User talk:Neotarf: Difference between revisions

Archives

Archive 1

Thanks for the note, Neotarf. I certainly don't agree that the BBC Web site is a source for proper usage. They don't use any accents at all (see the mentions of Hugo "Chavez" here), so this isn't a matter of Marita Verón's name; it's their editorial policy about all names. In any case, my opinion is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia shouldn't be following journalistic practice; we should be following encyclopedias and scholarly books and the like. If you look up Juan Perón at Google Books, you'll see the majority of books give him the accent, and so does Britannica. So I think it's normal practice to write Spanish names in English with the correct accents, and we should follow that for Marita Verón even if the very few English-language sources on her have a different policy. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:DIACRITICS, "The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word which differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language (including other encyclopedias and reference works). The policy on using common names and on foreign names does not prohibit the use of modified letters, if they are used in the common name as verified by reliable sources." A good number of the sources I have dug up on this topic are low quality, but BBC definitely qualifies as RS. Unfortunately, the n-gram viewer yields nothing. The U.S. Dept. of State does not use the diacritics [1], likewise with CNN [2] and from the Trafficking in Persons report here: [3]. Note also the spelling of Tucuman province. I have left a note on the talk page as well. —Neotarf (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC Web site may be reliable (ish) on facts, but I don't see them as reliable on style. Anyway, all the sources you cited clearly have a policy of never using accents. On the other hand, many if not most encyclopedias and scholarly books always use the correct accents. That, I think, is what we're supposed to follow. Otherwise we use an accent for Perón because Juan and Evita are in encyclopedias and history books, but not for Veron because she's more recent. And what if they're mentioned in the same article? I may bring this up at the talk page for that guideline—I think the policy needs to be clarified or changed. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? Name one. Clearly there is already a widespread convention for naming this individual in English speaking sources. And look again at the n-gram viewer for Juan [4] and Evita [5]. I myself am surprised at this result, but it appears that English sources just do not use an accent for these names. I don't mind Spanglish myself, but ¡qué barbaridad! think of the poor readers. —Neotarf (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add anything to this list it would be appreciated. I think we need to talk about a central repository for this splintered discussion. Perhaps a notice in Signpost? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. [6] —Neotarf (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Neotarf. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Page Curation.
Message added 02:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Based on your posts at a few locations, it appears that you may not be aware that an edit conflict need not result in the loss of work. If, for example, you spend 30 minutes adding a translated paragraph to an article, to find that someone has added a template to the article in the time you had the editing window open, you can just paste your new content into the article without losing either the template or your work. More information is available at Help:Edit conflict. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already seen that page, but thanks. I have no idea why I was not able to recover the text this time. —Neotarf (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at summarising them later today. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to ping you again on this. If you don't want it, it is a lot of unnecessary effort on my part to get it, but if it's useful, I'm more than willing to have it sent to me. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want; I do not have time to attend to that and the ongoing discussion at the same time. I do not expect to work on it again or create other new articles until I see how that discussion resolves. —Neotarf (talk) 04:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame, I was hoping you'd be able to help fix the problems with the article, I'll try to find another editor who speaks Swedish. Ryan Vesey 04:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand. This type of problem is ongoing. I almost didn't start the article because I anticipated the same frustrations that I had had before. And as you can see from the talk page, I am not the first to experience these frustrations, and I won't be the last. The article itself I believe is of low importance, compared to the editor retention issues it brings forward, that I also do believe can be solved, once wikipedians stop going for each others' throats. —Neotarf (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If I don't get paid, I have to enjoy it."

—an Australian aphorism on volunteerism

Free online JSTOR access.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

This warning is made as a result of the arbitration enforcement request made on 27 January 2013 concerning Noetica. Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder. Regards,  Sandstein  21:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]