would seem consistent, but probably not appreciated. This is from Talk:Juan Carlos of Spain: "Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos." And this is from Talk:Haile Selassie of Ethiopia: "Modern monarchs are all in the form of [[{Name} {ordinal if more than one} of {name of state}]], with the name used in english unless a native name is used also in english or there is no english equivalent. (eg, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia not Tsar Nikolai II, Kaiser Wilhelm II not Kaiser William II)." So there are exceptions to the rule, and Wilhelm seems to be one. And so perhaps I was a bit rough, and Pedro/Peter should be an exception, too? I just haven't seen any arguments for Pedro being the more common name for him in English. Where does the Britannia put him, for example? That could serve as a guideline. -- Jao 09:15, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
"Consistent, but probably not appreciated." Yep. That sounds right to me. :)) Britannica puts both Peter I and II of Brazil under "Pedro." But they also put a lot of early Pedros of Portugal under Peter. So they have a very relaxed set of rules. My cursory sampling of monarchs' names in the Britannica would be consistent with giving monarchs Anglicized names if they have been dead for over two hundred years. So maybe you have accurately stated the rule: "Consistent, but probably not appreciated" with the understanding that the cost-benefit balance between "consistent" and "not appreciated" shifts somewhere around 150 to 200 years. :)) ---Rednblu 14:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- After consulting the digital archives of the London Times for the 1800s and finding many, many references to Dom Pedro of Brazil and none for "Peter of Brazil," I propose the following. First, "Peter II of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro II of Brazil;" similarly for his father "Peter I of Brazil" should be moved to "Pedro I of Brazil." Second, that Wikipedia should adopt the Anglicized monarch name if the London Times did at the time; similarly Wikipedia should adopt the native monarch name if the London Times did at the time. ---Rednblu 16:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The London Times solution might be a bit flawed, as the tendency is towards non-anglicized/non-normalized names for living people. At least it has been so for some time, I don't know really about the 19th century. But I think it might be quite right to have the Pedros of Brazil at Pedro. My comments on the talk page were more a reaction to the French analogy (which was seriously flawed) than anything else, really, and if evidence is Pedro is the more common usage in English, then Pedro it should be. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to Talk:Pedro II of Brazil and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) alike, so it will be more visible for those interested. -- Jao 17:37, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
---
I am copying this dialog right now. I also posted a comment to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). ---Rednblu 17:56, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hello
Hej och tack! I've not been active here for very long, but I will probably be in the near future, as my project List of Swedish regiments will take quite a while to finish if I'm going to write separate articles about all regiments. :) But, of course I can contribute in other places too.
Of the listed articles that are stubs or could use a brush-up or more information, the branches of the Swedish Armed Forces, and maybe the officer ranks are the subjects most interresting to me. I'm not much into Sweden's 20th century history, but I might add a little to that one if I've got nothing else to do.
BTW, I had a little dilemma before starting my regiments' articles, writing the names in Swedish or English? I know that you should try to write the English names as often as possible, but as I worked my way through the list of names of regiments, I came to the conclusion that trying to translate medieval, renaissance and modern Swedish military terms was really hard. What do you think?
feldgrau 14:48, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Nomination for article un-deletion
Hello. I noted your recent support for the Empire of Atlantium article on VfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Atlantium The most recent VfD resulted in 19 people (40%) voting to retain vs 29 (60%) voting to delete. Despite the fact that the count was fully 9 votes short of achieving a 2/3 consensus, the article was deleted by a sysop. Because this appears to contravene VfD policy I have listed the article for un-deletion, which you might care to review and support, if you feel it is a valid listing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion --Gene_poole 23:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Invite
Hi
I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:31, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Image:Gävleborg County.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Gävleborg County.png. Unfortunately, there are two problems. When I try to view the image I get this error:
- 404 Can't find what you're looking for
- This file doesn't exist. So sorry.
The second problem is that apparently the copyright permission is specific to Wikipedia and subject to withdrawal at any time, which is contrary to our goals as an open content encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Used with permission images. --Ellmist 03:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic (http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Classical_definition_of_republic) from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".
With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Requested move
Could you vote on the proposed move at Talk:The Netherlands? Thanks. —Lowellian (talk) 21:55, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Punctuation
I just Googled to find out the rules, and as it turns out, you are correct. All this time I've assumed that parentheses and quotation marks followed similar punctuation rules, and that does not appear to be the case [1] (http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/102901.htm). Thus in the edit that I've done, while the quotation mark change was correct (as it turns out also to my surprise, only for American English [2] (http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm)), the parenthesis change was not. I'll fix my edit immediately. On a side note, its been my experience that fluent non-native English speakers know the rules better than native ones; us native speakers are more likely to mislearn things. :-) --Bletch 17:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)