User talk:Peterdownunder/Archive 10

← Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11 →

Spellcheckers update

I've just updated the spellchecking dictionaries to make them usable with newer versions of Mozilla projects.— Didn't know you were sick: I hope everything's going well. Lwyx (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, the spell checker is the most useful tool I use. Without it I feel helpless. Thanks for the query about my health. It was a bit of shock from working with disabled people to becoming one almost overnight. But I am back to being a fast two finger typist again, and making progress in other areas too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is Firefox 10 out there now, so I just added a newer version of the spell checkers a minute ago, for the use of our community. Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just updated the Simpler English spellchecker to include the compound words from Ogden's Basic English 850 root words. Now the Simpler spellchecker should be a strict superset of Basic English too! Lwyx (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jupiter

Peter, since you wrote Rings of Jupiter, please could you improve Jupiter#Ring_system because it's not very good? Thank you, DJDunsie (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a bit more detail. Let me know what else you think it may need.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What you wrote was exactly what I had in mind—many thanks for the good work! :) DJDunsie (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Merci de votre mot de bienvenue. -- ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, any questions please ask.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bonsoir Peter. At first I notice that you are Australian. Then I wish you a beautiful national holiday with your family. I made some updates of the pages: Canadian Women's Hockey League, Western Women's Hockey League and National Women's Hockey League.... yes I am hockey fan (not male Hockey. Rather women hockey because I played hockey 12 years of my life up to the junior). I write my first page on the professional women's team which I support Montreal Stars. Be it authorized on Simple English Wikipedia to write pages on each professional player? I see this category Category:Montreal Canadiens players Thanks -- ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

G'day Genevieve2, we had a lovely day out in the bush having a barbeque with friends. Now pages for each player. Yes you can write a page on each player. They would have to meet the guidelines for being notable: Wikipedia:Notability (people). For sports people they would be notable if:

• participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics.
• won a national event of competition
• played for a national team
• played for a team in a national level competition

They would need to be written about in major newspapers and other reliable sources.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Aviation barnstar

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making the Big Airport Weekend a success! Please accept this Aviation Barnstar. Your work is much appreciated. – Racepacket (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Washington Metro

If you would have a chance to review User:Racepacket/Washington Metro I would value your help. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 00:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Have been offline for a week after a major computer malfunction. Hope to back editing busily next week.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Weekends

Yes, I'll do the April one on World Heritage Sites and National Parks. I think it has the merit of permitting any user to do something for their own (or any other) country. The content is usually not very technical, and there are boxes and info on the enWP pages which can be copied and hopefully simplified.
I have some doubts about the 'Pages every wiki should have/extended' idea, at least as far as the biology is concerned. It takes the taxonomy to far too detailed a level, but is weak on theoretical concepts. I have not mentioned this on Simple talk, because I don't like getting too diverted into long discussions, but there it is. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Admin noticeboard discussion on Shakinglord is critical. I doubt he'll survive unblocked. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, when will they ever learn. Thanks for the warning. Looks like I'd better do some coordinating for the Big Artillery Weekend.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

If you have time, please take a look at the capitalization in List of field guns. The article title makes me think that there may be a problem with the title of Type 38 75 mm Field Gun.

I ask because Orashmatash simplified the capitalization for two newly created articles:

• (Move log); 20:55 . . Orashmatash (talk | changes) moved page Type 99 155 mm Self-propelled Howitzer to Type 99 155 mm self-propelled howitzer ‎(no need for capitals)
• (Move log); 20:55 . . Orashmatash (talk | changes) moved page Type 75 155 mm Self-propelled Howitzer to Type 75 155 mm self-propelled howitzer ‎(no need for capitals)

I wonder what to do? --Horeki (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Good question. On Enwiki where I took the list from, they are all in capitals. I would suggest that as the titles refer to the name of a specific gun, they are proper nouns and therefore should be capitalized. In a list title, like field guns, it is not a proper noun and would not be capitalized. Also we try to keep article names here the same as on Enwiki.--Peterdownunder (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do note that I moved the pages listed above per ENWP. -Orashmatash (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the article title is better without capital letters. I plan to create these BArW articles:

1. Type 38 75 mm Field Gun → Type 38 75 mm field gun is verified by the US Technical Manual (1944), p. 221.
2. 75 mm Type 90 Field Gun → Type 90 75 mm field gun (1930) is verified by US Technical Manual, pp. 222-223.
3. Type 14 10 cm Cannon → Type 14 105 mm cannon (1925) is verified by US Technical Manual, pp. 223-225.
4. Type 92 10 cm Cannon → Type 92 105 mm cannon (1932) is verified by by US Technical Manual, pp. 226-228.
5. Type 89 15 cm Cannon → Type 89 150 mm cannon (1929) is verified by by US Technical Manual, pp. 225-226; "Japanese Artillery Weapons," CINCPAC-CINCPOA Bulletin 152-45, July 1945.

Please note that "gun", for example, is not capitalized in the US Technical Manual E 30-480. What do you think?

Is this sufficient justification for creating article titles without capitals?

My guess is that the source of the capitalization may be Taki's Home. --Horeki (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Close checking of enwiki shows that I was wrong, and Oramatash was right. The only capitalized examples seem to be Japanese, and so Horeki's comment on the Taki page is probably right too. So only capitals for the manufacturer's name if it is included eg. Armstrongs or Krupps.Peterdownunder (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Side note: Caps are also correct with names that are acronyms, alpha-numeric designations, and if the weapon has an actual proper name (M18 Hellcat - both alphanumeric and proper name). The problem listed above that feild gun and cannon are descriptors/types and not actual names. --Creol(talk) 03:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Tauriel

Thanks for the tips, Peter! It is much appreciated. Interestingly, I was wondering if I was supposed to use "movie" instead of film. Based on my reading of what the SE Wikipedia was supposed to be (in its regular WP article), I figured "film" was appropriate because "movie" is a somewhat culturally idiosyncratic retronym, and since "film" is used in other languages, I thought "film" was the word to use. But hey, I guess I was wrong. :-)

As for the red links, the practice on Wikipedia is to allow them for articles that have some likelihood of being created. Is this not the practice on the SE WP?

Thanks again! ;-) Nightscream (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Red links are fine - but not for categories, sorry I did not make that more clear. There has been much debate on film versus movie. If I was really clever I could probably direct you to the archive. But I'm not that good. Basically if I recall the argument, movie has only one meaning, but film has several meanings, and can also be a verb as well. Hope you stay around to do some more writing, and please do not hesitate to ask any questions.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Big Bridge Weekend

Your diffs here + here + here caused me to re-think my assumptions about the "Big Weekend" concept.

In mid-March, it will be my role to encourage participation in the Big Bridge Weekend (BBW). Tentatively, I plan to post a list which mirrors your good idea:

DRAFT TEXT: Pages that need work include

• Bridge is a short article which can be expanded?
• List of bridges? ... red links?
• List of bridges in Canada? ...red links?
• List of bridges in the United States? ...red links?
• List of bridges in the United Kingdom? ...red links?

Also, links to wider spectrum of possibilities may be helpful -- see here. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of the wider spectrum too, as it gives more editors an opportunity to join in. Looks good to me. Having the list pages ready in advance I think is a great idea as it gives editors a starting point. --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:PGA

Hey Peter! If you have the time, I'd really appreciate a comment from you on the PGA page. Best, -Barras talk 12:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! So far, I've filled the two redlinks in the infobox. If you've any more comments, please let us now. -Barras talk 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Bridge Weekend

		Working together barnstar
		Thanks for your contributions during the "Big Bridge Weekend" in March 2012. Acknowledging your work as one of six contributors who created 20 new articles and 13 new categories in a context of 309 changes in bridge-related articles. --Horeki (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for cleaning up my mess with the AWB pages. Was hitting the keyboard a bit too quickly, apparently. Sorry, Osiris (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries. --Peterdownunder (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Another thank you, Peterdownunder, for taking part in my request for adminship, which closed as successful with 21 in favour and none opposed. I promise to do my very best in this new role! Regards, Osiris (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A Free Ride

As you can see from the en wiki article, most scholars believe it was made in 1915. I am not sure how to describe "scholar" in Simple. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I probably would not, I would use the references to support the statement "some people". --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello peterdownunder I have recently spoke with a few administrator's about the page i was starting and would like to inform you that i am employed at this Art Gallery the image's are the property of my employer this has came up on several instance's please, i don't wish to continue to have to redo a page that really has no infringement's of copyright Best Regards ,AnthonyBex

Email

Sent you an email... two, actually. Osiris (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, read and reply sent. --Peterdownunder (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens

May I explain my thinking? IMO, there are three subjects -- the building, the gardens and the World Heritage Site. This is how I parse the subject:

1. Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens?

   See UNESCO, "Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens"; retrieved 2012-4-20

2. Royal Exhibition Building?
3. Carlton Gardens, Melbourne?

Please compare something similar in the List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom:

1. Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church?

   See UNESCO, "Canterbury Cathedral, St Augustine's Abbey, and St Martin's Church"; retrieved 2012-4-20

2. Canterbury Cathedral
3. St Augustine's Abbey
4. St Martin's Church

Does this way of parsing the subjects seem reasonable? --Horeki (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I was planning to handle other World Heritage Sites in the same way. For example, this is at the bottom of the WHS/UK table:

1. Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and St. Margaret's Church

   See UNESCO, "Westminster Palace, Westminster Abbey and Saint Margaret's Church; retrieved 2012-4-20

2. Westminster Palace
3. Westminster Abbey
4. Saint Margaret's Church

Do you have an opinion about this? --Horeki (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, especially when I look at more complex WH sites like the Australian Convict Sites which have 11 different locations.--Peterdownunder (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I defer to your opinion about things having to do with Australia. If you had disagreed with me, I would have accepted your judgment; but it would have left me confused about how to handle Japanese WH sites.

Many of the WH sites in Japan encompass multiple locations with independent histories and notability. In a way, your willingness to think through this Australian problem is helpful in ways you might not imagine. Your confirming agreement encourages me as I try to work through similar issues with articles about Japanese subjects. --Horeki (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No thankyou, you laid out the problem and provided a solution which works. And looking at the way it has been done I think your solution is better. It is certainly the best way to deal with multiple sites.Peterdownunder (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Break

Have fun! Osiris (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BHW work

Barnstar of National Merit – Auustralia

You deserve this special barnstar for creating 17 new pages (and other edits) on World Heritage Sites in Australia during the the Big Heritage Weekend 20– 22 April 2012. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me to work through some issues which became like small stumbling blocks. --Horeki (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

See Horki's talk page for some ideas I had about the graphics and layout of list-type pages, and about illustrated tables in pages. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IEP 2.0 proposal

I regret that I couldn't join you in agreeing to the IEP 2.0 proposal. If we re-visit this in future, maybe it will play out differently.

As the IEP 2.0 discussion winds down, it may be timely to contrast and compare an SEWP pilot program in Japan.

I mentioned it here, but two sentences may have been overlooked in the wall of words:

"... a very different kind of strategy has marked the development of a pilot SEWP program at Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) here and here. Strategic planning and context-building here and here were quite distinct from the IEP 2.0 proposal."

I hope we can find ways to build on things that seem to be going well. --Horeki (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Kingsford Smith Airport

Please share your opinion about Kingsford Smith as a redirect which links to Sydney Airport?

My general pattern of reasoning is explained at User talk:Horeki#List of World Heritage Sites in India. I struck out Chhatrapati Shivaji as a proposed redirect to Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, but I wonder if context might make it a little bit different in the case of an airport in Australia? --Horeki (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

To me that name means the electoral district. When someone says it I think Peter Garrett. Osiris (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Kingsford Smith was a person, so perhaps it should be a disambiguation rather than a redirect. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, it is probably best to delete it here. --Horeki (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Albert Goldfield

I copied your article on Albert Goldfield over to English Wikipedia. It was added to the July 18 Did you know. Thought you would like to know :) --Tbennert (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that :). It's not often we have articles here that do not exist on Enwiki. The Albert fields are simply amazing, just so dry, bleak, and desolate. The headstones in the cemetery were made in Sydney and delivered there by horse and cart for a cost which must have been astronomical. I was trapped for three days by a dust storm nearby at Depot Glen where Sturt had camped by the waterhole for nine months. I am hoping to get back up there again next year. --Peterdownunder (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The next Big Weekend – 10 to 13 August

You are invited to take part in the next big weekend, the Big Space Weekend, on 10 to 13 August. Our goal is to increase the number and quality of space-related articles. For full details, see Simple Talk. DJDunsie (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I hope you don't mind but I copied your announcement template. It's very good. :)

Message

You have new messages

Hello, Peter... You've got mail! Osiris (talk) 14:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles about teams at the Olympics

Please take a look at the small changes I made in Australia at the Olympics and Australasia at the Olympics. The introduction and history sections are mirrored in other similar articles -- for example, see Great Britain at the Olympics and Japan at the Olympics. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 15:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission

Peter, I would like to get in touch with you in relation to premission to publish one of your photos on Wikipedia Commons. I would be grateful if you would get in touch with me at mdeboaghty@gmail.com Mícheál de Barra

DYK - again

Recommended one of your articles for DYK. Macquarie Island is now on the Main Page. :) --Tbennert (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome?

Welcome? How the fsck do you welcome me when I have been her for so fscking long. You are a fscking c**t and a b**ch. Naw I'm just kidding. Thanks for the welcome.

Language-type issues

Well, it was a rash offer I made, hard to live up to, but thank you for offering to help. Many of the micro-issues are listed in standard sources like Strunk & White's The elements of style; Gower's Plain Words 3rd ed; and one you may not have seen: The art of readable writing, by Rudolf Flesch, Harper & Row 1974.

I have ordered copies today.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

However, a cruise through some of our failures is very interesting. I picked up from Bullfrog that we had proposals where the prose was quite different in different places. So much so that, put side by side, it makes a good teaching device. Of course it is caused by an editor bringing over material, failing to edit it properly, and then writing some new stuff of his own. Perfectly natural...

Found a similar issue on Monte Fitz Roy yesterday.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to give examples. Otherwise, merely saying "language should be of a consistently good standard" is just so much blether...

Good idea, as long as we are sensitive. Needs to be "this bit" would be better "this way."--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Just to ramble a bit, what we are often dealing with is the contrast between experienced adults who have had a good education and are experienced writers, and enthusiastic (not to say obsessive) young people who have a lot to learn in that respect. Our symbol of a star for GA/VGA reminds me of old-style primary schools, where teachers were constantly giving out stars... I wonder if they still do that?

Sadly, yes, though I found 16 & 17 year olds enjoyed my elephant or smiley face stamp too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to choose a page title for our discussion? Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this will need thought...something like "Flesching out a standard..." --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More books

These two on newspaper editing and subediting are more useful than you might think. Oh, I use AbeBooks for secondhand copies.

1. Sellars, Leslie 1968. The simple subs book. Pergamon, Oxford. Brilliant and cheap.
2. Evans, Harold 1972/4. Editing and design. A 5-vol series, of which the first two are: vol 1. is Newsman's English; vol 2. is Handling newspaper text. Heinnemann, London. Classy, but more expensive.

Two books by academics, both pretty good and useful:

1. Nash, Walter 1986. English usage: a guide to first principles. Routledge Kegan Paul. ISBN 0-7102-1200-3 Wonderful book, best seller, explains why rules cannot be absolute. Good antidote to the over-simplicity of Strunk & White.
2. Jordan, Michael 1984. Rhetoric of everyday English texts. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 0-04-420048-X Interesting because it gives an overview of expository texts. Adopts a Situation > Problem > Solution > Evaluation framework. A good book, and practical. May have been published in USA as Fundamentals of technical description, but I can't guarantee it's exactly the same book. ISBN 0-89874-681-7

If my money was limited, I would spend it on second-hand copies of

1. Strunk & White
2. Flesch
3. Sellars
4. Nash
5. Jordan

Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Linking issue

Hey Peter. I was about to lodge a bug report for that linking problem, but would I be correct in saying that this has been fixed now? Osiris (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, maybe the threat of your report has frightened it into action :). --Peterdownunder (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If only! I would get so many things fixed... Osiris (talk) 00:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Before I go, I'd just like to thank you for being so helpful to me when I was just starting out here. It has been great knowing you and I wish you every success in the future! :) Farewell, DJDunsie (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peterdownunder. You have new messages at Receptie123's talk page.
Message added 06:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Receptie123 (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Peterdownunder. You have new messages at Receptie123's talk page.
Message added 09:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Receptie123 (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)