User talk:Barliner/archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to my talk page. Just click here to start a new topic.

I prefer to have discussions in one place. If you start a topic here, I will answer here. If I ask something on your page, I will look there for the answer.

23:59 31 August, 2007 is my Archive Day

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top; ---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)color:#000000; font-size:85%"|[reply]

Hi Barliner, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy editing! j. rand|talk| ε contribs|email 23:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: edit a page • write Simple English articles
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Administrators • Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Peer review • Cleanup
Other
Useful templates • Stubs

Your signature

Hello, I noticed that your signature resembles mine quite a bit. I don't really care except that on first glance they do look the same and I do not want to create more confusion here than necessary. So, I was wondering if you would consider changing the color of your signature or otherwise making it more distinctive. Here is a List of colors and another List of colors. Thanks, - BrownE34 talk contribs 13:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I really do appreciate you doing that. I'm sorry the links wouldn't fit, I like your new design. Flag colors, correct? Anyway, thank you again and happy birthday! - BrownE34 talk contribs 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarz, rot, gold. Thanks for the list of colours, much better than the yellowy shade I used to use. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Why did you put a vandalism message on my talk page? ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the changes you made on "15:22, 8 August 2007 Ionas68224 (Talk | changes) (1,151 bytes) (opposite of anarchy is not l&o -- law and order is chaos)". Although disagreeing with another editor's politics is not a reason to declare an edit vandalism, what you did was completely change the meaning. It may have been meant as a joke but it was inappropriate humour. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 08:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was POV - I did the humour to make a point. ionas ^talk _cont _ribs 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is POV make it neutral. Changing its meaning is a) vandalism and b) confusing to those for whom english is not a first language or who cannot understand complex english wikipedia for any reason and that is against the spirit and purpose of this community. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problema! :)

No probs at all regardingthe template thing, dear Barliner - we're here to watch each others' backs after all! ;) I agree with you; he simplified it somewhat, but it's still too difficult for some to understand, in my humble opinion. I've added it to my watchlist; in case he doesn't copyedit it himself for a while, I'll try and simplify it a little myself. Thanks for keeping vigiliant! :) Have a beautiful day, Phaedriel - 12:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

you have all those terrible diseases :( LIAM !

Danke! :)

Yes, dear Barliner, you're absolutely right - that was my intention, but I suppose I was simply too tired to notice my mistake (note to self: stop editing after the 100th edit! ;) Danke schöne, my new friend! :) Love, Phaedriel - 16:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Vietnamese names

I agree with your moves of Vietnamese names to the English spelling. "Việtnam" may be correct for the Vietnamese language, but not English! The diacritics technically don't even exist in the English alphabet. Good work! Blockinblox - talk 23:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what you thought about the Fußballclub Würzburger Kickers. If you are against diacritics, why did you let those umlauts go? Is it because they're European? -Ionius Mundus 02:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Polish diacritics as in Lech Wałęsa? Are those wrong too? I see the name misspelled as 'Lech Walesa' very often in English-language texts. -Ionius Mundus 23:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wałęsa is wrong as a title in an English wikipedia because Wałęsa is neither English nor the name by which he is commonly known. The name is "Walesa" is not a misspelling in English language texts because neither ł nor ę are english letters. Therefore using the diacritic form is as wrong referring to Mao Zedong as 毛泽东 Regarding Würzburger Kickers, true I missed the umlaut but did remove the foreign word, not necessary in an english language title. The problem of using a German keyboard, "ü" escaped me. As for being anti-european maybe I should change my signature colours. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you doing anything about the Lech Wałęsa page then? "As for being anti-european maybe I should change my signature colours." I called you pro-European, not anti. And yes, 'Walesa' and 'Ho Chi Minh' are misspellings. These names are not English in the first place, therefore they are perfectly fine to use diacritics to clarify their pronunciations. Việtnamese, unlike English, has an orthography that actually reflects pronunciation. The only ambiguity is writing the 'i'-sound. This is either 'i' or 'y'. However, exact pronunciation can always be derived from orthography. The misspelling 'Ho Chi Minh' would be pronounced as a monotone 'haw(mid) chi(mid) ming(mid)' whereas the correct spelling 'Hồ Chí Minh' would be 'ho(low) chi(high) ming(mid)'. Particularly the letters đ and d are annoying without diacritics shown, as đ is pronounced as 'd' and d is pronounced as 'y'. Mao Zedong, for example, should be written as such, though tone marks should be optional. Tone plays a bigger role in Việtnamese than in Mandarin Chinese. However, 'Mao Tse-tung' should not be used, as pinyin is the best known standardized system of transliterating hanzi. 'Peking' should never be tolerated, as it is a nonstandardized transliteration of an old obsolete pronunciation from the late 1800s. 'Beijing' is proper. We should just stay within the Roman script. -Ionius Mundus 20:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. being an english wikipedia we should stick to English script. Apologies for the euro misunderstsnding, butnote that I don't believe umlauts etc should properly be used in article titles either. Lech Walesa has already been moved.

Mao Zedong...tone marks should be optional I disagree. Once perhaps as a guide, but they are not used in standard english.
Tone plays a bigger role in Việtnamese than in Mandarin Chinese. This may be true, but is irrelevant to English
'Mao Tse-tung' should not be used... 'Peking' should never be tolerated...'Beijing' is proper. I agree. The transliteration/pronunciation changes can be equated to the German spelling reforms of 1996 or the outright change of name as in Bombay to Mumbai.

I see en:wikipedia has an article on Hanover not the German Hannover. The English spelling in exactly the same way as Walesa and Ho Chi Min are the English spellings, the local language version should be included only as additional information. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. These are not English terms in the first place. Furthermore, you just misspelled 'Hồ Chí Minh' worse than normal. "The English spelling in exactly the same way as Walesa and Ho Chi Min are the English spellings ..." I didn't even understand what you were trying to say there. Can you write that again in a grammatically correct sentence? -Ionius Mundus 15:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about French diacritics? The overwhelming opinion among those who are against Việtnamese diacritics (which were invented by the French in the first place) is in support of keeping French articles. Also, someone else moved Lech Wałęsa yesterday in response to my bringing it up. -Ionius Mundus 15:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without returning the insults may I say:-

Thank you. My point is that "they are not English terms", and that in an English language context should be rendered in English. The article on Hanoi, begins "Hanoi (Vietnamese: Quốc Ngữ Hà Nội; Chữ Nôm 河内) is the capital..." it uses the English term, with a reference to the local language/renderings.

I repeat: the standard english terms should used.

With regard to french diacritics, english uses many loanwords from french, sometimes with and sometimes without diacritical marks.

I know "someone else moved Lech Walesa yesterday" that is what I said. I never claimed I did, and wonder why you think I did.

1. I see en:wikipedia has an article on Hanover not the German Hannover.
2. That is the English spelling.
3. In exactly the same way as Walesa and Ho Chi Minh are the English spellings.
4. The local language version should be included only as additional information.

---barliner--talk--contribs- 22:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I never insulted you. Two, I never said you said you moved the page to the misspelling 'Lech Walesa'. Furthermore, the argument has been brought up by someone that diacritics shouldn't be used because they are not part of the English language. However, if that is so, then why are French ones used? It might not have been you that made that argument though, I can't remember. If not, you can disregard that. Also, what if the misspelling 'Hanoi' is floating off in the middle of an article? It would be awkward to have the proper spelling in parentheses in the middle of the article, and not to provide diacritics would deprive it of crucial information. -Ionius Mundus 04:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I never insulted you. what is the implication of grammatically correct sentence
Two, I never said you said you moved the page to the misspelling 'Lech Walesa'. Why say someone else moved it when I have already said it has been moved?

French diacritics. When writing a word in french I would use them, but as english terms are usually available they can be used. This is exactly the same as my argument for Hanoi -- an english term is available and it is the one commonly recognised. Therefore there is no need to use the Quốc Ngữ "Hà Nội"

*misspelling 'Hanoi' ... middle of an article? Hanoi is not a misspelling. It is a standard english term, in an english publication, which people can search for using a standard english keyboard. "Tone" does not matter. The only crucial information missing is how Hanoi is pronounced in Vietnamese, but Hanoi is an english word, pronounced in the english manner. By extension, every occurrence of "Paris" must be accompanied by Pa-ree to show its pronunciation in french or crucial information is missing. Pronunciation, or tone, is a matter for a comment in the main article, not every occurrence of a word

I have changed the Vietnamese terms because I use the english terms, not the Quốc Ngữ terms.

By the way you say that Hanoi etc should be written as Quốc Ngữ, but without learning all those tones then their constant use is meaningless. Therefore, the simplest and most recognisable term should be used. ---barliner--talk--contribs-

'Hanoi' is a misspelling. The following sentence does not appear to me to be grammatically correct, and I have yet to figure out its main idea. The English spelling in exactly the same way as Walesa and Ho Chi Min are the English spellings, the local language version should be included only as additional information. Furthermore, 'Paris' is the actual French word, and the French language tends not to care about associating orthography with pronunciation. If you know French pronunciation standards, you know how to pronounce 'Paris'. This is not so with diacriticless Việtnamese. Without the diacritics, 'Hanoi' could be pronounced some 1512 ways. Do you think there's a big difference between the sounds d and y? Well, in Việtnamese, 'đ' represents d and 'd' represents y. That means that in diacriticless Việtnamese, one can't tell whether a 'd' is pronounced 'y', as it appears, or as 'd'. Also, you contradict yourself. "Tone" does not matter. The only crucial information missing is how Hanoi is pronounced in Vietnamese ... You say that the crucial information missing is the way that 'Hà Nội' is pronounced. At the same time you say that tone, which is as integral a part of a Việtnamese word as is a letter, does not matter. Please clarify this self-contradiction. You said, "Hanoi is an english word, pronounced in the english manner". This is incorrect. 'Hanoi' is an English corruption of the name 'Hà Nội'. 'Hanoi' is not English, and English speakers can not even agree on how to corrupt the pronunciation. Only the Việtnamese is correct. Pronunciation, or tone, is a matter for a comment in the main article, not every occurrence of a word. What if there is no main article? -Ionius Mundus 02:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionius, as several editors have tried to enlighten you now, Hanoi is indeed English. As in, "How do you say the former capital of Vietnam in English? Hanoi". In any English language map, dictionary, or almanac, you are far more likely to find "Hanoi", not "Hà Nội" as in Vietnamese. Note that the spelling is different, and in all likelihood the pronunciation is different, despite the superficial resemblance in that they use the same letters. Some English forms do not even happen to share similar looking letters with the native form at all. For instance, the city known in English as Copenhagen happens to be København in Danish, but we do not use the Danish spelling for the article location, we use the most common English spelling, which is demostrably Copenhagen. Blockinblox - talk 02:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you say the former capital of Vietnam in English? Hanoi. What do you mean "former capital"? And 'Hanoi' and 'Copenhagen' are mere incorrect English corruptions of names which are not English. -Ionius Mundus 03:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, "Vietnam" is the way it's said and written in English; remarkably, even by the Vietnamese Permanent Mission to the United Nations. And frankly, considering this project is supposed to be written in English, that's all we should care about. - Phaedriel - 04:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, Hanoi is still the capital of course, I got momentarily confused... You write "And 'Hanoi' and 'Copenhagen' are mere incorrect English corruptions of names which are not English." But they are the correct English forms; why are they incorrect? They appear in dictionaries and atlases, etc. Every language is allowed to develop their own forms of foreign names without being called "incorrect" (as long as they do not become overly pejorative!) For example, the name for London in Vietnamese has become "Luân Đôn", so the Vietnamese wikipedia has their article there. One might argue that "Luân Đôn" is an "incorrect corruption", but please take a look at the interwiki section for London (click edit and go to the bottom of the edit box to see them all at once). Notice that every language has put the article for London in its native language, with its own spelling rules and accentuation, just as every language is entitled to do. To suggest that English alone is not allowed to use its own more common native forms or adaptations of foreign names, sounds more like some kind of "imperialism" to me! Blockinblox - talk 14:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that English alone is not allowed to use its own more common native forms or adaptations of foreign names, sounds more like some kind of "imperialism" to me! Show me a quote of mine in which I have defended the practice of corruptiong English names in other languages. 'Luân Đôn' is also an incorrect corrupt form of the English word 'London'. The Việtnamese article should be changed to 'London'. And, you say that if I had made the opposite argument, you would have considered it imperialism. I'm having a hard time trying to remember a time when Việtnam invaded a Western country. Furthermore, just because an error is widespread doesn't make it okay. Every language is allowed to develop their own forms of foreign names without being called "incorrect" (as long as they do not become overly pejorative!) This is a bad practice which should be rooted out. You are saying that it's okay for some other language to change 'London' to something like 'Wemton'. It's ridiculous. -Ionius Mundus 17:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I make no attempt to regulate what is "okay" for other languages, and anyone who tries to do so is behaving somewhat imperialistically, in my opinion. What countries have ever been invaded is irrelevant, it's presuming to tell all languages what is "okay" for them, that I find reminiscent of imperialism. Languages like French have a regulating body (the Sorbonne), and if they decide to change the name of London in French from 'Londres' to 'Wemton', that's what it is. It's their job to decide this, not mine or ours. Blockinblox - talk 17:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a regulation of particular languages, but rather it is universal. I don't see how we can imperialize ourselves. I don't at all understand why you hold that opinion. -Ionius Mundus 01:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionius Mundus, the only one to have imperialised themselves is you, by demanding the English language change to accommodate your desire to express a foreign pronunciation. I hope soon to have finished the simplification suggested in Simple talk#Naming conventions. Perhaps its adoption by the community will then stop you forcing unsimple characters and forms upon us, and allow those of us who wish to create an english language wikipedia to do so. -barliner--talk--contribs- 09:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why those ideas are in your head. But if you don't like non-French diacritics, what are you doing about the Polish ones? I assure you, there are plenty to be moved. -Ionius Mundus 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And many have been moved, by other editors. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 12:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by, "has a system for transliterating into english"? -Ionius Mundus 17:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterating into roman script would have been better. Quốc Ngữ as opposed, I believe, to Chữ Nôm. Rather than use my talkpages for a limited discussion with me why not concentrate on contributing to the discussion at Proposal for naming conventions guidelines ---barliner--talk--contribs- 19:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's only a few hundred people who actually know Chữ Nôm today. The official system, Quốc Ngữ, is the only one which is ever used in writing the language, except when dealing with ancient texts from before the invention of Quốc Ngữ. Quốc Ngữ is already a romanized script. It doesn't need a romanization system. Furthermore, why are you writing 'Quốc Ngữ' and 'Chữ Nôm' with diacritics if you don't want them used? And if you look, you will see that I have been discussing things at both the simple talk and naming conventions. -Ionius Mundus 02:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a rather lengthy list of some articles with titles employing diacritics, many of which are Polish. The list has been there for some time, yet nothing is done to these pages. -Ionius Mundus 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, why are you writing 'Quốc Ngữ' and 'Chữ Nôm': Cut and paste. And I agree with the idea of using the common term used in England, thus the capital of Vietnam is Hanoi.

In order to use the easiest system for the english typist I am Barliner not Bärliner, it is not that I am anti-diacritic, but that I am pro-english reader. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 11:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea of using the common term used in England. Does that mean you think we should exclusively use English English ('organisation' as opposed to 'organization', 'lorry' as opposed to 'truck')? -Ionius Mundus 17:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yawn. I speak British English, so I use those spellings. In articles written in US english I use those spellings for consistency, as I am sure you are aware this is the guideline. ---barliner--talk--contribs- 19:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie

Dear fellow editors -- as a newbie learning the ropes of naming, etc., I find this discussion highly valuable. However, I fail to grasp where matters stand. Please correct me if I've misunderstood Simple English WP style:

Page name is as in conventional English (if such exists for a place name, otherwise spelled and capitalized as in the English Wikipedia?)
First line repeats the page name in boldface type, followed by the name spelled in the native language/s, perhaps with transcription in Latin letters if the native language alphabet is otherwise, all enclosed in parentheses
Pronunciation indicated in IPA (upon which I've commented recently)

-- Thanks! Deborahjay 09:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA is being discussed, I think it is rarely used here. I am simplifying a policy from en:wikipedia so that we could have the same naming policy here. I like english name Local name, vietnamese has a system for transliterating into english so english name Local name1 Local name2 could be used. -barliner--talk--contribs- 12:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm....By your example, is the local name to be italicized and not in parens? Please point me to an example -- Thanks, Deborahjay 14:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and I now see there's a Proposal for naming conventions guidelines under discussion -- I'll continue studying the matter there. -- Deborahjay 14:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPA63

The SPA63 template has been fixed. The noinclude section just needed a little tweak to prevent an extra space from being included. -- Creol(talk) 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks: I just could not see where tgat space was coming from ---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]