This is an archive of past discussions with User:TadejM, for the period February 2013–January 2015. 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.
Hi, the Inner Carniola categories that you've been working on should appear without the article the: "Geography of the Inner Carniola" > "Geography of Inner Carniola", "Caves in the Inner Carniola" > "Caves in Inner Carniola", etc. Thanks, Doremo (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Pivka and its surroundings still belong to Inner Carniola in the semi-official regionalization scheme of Slovenia (although it's slightly controversial). By what rationale did you put Lake Palčje in Littoral again? — YerpoEh?13:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Possibly. I'm going to verify this in 'Slovenija: pokrajina in ljudje' that contains a map of traditional regions. I'll undo my edit until then. --Eleassarmy talk13:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sv. names
Hi, Thanks for updating the Sveti/Sv. names. I think it will be best to add "(an abbreviation of Sveti Boštjan)" etc. in the ledes because otherwise the name will be unpronouncable to non-Slovene readers (they won't know if it's pronounced "svet" or "sveti" or "sveta", and probably not even that it stands for svet-). Doremo (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. "Sv. Ema" is a good example—I think an English reader would hesitatantly say "Svema" if trying to say it. :-) "Sv. Petra Hrib" is another good example; a reader semi-familiar with Slovene would probably think it's "Sveta Petra Hrib" (i.e., named for a female saint). Doremo (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hyphens
Hey. Just wanted to say that some things, like Municipality of Gorenja Vas–Poljane, should probably have a little hyphen instead of a dash, so it's easier to link to (see WP:HYPHEN). I could move them myself but I think I can't see the move button since I'm a new user. I've been working on some links relating to Slovenian stuff, so that's how I found it. --Twilightstorm (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
There's a discussion of this somewhere with examples that I'd like to link, but I can't find it (maybe Eleassar can). The dash is correct: English uses dashes to connect proper names (e.g., Stefan–Boltzmann constant) and especially to connect compounded open compounds like Gorenja Vas–Poljane. Links can easily be made by copy-pasting from the article titles. Doremo (talk) 07:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Eleassar, the user JelgavaLV has made extensive changes to the Slovene municipality articles without broader consensus (there have been only three editors in the discussion) and without demonstrating that X Municipality is more frequent in native English toponymy. I've provided evidence to the contrary here. In any case, I'd like to see more editors participate in the discussion before a sweeping style change is introduced. I would appreciate your commentary on the matter. Doremo (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I see. Although I think the style X Municipality is ok (it certainly seems like an established Wikipedia convention), I have to agree that it has been done without a broader consensus and due to the sheer number of edits without a broader community input and in spite of the opposition has been disruptive. I suggest that you restore the original state and post a request for comment to gain the opinion of more editors. If they agree with you that the 'Municipality of X' style should be used and the editor continues to edit tendentiously, you should seek input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If a wider consensus forms that 'X Municipality' is to be used, it should be respected though. In any case, I'd appreciate if you tried first to resolve the matter at the user's talk page. --Eleassarmy talk07:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Eleassar, after I said I would volunteer to fix links and categories you said you are fine with the style change [1]. There is only Doremo trying to force what he feels to be correct into the Wikipedia. If he only would have been from South Africa, maybe best from Overstrand Municipality! I am also working on giving you more evidence for the claim that hundreds of authors agreed to use "X Classname". I prefer to have all the talk at Talk:Municipalities of Slovenia so others can find it easily in one place and give input. JelgavaLV (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Eleassar. There's been no objection to the proposal to restore the previous municipality names and post a request for comment, so I've started that process. However, I'm unable to move the articles back (e.g., "Ajdovščina Municipality" → "Municipality of Ajdovščina") because of the page that already exists there, and so it needs administrator help. Could I ask you to assist me with the page moves when you have time? There are only about 130 (not 212) because not all the municipality articles have been created yet. Doremo (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've been thinking of restoring the original state myself, but have decided to give JelgavaLV the opportunity to demonstrate the consensus for the proposed renaming or put them back himself. I don't see any good in moving these articles back now and again to the proposed 'X Municipality' style a week later after a potential RFC. JelgavaLV has not edited Wikipedia for a few days now, which seems too little to me; it's not necessary for an editor to be present at Wikipedia incessantly without a break. I'll wait at least 14 days (as has been the standard e.g. also with category renames at Commons); if he does not come back or comment again on this matter in this time period, I'll move back the rest (if I don't, feel welcome to remind me about this). --Eleassarmy talk08:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback. I hadn't been aware of that standard. I will also wait 14 days before making any additional changes related to this topic. Doremo (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Eleassar. The user JelgavaLV has been inactive for 2 weeks and there has been no other comment on the matter, so I've restored the texts of the remaining municipality articles. I'd be grateful if you could move them back to the previous titles (e.g., "Ajdovščina Municipality" → "Municipality of Ajdovščina") when you have time. Doremo (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have a better relation with Doremo. Can you please tell him to stop editing my user talk? You are welcome to comment there or here. I feel really annoyed by that user. JelgavaLV (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you can tell him this yourself. As to the removal of material from your talk page, the guideline is clear: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so."[2] --Eleassarmy talk09:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Your edits have been beyond offending, telling me not to delete your comments without citing a policy etc. Ignoring that I told you that I prefer to have the talk regarding the municipalities at the article talk page. Discussing user edits on user talk? - All edits are of users, and by going from a article talk to user talk, you turned a content dispute in a user issue. I have no interest in that. And NEWTOPIC says "A heading should indicate what the topic is" - exactly that is what I did here. You complain being seen in the ToC, but you yourself are the one using whole user pages for disputes and in each edit my user name is seen and all the dispute attached to my user talk. And now one little section headlines makes you throw another guideline at me. JelgavaLV (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The heading link is well-intentioned advice, and I did provide links to No personal attacks and Others' comments. I should have referred to them as "guidelines." It is quite normal to contact a user at his or her talk page to discuss the user's edits. However, I don't think that Eleassar's talk page is an appropriate place to continue this discussion. Doremo (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eleassar/Pozdravljeni, Thanks for adding me to WikiProject Slovenia. I have lots of questions for you with regards to the WP health related pages in Slovenian. I imagine the chat to be quite extended so I think what would be best is to email me on nusa.faric.11ucl.ac.uk If you can of course! Hvala! Lep Pozdrav Hydra Rain (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for your interest. I'll contact you after a week or two, because I'm currently focused on some other things. --Eleassarmy talk12:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Eleassar, according to this, the church on Bled Island is dedicated to the Assumption (vnebovzetje) rather than the Nativity (mali šmaren). I suggest that the body text be changed to "...the main one being the pilgrimage church dedicated to the Assumption of Mary..." and a shorter picture caption: "Assumption Church on the island". Doremo (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Končal prevod članka o anafilaksiji - gl mojo talk stran.
Drugače pa ... Obstaja še en prevod (za http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptococcal_pharyngitis), ki sem ga oddal novembra, pa ga na sl ni nikjer videti. Lahko da gre za probleme glede povezav (ko sem začel, sem pri precej oglatih oklepajih prevajal ime strani, ne da bi pri tem pazil na rdečo barvo), lahko da se čaka na komentarje dr. Fajdige.
Pogledal bom, nekje moram še imeti pošto s poslanim tekstom...
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)
Hello Eleassar,
I'm contacting you because we need some Slovenian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sl.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Slovenian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Eleassar, I have a technical question: the Legen article was vandalized early this morning and then repaired by ClueBot NG. However, the display (at least on my screen) still shows the vandalism (wait for it, DARY!) although it has apparently been removed from the source code. Do you know how to solve the problem? Doremo (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. It's peculiar; I also checked the article on a second computer and saw the vandalism on that display too; refreshing didn't help. But now, a few minutes later, it's also fine on my display. Doremo (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not up on copyright rules or image deletion, so I'm not going to revert your nominating this as a speedy but "no source information" clearly is an inaccurate description, and your asking for a specific URL doesn't seem to be something that's specified in the CSD -- are you sure you're not reading something into it that isn't there?
I'm not sure about the rationale for "public domain", though. I'd guess that the object itself having been created by someone who's been dead for 100 years doesn't mean the photo of the object is in the public domain.
Exactly as you say: As this photo depicts a 3D work (it is not a simple scan/photo of a 2D work), the copyright holder of the photo should be specified and there should be adequate evidence that they have freely licensed it. Without this information, the photo must be presumed non-free. --Eleassarmy talk18:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This was extremely unwise. The report was indeed in the wrong place but you should have let an uninvolved editor point this out and you should never redact or edit the talk page edits of another editor in this way, particularly if you are in conflict with them. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)11:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you deleted the picture of the coin on the article on Jože Plečnik, and was wondering if you might want to reconsider that.
If you click the picture, it has a justification for why using it doesn't violate WP:NFCC. It's used in other articles, and I think it's relevant because it's an honor for an architect to have one of his designs on a coin.
Not to insist -- I linked from the description of the coin to another article that has the picture, so people will be able to find it there. But if you don't object, I was thinking of putting that picture back. At least until the article has more pictures (perhaps one of his buildings). Margin1522 (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the input. I've removed the coin from the article because I don't think that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."[4] Another problem with the image is that there is no evidence this 3D-photograph would be free. Per Wikimedia Foundation, photographs of coins are not considered to be covered by Bridgeman v. Corel.[5] That it is an honor for an architect to have a design on a coin is irrelevant in this regard, although the fact that a euro coin features his design is certainly notable enough to be included both in the article on the coin and the article about the architect. --Eleassarmy talk09:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, OK then. I can't argue that it contributes a lot. Maybe I will add a picture of a building myself, there seem to be several good ones available. Margin1522 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Mass CSD of coin images
Hello, Eleassar
I noticed you have CSDed a large quantity of EU coin images but I am not sure I quite understand the reason that you supplied:
The photograph of the coin is deemed copyrighted by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is replaceable
Okay, I can see the uploaders did not disagree with you on copyright protection; but assuming "replaceable" here means "replaceable with a free alternative", does the copyright-protected status of coin art not make every single image of it non-free? Or do you have something else in mind?
What I have in mind is that photographs of the coins are not free. There are two different copyrights on all these images: the copyright on the coin itself and the copyright on the photograph. Whereas there is no free alternative to coins, it is certainly possible to make a freely-licensed photograph of a copyrighted coin. Per wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy: "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose." --Eleassarmy talk08:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd say that's as confusing as the original quote. For example, please look at File:Eurocoin.es.020.gif uploaded by User:Snappy. Judging by the license tag, it appears the copyright tag and FUR all apply to the coin itself. Photographer has not asserted any copyright in the way of photography. Furthermore, it does not look like photography at all. Looks more like a scan. How do you purpose a free alternative may be found for that?
It is irrelevant whether the photographer has asserted copyright or not: all works are considered copyrighted per default. The Wikimedia Foundation has also clearly expressed its view that images of coins are not covered by Bridgeman v. Corel, which applies to scans.[6] --Eleassarmy talk09:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Correct. All the more reason that it is non-free, yes. (For the third time: I agree.) But my question is: How to come by with a free alternative as you originally said? Suppose I have a coin. What should I do? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You simply take a photo of the coin and publish it under a free license. This way, you have a freely-licensed alternative, as demanded. Of course, for the coin itself, the non-free rationale is still needed. --Eleassarmy talk10:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
So, you are saying you demand an image that is only under one non-free license, (coin art only) not two (coin art + photography). Given the fact that the work falls under WP:NFCC anyway, I wouldn't call it free at all, not even by a very wide berth. Okay, one last question: How do you know the existing works aren't that way? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you would not, but it is still possible to replace a copyrighted (i.e. all rights reserved) photo with a freely-licensed photo, as demanded by wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy ( "Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work [comment: e.g. a freely licensed photo] whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.") and WP:NFCCP ("Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available.") The existing works have been taken from web pages that for the most part explicitly state that all images and text are copyrighted, and even where not, per WP:COPY: "Images, video and sound files on the internet need to be licensed directly from the copyright holder or someone able to license on their behalf," which is not the case for the tagged images. Unless we have explicit evidence that any of the tagged photos is free, they must be presumed non-free (per WP:IUP). --Eleassarmy talk11:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have updated your wikEd translation to the current version (0.9.119c). It would be great if you could find the time to translate the new additions into English. Please let me know here if you have any questions or suggestions.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zdravljica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Union Hotel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Hi there. I went and read that section of the manual of style and actually found your interpretation to be incorrect: it explicitly says "A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities." --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the same case as "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities." "Bjelovar-Bilogora" and "Primorje-Gorski Kotar" are two entities (two cities, two landscapes), therefore with an en dash. --Eleassarmy talk23:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I see, but the writing of proper names in English differs from the writing of proper names in the original language (e.g. Minneapolis–Saint Paul is also a proper name of a union). --Eleassarmy talk23:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The county isn't a union of two regions, it's just got their names (they're orthogonal, they're geographic regions, and the county is an administrative division). This is the same as the example in MoS: "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the exact same rule applies - if "Log" and "Dragomer" aren't the sole two constituent parts of the municipality (and they aren't, according to the navbox there's also "Lukovica"), and if it's a proper name such that their positions aren't freely interchangeable, then the endash should be replaced with the hyphen in those cases, too. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
There is variation in how different English style guides use hyphens or dashes in such cases, so I can only offer my own opinion. Examples in The Chicago Manual of Style would support Municipality of Dobrova–Polhov Gradec (en dash) because of the second open element in the compound and analogy with the example post–World War II years. This principle appears to be universally endorsed in other style manuals as well. However, The Chicago Manual of Style implies Municipality of Log-Dragomer (hyphen) because of the absence of open/hyphenated elements and by analogy with the examples U.S.-Canadian relations and Franco-Prussian War. Nonetheless, other English style guides imply that Municipality of Log–Dragomer should also be written with a dash; for example: the Anglo–Irish Agreement, American–French relations, American–French venture, etc. In the case at hand, the principles for using an en dash with people’s names is informative; for example: Freud–Einstein exchange because a hyphenated name (Freud-Einstein) would imply a maiden name–married name relation (i.e., Mrs. Einstein, née Freud). The same principle is helpful in distinguishing Log–Dragomer (and settlements like Dol–Suha and Kalce–Naklo) from, say, Marija-Čreta (which is not a compound of two equal entities). WP itself shows variation; some such names have dashes (e.g., Valdez–Cordova Census Area, Denmark–Norway, Polish–Lithuanian Union) and others have hyphens (e.g., Miami-Dade County, Austria-Hungary, Alsace-Lorraine). (Somewhere else I once saw a guide that mentioned reversibility of elements as a rule of thumb; an African-American man cannot be reversed, thus a hyphen, but African–American trade routes could just as well be American–African trade routes, thus a dash. Similarly, the Stefan–Boltzmann law could just as well be the Boltzmann–Stefan law, thus a dash, but Carolyn Jones-Young cannot be Carolyn Young-Jones, thus a hyphen.) While recognizing that usage varies, my own preference would be to use the dash in names like Municipality of Log–Dragomer because it can add clarity. Doremo (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The endashes cannot be applied in case of the Croatian counties per WP:ENDASH. Item number 2 of the guideline specifies endashes are applied "In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between" but this is not the case here. The hyphen/dash cannot be replaced by any word whatsoever. (eg. Osijek-Baranja County cannot be read as "Osijek and Baranja County") Furthermore, Counties of Croatia went through FLC process ending up listed as a FL and a check before its main page appearance as TFL - with no reviewers indicating this particular interpretation of WP:ENDASH is wrong.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hyphens are used in compound modifiers such as is the case in Croatian county names. The hyphenated compound modifier started out as two adjectives modifying the noun "county". Use of hyphens in compound modifiers also conforms to MOS:HYPHEN. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It's the same case as 'diode–transistor logic', where there is a compound modifier, but it still requires an en dash. The independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. --Eleassarmy talk09:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
It also looks like the example "Michelson–Morley experiment" at MOS:HYPHEN (i.e., a pair of proper nouns modifying a common noun), which uses an en dash. Doremo (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
In any case, I think that at the least Primorje-Gorski Kotar County would benefit from having an en-dash because of the compounded open compound; otherwise the reading implies that there is a single place called "Primorje-Gorski Kotar" and that there is a county named after that place. This is analogous to the example "North Rhine-Westphalia" here, for which an en-dash (as here and here and here) would be a convenient and unambiguous solution, although it is less commonly found than a hyphen. Doremo (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello TadejM/Archive 5! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women artists. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women artists, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women artists on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women artists page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!
Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage
New "drives" initiative, allowing users to post small targets (limited in time and scope) that other users can collaborate on.
New article assessment statistics, to see how we are improving month to month. All Start thru GA class articles reevaluated for class and quality. All moustache-related articles have been removed (not a joke).
Start proposing merges, moves, tagging and re-evaluating articles.
Quarterly focus - GA nominations
I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.
However, it appears we only have 5 GAs (Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs (Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' (Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?
Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
Using books as sources. Books are readily available in libraries and have the superb quality of being able to aggregate information, which can be used to source thousands of anatomical articles.
Collateralising sourcing. Anatomical sources often refer to several structures in a single source. Therefore an editor on one article could quickly add a source to another two articles in a related topic. This incremental approach will hopefully accrue for future editors
Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
Templates, which will soon be available, to post on the wall of new editors thanking them for their edits and encouraging the use of sources.
I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk)
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users.
The name of the cadastral community is missing in the name Razbore-k.o.–Part that you added to Template:Šmartno pri Litiji; probably Razbore – K. o. Poljane – del. I wouldn't bother including it in the template because it's not a "historical" name (i.e., just a temporary administrative name). I've added material to the articles for the settlements that it was split from (Razbore, Trebnje) and annexed by (Gornji Vrh). Doremo (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I've removed it from the template, but the redirects would be in place. What's the correct english spelling of "Razbore-k. o. Poljane - Del"? Regards, --Eleassarmy talk22:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I would write it as "Razbore–Katastrska Občina Poljane–Del" (no abbreviation, capitalized content words, en dashes without spaces) or "Razbore–K. O. Poljane–Del" if using it as an English name (for title, redirect, etc.). But it's quite awkward; in running text I'd just cite it as a foreign name (in italics) and give it a syntactically natural gloss: "Razbore – katastrska občina Poljane – del (literally, 'part of Razbore in the cadastral community of Poljane')." Doremo (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
It would therefore not make sense to translate k.o. and del, i.e. Razbore–Cadastral Community of Poljane–Part? Why should one use community instead of municipality? --Eleassarmy talk11:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
"Razbore–Cadastral Community of Poljane–Part" isn't natural syntax in English (it's like the military inventory style "gloves, black, three pairs" for "three pairs of black gloves"), so it's not a clear gloss, although it is faithful in the word-for-word sense. A gloss need not follow the original syntax, but should be a semantically and syntactically natural translation. Thus Pivovarna Union 'Union Brewery' (not 'Brewery Union') or Univerza v Ljubljani 'University of Ljubljana' (not 'University in Ljubljana'), etc.—or, for more radical examples, krompirjeve počitnice 'fall vacation', kravja dekla 'milkmaid', etc. I used "cadastral community" because of the title at Cadastral community, although "cadastral district" or one of several other translations would be equally reasonable. In any case, I wouldn't translate "katastrska občina Poljane – del" when citing the name because it's a distinguishing epithet in the toponym, like Dobrava pri Stični or Šentilj v Slovenskih Goricah. Doremo (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I've removed the reference to Borovska ves in the Josip Vandot article because the old name appears to significantly predate Vandot's birth. The sources at the Kranjska Gora article do not say when the old name was used, but the 1849 Intelligenzblatt already has Kranjska Gora and no alternative name. Doremo (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Already Valvasor used Craingora and Creinska gora,[7] and it is possible to find Borovska ves in the 20th-century newspapers published by dLib. However, the official name was Kranjska Gora, I think, therefore I do not object to the removal. Perhaps COBISS535094 contains more information about the name of this village. I have some old Gea magazines at home, perhaps also this one. --Eleassarmy talk12:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for undoing my edit - I really don't know what happened. I was actually trying to remove a perculiar line referring to an image on someone's computer which had been inserted some time ago under the categories section. How my edit removed perfectly valid stuff, I have no idea. What's even worse, I can now no longer find any trace of the line I was attempting to remove! Put it down as a senior moment, and thanks for your vigilance. Langcliffe (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
Five GA nominations, one featured list nomination.
Our series on Anatomical terminology has expanded to include muscle and bone. Links to these articles have been included on the infoboxes for all muscles and bones.
We're well on our way to meeting our goals, with 480 of 500 articles to C-class, an increase of almost 200 articles since we started counting 3 months ago
How can I contribute?
Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)
On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.
An editor might edit:
By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [8]
By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement
Hi! Just a quick update that while JSTOR and The Wikipedia Library discuss expanding the partnership, they've gone ahead and extended the pilot access again, until May 31st. Thanks, JSTOR!
It would be really helpful for growing the program if you would fill out this short survey about your usage and experience with JSTOR:
Hi, I think some of the photos for places in Vrhnika have been confusingly labeled: "Stara Vrhnika" is a separate settlement, whereas "stara Vrhnika" would refer to the old part of Vrhnika. I'll check Commons to see if any of the images are miscategorized. Doremo (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking, maybe we could make such a "split Map/Street View" a kind of (how should I put it) standard/recommendation/good practice/whatever you want to call it, also for the rest of Slovenia-related articles which have geographic coordinates. What is your opinion about this?--DancingPhilosopher(talk)15:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it would be welcome to have a style guide for Slovenia-related geographical articles, perhaps also others, stating how they should be structured. We have some experience now (e.g. it should have the sections 'Name', 'History', 'Landmarks' etc.; it should include a link to geopedia.si and Google Maps, the German name should be stated in the 'Name' section, not in the lead etc.). Perhaps the MOS:MED style guide would be a good example although it's from a different area (I in general like their project page at WP:MED and would propose revamping our own to invite users to participate more actively). In my opinion, it would be best if you're interested in working on this that you write a draft and propose it for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Slovenia. --Eleassarmy talk08:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it would be great to have a section on tourism in the article, however it should be written in a neutral and objective manner. Subjective and emotionally coloured expressions such as "enchanting nature", " is inviting to explore", "one can enjoy the inspiration", "feel the beat" etc. are to be avoided in writing encyclopedic articles. I'd also advise that some statistical information about tourism in the area is included. For an example, see how it has been done in Slovenia#Tourism. --Eleassarmy talk19:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, could you look at Talk:Trbovlje and consider whether the page needs some level of protection? Multiple users (myself, The Herald) have reverted unconstructive edits by an anonymous user, but we have been unable to engage in meaningful discourse with him/her on the talk page. Thanks. Doremo (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
hello , can you please explain how the postganglionic fibers of submandibular ganglion supply the sublingual gland?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aisha desoqi (talk • contribs)
I've now added a description of this innervation to the relevant section of the article.[10] Feel welcome to improve it further. Regards, --Eleassarmy talk09:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.
note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine
Spotlight - Simplified article translation
Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.
Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:
We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.
What's happening?
IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.
I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.
Wikimania 2014
For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.
Integration progress
There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish. What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.
Swedish Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that. Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
Dutch Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
Polish Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article. (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
Arabic The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides
Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.
Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [13]
News in short
To come
Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
As one of the original 100 JSTOR account recipients, please fill out the very short email form you received just recently in order to renew your access. Even though you signed up before with WMF, we need you to sign up again with The Wikipedia Library for privacy reasons and because your prior access expired on July 15th. We do not have your email addresses now; we just used the Special:EmailUser feature, so if you didn't receive an email just contact me directly at jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks, and we're working as quickly as possible to get you your new access! Jake (Ocaasi) 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, WP:The Wikipedia Library has record of you being approved for access to JSTOR through the TWL partnership described at WP:JSTOR . You should have recieved a Wikipedia email User:The Interior or User:Ocaasi sent several weeks ago with instructions for access, including a link to a form collecting information relevant to that access. Please find that email, and follow those instructions. If you were not approved, did not recieve the email, or are having some other concern or question, please respond to this message at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved. Thanks much, Sadads (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: You are recieving this message from an semi-automatically generated list. If you think you were incorrectly contacted, make sure to note that at Wikipedia talk:JSTOR/Approved.
Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014
Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF
During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!
At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!
New sign up page!
We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!
Style guides for translations
Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.
Some more stats
In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list
We fly past 10,000 articles (now already up to 10,150). Why is this important? Articles under our scope are automatically included in popular pages, the cleanup list, and will be included as the recent changes list is updated.
Browse images on WikiCommons to improve the quality of images we use on many articles.
Quarterly focus - Anatomical terminology
Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).
In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.
Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.
Substitute. Use words readers are familiar with -- there is no need to use anatomical terminology unless necessary!
Innervated by
The nerve that supplies X is...
Explain. When using terminology, remember readers will likely not understand what you mean, so consider adding an explanation and providing context. Use wikilinks for terms that a reader may not know.
"The triceps extends the arm" may not be readily understood. A small addition may help the reader:
"The triceps extends the arm, straightening it". Consider:
Separate. Do not use long, complicated sentences. Don't write discursive, long comparisons unless needed. Start with simple information first, then get progressively more complex. Separate information by paragraph and subsection. Bite-sized information is much more easier to digest for readers who don't have a solid anatomical foundation
Eliminate. Not all information is necessary on every article. Hatnotes are a simple and effective way to direct readers to another article. Don't provide long lists of synonyms of names for structures that an article isn't about. If a sentence has been paraphrased to the hilt, consider that several editors are indicating it may need to be simplified.
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AMoritoshi-1860-Mito.jpg&diff=571492767&oldid=571492702){kind=link}
