This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bermicourt. 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.
On 30 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eissee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lower Eissee(pictured), a lake which lies in a shallow cirque in the Dachstein Mountains, was left behind when the Hallstätter Glacier retreated? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Once again the bot has got this badly wrong. I translated the article from German Wikipedia, not the link given, which contains no substantive text and a bare reference to the Karlspitzen. I have removed the tag accordingly. --Bermicourt (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
You are obviously a seasoned editor and make good contributions to Wikipedia. You also take pride in them, as do we all. I am trying to avoid an edit war in the Schneeferner article, yet you keep reverting my edits. Please note that I did not simply revert your reverts; I carefully considered each and only changed those that were worthy of change, leaving the others as-is as being reasonable. Let me explain each of the most recent reverts:
"favourable conditions even led" - The term "even" is unnecessary. It implies that something else would have happened, yet there is nothing to support that implication. Without it, the sentence is both grammatically and factually correct.
"been on the retreat" - The simple verb "retreated" has the same meaning and is easier for our readers to understand.
"still covered" - The term "still" is unnecessary. It adds nothing to the information presented. With or without it, the glacier covers the same area, and the sentence is both grammatically and factually correct.
"offering very little shade" - The gerund offering is incorrect. With it, this sentence has no verb. The grammatically correct sentence (it begins after the semicolon) should read "the Schneefernerkopf mountain to the southwest offers little shade." And the term very is an unnecessary peacock term. There is really no factual difference between "little" and "very little"; remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing facts.
"very little accumulation" - Same comment about very little above.
In the interest of good fellowship among editors, would you please reconsider you recent edits and reverts in this article.
As a seasoned editor, perhaps you should also reread WP:OWN. One of the main benefits of Wikipedia is the breadth of our editors and the variety of inputs that they bring. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Truthanado, I welcome your contributions to Schneeferner, many of which made sense to me and I accepted them. However I reverted a minority after careful thought because I believed the original wording (translated as faithfully as I could from German Wikipedia) added something which was lost or watered down in the amendment. Specifically:
"favourable conditions even led" - The word "even" is emphasising that the glacier's retreat not only slowed down (previous sentence), but actually reversed and it grew again. I wanted to draw attention to the fact, as it bucked the trend and is not what one would expect.
"been on the retreat" - nothing wrong with "retreated"; I was just trying to use a more interesting turn of phrase.
"still covered" - The word is again adding emphasis; the glacier hadn't gone completely (like the short-lived Eastern Schneeferner) but was "still" around and of reasonable size.
"offering very little shade" - I don't agree that offering is incorrect; the sentence's verb is "is". The word "offering" is in a sub-clause as e.g. in "He overtook dangerously, giving the oncoming driver very little chance". However, I confess I did miss out the separating comma which may be why you didn't read it as intended. I have corrected that.
"offering very little shade" and "very little accumulation" - "Very" is not listed as a peacock term and it would be wrong IMHO to class it as such because it is useful in conveying a sense of degree when there isn't a numerical way of doing so - enabling distinctions such as "very", "fairly", "slightly", "moderately".
Having accepted all the other changes positively, I hope you will agree that this represents a reasonable compromise. Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Blauberge
On 3 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Blauberge, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crest of the Blauberge, a mountain range in the Bavarian Alps, forms part of the border between Austria and Germany? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thank you for taking us to mountain and other peaks, as a qualified guide, with a seemingly unlimited supply of fascinating pictures, at an admirable pace! Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the message - actually I'd like to persuade people to do more on the French, Spanish, Italian .. etc railways - especially in terms of article length and quality (too many stubs). Eastern European and Russian railways also need some love - so many articles, so little time ! Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Königsruhe
I would translate to Virgins' bridge at least once, smile. Why this is listed under Music I don't know, but nice to meet you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Handel Festival
After your move, be so kind to insert all the commas then (did you see the question on DYK?), I went over the links twice already, too tired, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it. In some cases I prefer the redirect, ",Halle", disturbing the flow of reading and the meaning clear from the context. It's Halle Opera House, without comma, another name to be considered. What do you think about moving the article of the city to its official name (and also de name) Halle (Saale)? And about an article on its Marktkirche? We are getting ready for Handel's birthday, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Categorisation of rivers by basin
Well, this is not a normal use of the sort feature. If this is something that some editors would like, then it probably needs to be discussed at WP:Categorization. Traditionally this level of detail is reserved for a list since it it not defining for the tributary. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussing with the rivers project to see if they want to go that way as a first step would be OK, but they should be aware that if they favor that approach over a list or template it would likely face opposition later from other groups. Personally I'd go with templates. They are intuitive, clear and easy to setup and maintain. If you would like, I could set one up for a river that still has that numbering in place so you can see the advantage. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, {{Leine basin}} has been created and added to Leine. I'm sure that you can see how this is much clearer then trying to code this information within categories. Feel free to add the bodies of water that don't yet have articles and are likely to get articles in the future. If you have articles on the stream orders they can be linked from the template so that all readers an understand those terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply - can I leave it to you to fix DRG Class 42 if it needs doing (the fine details are beyond me, it's not really clear). I will undo my mistake but leave the rest to you. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the template, I am in the process of adding it to "my" people. I found for a German one a template parameter "name", enabling to have a different name appear than the article name. I would like that in English, too, disliking William Waterhouse (bassoonist). The entries on him are certainly not "by or about" that dab construction. Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I remember the TfD discussion. I think the best thing to do is put the current Infobox dam documentation in the Infobox stausse and place the German names in each field for German-speaking editors to make the connection. This will alleviate having two different Infoboxes for dams so and problems associated with style and parameter changes.
An example:
|Height = <--MAUERVOL!-->
|Length = <--KRONENLAENGE!-->
|Width = <--KRONENBREITE!-->
Essentially, there doesn't have to be an actual stausee template, just a page with the documentation. I see Infobox stausee is used in a few dam articles of which you created. I take it that you know English well and can use the regular Infobox dam. If it has more to do with the extra fields, feel free to add them to Infobox dam. If you need help, I can update it. Infobox Stausee is quite detailed - some of the information is not regularly found in sources which is why it probably isn't in Infobox dam.--NortyNort(Holla)12:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I understand it makes it easier for you but the problem is that leaves two different infoboxes for dam articles. The English Wikipedia has its own infobox. I've used data from de.wikipedia dam articles before and I just use Google translate and flip between tabs. It isn't as easy as copying and pasting the whole infobox but it keeps the same infobox and consistent styling. I can add additional fields to Infobox dam to help out and even help with the substitutions. Your contributions are appreciated (we need more good dam articles) but I am just trying to keep things consistent.--NortyNort(Holla)13:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, what a nice template and good idea. I am not an expert at template coding but I see they used and a parameter after some fields like #switch:{{{Ständische Stellung|}}} and the documentation uses {{subst:Infobox Burg
while the coding uses {{infobox military structure. I will ask User:Rehman, who is better with templates than me or has worked with someone more familiar. Next, we would have to update some of the fields in Infobox dam. I think active and inactive capacity is good to have but I'll be honest, I don't think it is necessary to add the height above river and foundation as both or clarity on which is which isn't often given in sources. I think it would confuses some users of the infobox as well, IMO. If we go that route, they can still be in Infobox stausee but wouldn't transclude to the Infobox dam. We can always further discuss on the Infobox dam talk page. Thanks for doing the research and helping to solve the problem!--NortyNort(Holla)12:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, see Rehman's coding here, pretty simple. I tried it with Sosa Dam's infobox in my Sandbox and just the height was the major missing part. Feel free to add comments and let me know what you think.--NortyNort(Holla)10:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so what fields are missing? Coordinates is going to be a problem because Infobox dam splits the lat/longs into different fields. Stausse has either two fields or one. Infobox dam should still support a single coordinate field which can pair up with "GEO-LAGE". As far as the dam height above/below river (valley), I think that is too detailed for Infobox dam and I rarely see it supplied in sources. If it makes things better, we can add a hidden field for it in the Infobox dam coding so it transfers over. I don't think curve radius is too detailed (or bad) of a field. What else? I don't think this will be perfect but it is a lot better than from where we were a few months ago. I will add some fields to Infobox dam later today.--NortyNort(Holla)03:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:DRG logo low resolution.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:DRG logo low resolution.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ArmbrustWrestleMania XXVIIUndertaker 19–015:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It's orphaned because it's main link was replaced today by a computer-generated logo. Happy for it to be deleted. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the notice as this article was translated from German Wikipedia and appears to bear no relation to the link which seems to be about a modern-day pastor of the same name. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you copied the guy's name from that source! I have seen these errors happen often. Rehman is working on the infobox fixes by the way.--NortyNort(Holla)22:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the proposal of "erasing users" is an "april fools" joke. Check Yaksar's message, and read the bolded parts. Part of the game is to avoid saying aloud that it's a game (that will be done tomorrow). I wasn't even aware of the date until some minutes ago, we don't celebrate this date in my country, there a similar pranks day, the "Holy Innocents' Day", but it's on December. I'm telling you this here and not on the thread to avoid spoiling the fun of it. MBelgrano (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Fiechtl
Hi Bermicourt, I've removed Fiechtl from the List of climbers page per our ad-hoc policy of only including climbers for whom there is an article (otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry would be listed). But it would be great if there were an article on him so he can be listed. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Musikhochschule Lübeck
In a mad moment, I'm tempted to try and make the names/ links to the Musikhochschule articles a little more standard -- there are a lot of red-links out there because there are too many variations in naming, and the people writing the articles are failing to find a suitable link. The list of Music schools in Germany shows that the majority of articles use the German name. Would you mind if I were to change the name of the Lübeck Academy of Music back to Musikhochschule Lübeck to match the others? (I see that there is a redirect, but I'd like to help establish an expected pattern) Scarabocchio (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Guilty of creating the redirect, I think let's stick with German names, because the luck of these institutions with translation is mixed. Also there is no true equivalent to Hochschule. I created the redirect, because many times I looked and didn't find it because who would look "Hoch" if looking for "Music". - My personal history: I moved Folkwang Academy to Folkwang Hochschule, as soon as I did that, it was renamed Folkwang University, a little later Folkwang University of the Arts, if we go with their names, there is no end of renaming, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Scara. You're right, it is a mess! My Langenscheidt Muret-Sanders dictionary translates Musikhochschule as "academy of music" or "college of music". A survey of the English pages on the official websites of these Musikhochschulen reveals that: 7 call themselves a "University of Music" or "University of Music and Theatre" (Dresden, Karlsruhe, Freiburg, Cologne, Hamburg, Rostock and Lübeck), 2 call themselves a "School of Music" (Weimar and Nuremberg) and 1 an "Academy of Music" (Hanns Eisler, Berlin). Munich has no English pages. I believe we should WP:USEENGLISH for these titles to aid clarity, whilst clearly showing and redirecting from their German names. The fact that all bar one have English pages indicates that this is acceptable and it is also fits with Wiki convention - see universities. I would like call them all "FOO Academy of Music", but if they have already chosen to name themselves "Foo University of Music", etc, I think we have to go with that. At least it would be fairly consistent. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd go with Gerda on this one. Using the original name guarantees some stability, and we can add redirects as we need them easily enough. As to the lack of an agreed direct translation, I think this adds weight to the use of the original language. On the page Staatliche_Hochschule_für_Musik all but two are entered under their German names ... Scarabocchio (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Östrum
Dear Bermicourt, thank you for your compliment. I added some more details to the German article refering to Östrum. Later, I will add them to the English article as well, and I will ask you to correct the text as English is not my mother tongue. There are many sights in the villages around Hildesheim, and I have been collecting a lot of information during the past few weeks.
Thanks in anticipation, --Torbenbrinker (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and I'm sorry "refimprove" got deleted first time round - I must have been tired and misread it as "refneeded".
Railway articles on Wikipedia are a bit of a mess because US terminology is so different from British and it's difficult to strike a balance. And "British" terms are not just used by that small country called Britain as some of our cousins seem to think, but by a wide cross-section of the English-speaking world as well as countries like India where English is used in official and technical spheres. However the international authority is the UIC and they have an official English glossary and tri-language thesaurus which draws on both US and UK terminology.
In this case classification yard is the article title presumably because a North American got there first, but marshalling yard is UIC term. My sense is we need to show both because they are so different and, on its own, each is probably unrecognisable to large sections of the English world. But I'm chilled about the format. How about simply:
Classification yard appears to have been renamed from Hump yard as a more general article in January 2005, but I don't see any reason why one couldn't moot a rename to the UIC term Marshalling yard.
Do you know of any other articles being specifically renamed to their UIC names (from whatever terminology)?
Has this general issue been raised in the last few years at WP:Trains, and if not, do you think I'd be foolish to raise it?
A hump yard is just a subset of marshalling yard. So the move made sense, but in doing so the mover Americanised the article name. We could request a move, but I suspect will face an uphill battle against those favouring US terminology.
No, but I have created articles with UIC names e.g. open wagon leaving gondola to focus on US practice. I believe Wikipedia should adopt UIC naming as they are the main international body, but it could stir a hornet's nest.
Not to my knowledge. Might be best to test the mood on one article by requesting the move of classification yard to marshalling yard based on UIC. Trouble is their glossary costs €90 and I don't have the ref details. I just have an e-copy of the text of their English/French/German thesaurus, which they seem to have withdrawn.
I think that without ready access to such costly documents, we're probably onto a hiding after nothing.
I ran up against the same problem over "Standardised voltages" at Railway electrification systems, where I'd like to check out BS EN 50163 and IEC 60850, as I think there's at least one error in the table as presented (I'd guess that the Highest non-permanent voltage for 3 kV DC is probably nearer 4 kV), and I'd like to see what it says about 25kV 60Hz.
Without an available reference to the UIC terminology for something, I don't think we should really push it in the article, which would mean the See also should revert to something like Classification yard (alias "Marshalling yard"), but that would also be a shame. Tim PF (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I think you're right. For now it's probably best to work away on developing UIC-based articles and ensuring terminology is corrected labelled US, GB or UIC so people get familiar with the UIC's authority.
You said: which is a combination that is never used in my experience. I agree that should be the case. However, FYI, if you have a look at Talk:Rear admiral you'll see that our opinion is not universally supported. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hildesheim
Dear Bermicourt, I would be very pleased to show you my beautiful hometown Hildesheim some day. Several weeks ago, I wrote an English article on the part of the city where I live, Moritzberg (Hildesheim), but no native speaker has corrected it up to now. If you have time, please have a look at it. Who gave you the idea to start English articles on Östrum and Klein Düngen? Many people in Hildesheim do not even know where these small places are. Thanks in anticipation,--Torbenbrinker (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dear Bermicourt, I have just written an English article on the village of Wesseln. I added several photos taken by myself. If you have time, please read and "polish" it. Thanks a lot, --Torbenbrinker (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Zugspitze
On 21 April 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zugspitze, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the first recorded ascent of Germany's highest mountain, the Zugspitze(pictured) on 27 August 1820, was led by a Bavarian Army officer, Josef Naus? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I'd be happy to collaborate on improving the template. I think a good place to start would be to see if we're on the same page regarding how the template should be used.
If the template's purpose is to aid in translating articles from dewiki, I think the template should never be left unsubst'ed in an enwiki article. If it's left unsubst'ed, it makes the article difficult to maintain. (In particular, the parameter names are in German.)
Instead, I think the template should always be subst'ed (to generate a Geobox). If used this way, then the template itself becomes just a tool. Its output then doesn't have to be perfect because it's easy for an English-speaking editor to tweak the resulting Geobox to produce a tidy result.
Recognizing that the template is not always subst'ed, I've been hacking it to produce tidier results. The motivation behind my most recent edits was to produce valid coordinate parameters for articles such as Ardey Hills. The simplest way to get valid coordinate parameters from Geobox is to supply a |country= value that Geobox recognizes.
It looks like you removed the template code which set country=. I hope you don't mind then if I start subst-ing the infobox. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I've a suspicion that TC is a sock of a banned user. Have asked an admin well versed in sockpuppetry to take a look. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, user also banned on de.wiki, and has a very similar name on en.wiki to a sock of the banned user. If that's any help. Mjroots (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Bermicourt, you speak German. So I'm gonna run my thoughts past you. Despite my initial comments at WT:TWP, TC was obviously not a newbie as he had knowledge of how to post links to interwiki articles. The comment about the edits to Template:Rail gauges led me to investigate editing history of that template. One doesn't have to go down too far to find TrackConnect (talk·contribs), who turns out to be a blocked confirmed sockpuppet of Schwyz (talk·contribs), and is suspected to be (and probably is) a sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi (talk·contribs), who is banned from editing Wikipedia per the decision of the Community at large. Reading the ban proposal discussion, I see many examples of the behaviour displayed there shown by TC. What do you think? Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no longer a fat display on the nominations page, but a review of another hook is required for every self nomination of someone who has more than five credits. I know you have more, smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please look at the discussion to the Queue page (perhaps archived already), they said they would put it in the rules, I never checked there. They also said we should gently remind - so I hope I was gentle enough. I forgot myself to check ... the other nom reminded me. In a rush --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bermicourt. 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.
