User talk:Bob247/Archive 2

Rugby Union in [country] template

You replaced my non-standard infobox with a custom made one. Good work. But any chance making this more generic to suit other sports in general, not just rugby union ? I am interested in adding this to the Australian rules football, Rugby league and football (soccer) pages for some countries ? Many thanks. --Spewmaster 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I formatted this template to fit into the style of the other RU templates. I will have a look at the other pages to see how to best adapt it. --Bob 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Try this one Australian rules football in Australia. Cheers ! --Spewmaster 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks mate ! You are a bloody champion ! --Spewmaster 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Europe in topic3

Hi Grcampbell,
Have deleted the above as {{Europe topic}} now has option to show_UK_countries; Rugby union in Bulgaria, Rugby union in Russia and the other existing European "Rugby union in" articles amended/updated accordingly. Hope this okay. Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bedford Blues

As an editor on rugby-related topics, could you take a look at today's edits on this article? Is this Boz Shannon a notable player? Is he (or any player in this division) notable enough to deserve an article on himself? Google search seems to fail on him, and the author's other contributions are questionable. Knowing very little of rugby myself, I thought I'd kick it to a few editors who do know the sport. Fan-1967 21:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a bedford rugby club person called Boz Shannon who is now 47, 20 years ago he might have played for Bedford, but whether or not he is the greatest ever player is POV, and should be deleted. --Bob 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Award!

A bit belated, but I've been particularily enamoured with your move to merge the many French "lieu" templates into a unique Template:French_commune. Bravo. THEPROMENADER 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For your work on the French Commune Template. Bravo!
THEPROMENADER 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Paris - Featured Article?

Hey, I've left that Paris article (and its brethren) alone for a couple months to give others a chance at them - but it doesn't look as though any are taking the bait (so much for that argument). The Paris article is already A-class, but its language needs much brushing up and its subject matter perhaps a bit of honing. What do you think about working on this over the next few weeks - no hurry, but I don't think it would take much to raise the article to Featured status. I think working together - and the more the merrier - would be constructive and result in a better article. You game? THEPROMENADER 01:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down on my wikiediting recently... I have oodles of work to do. However, I will help out where I can. --Bob 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Same here, but the holiday season will leave me time enough to jump right in again. A votre plaisir. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

France

Something rather odd seems to have happened here; can you have a check please? Thanks --Guinnog 05:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the problems have been rectified, don't know what happened there... --Bob 06:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --Guinnog 07:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

France Law

Yeah sure, no problems! I will try to do it tomorrow, or in two days time at the latest.Baristarim 05:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:French overseas departments and territories (and Template:Administrative divisions of France)

Hi again Grcampbell,
I wonder if your reformatting of this template might be a step backwards, mostly as (1) it now uses more space (and leaves more whitespace); and (2) its code is now more complex, perhaps unnecessarily so...?  Thanks in advance for your thoughts, David Kernow (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
PS In addition to reformatting it – probably to an improved form – I note you've also anglicised the terms appearing in {{Administrative divisions of France}}. I'm not sure if that's wise and/or correct, i.e. whether or not the native French terms are also generally used in English. From the (admittedly few) related websites and offline sources I've come by, my impression is that the French terms are used in English...

There exists a translation for all terms translated. The usage of English translations can be found in publications and documents. Having said that, for the communities, I have also seen it written as collectivites, no less than on the French government website and associated documents.

RE: Template:French overseas departments and territories, I used a more heavy form of the navigation template because the formatting of the first was rubbish (to put it mildly) and confusing. This way there is no confusion and is clear and easy to use. --Bob 02:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

Re {{Administrative divisions of France}}, I hope you approve of my modifications. (I'm not sure, though, about the spacing between the image, series announcement and then first heading.)

Re {{French overseas departments and territories}}, the template's visual center-of-gravity currently seems to be somewhere toward the top left corner; is that your intention...?  If so, I think it's at odds with other templates on similar topics that I've seen. Maybe {{Navbox generic}} frames what you have in mind...?  The titlebar color is also at odds with the other related templates I've seen; #eee or #efefef are the closest generally-accepted colors that come to mind. Finally, the colons following the headings appear almost insubstantial here – almost like specks of dirt on the screen (desktop or laptop) – so I reckon they may as well be removed.

Yours, David (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

All I wanted was two columns... In IE6 it seemed to work, nut now that I am using Safari, it does look horrible. As long as the lists are correctly and easily identifiable, I don't mind what format it will be. As long as it is easy to read... --Bob 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have just converted the template to a reasonably straightforward {{Navbox generic}}. How does it look at your end...?  David (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on IE6 at the moment and it looks fine. Being that it's a standard template, I assume it will work correctly in Safari/Firefox etc. Thanks. --Bob 15:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Glad you approve and thanks for your feedback. "Au revoir"!  Chuckle, David (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting the en back en anglais

Hi Bob- I see you have been diligently working where I have taken only a few tentative steps--putting all those French terms on the English Wikipedia into English. A lot of tedious work--something I'd thought of tackling some long winter day, but you on the job and no winter in sight here in New England, maybe I'll have to find another pet editing project! Just wanted to let you know the work hasn't gone unappreciated. -Eric ^(talk) 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. There is still a ton of work to do... 100 departments with at least 5 articles per department, plus the rest... it might take a lonh while just to finish this part of the translation work. --Bob 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bob- Thanks for the heads-up on the (who-ever-knew-this-was-gonna-be-such-a) debate on anglici(z^{for your home}/s^{for your homeland})ation. I am so sorry you have to deal with all that resistance I see below. I chimed in with my 2¢. -Eric ^(talk) 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Olinde Rodrigues

Hello, Grcampbell! I see you've been helping keep the Rodrigues article sensible. The person who recently edited the article still has him down as Occitanian, even after your revert. Though nationality should not be applied with a broad brush, I hope it is still reasonable to state that he is from a 'Spanish Jewish' family as I had it originally. (His grandfather was from Spain). The issue arises because his last name *sounds* Portuguese, and the average reader who knows nothing about him might assume he was from there. Would you object if I revert back to my last version from September? EdJohnston 17:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorted. --Bob 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apples of Gold

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Apples of Gold, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Apples of Gold. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.. Saw that you had made contributions to the article. Pastordavid 18:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rugby ball

Hi, You seem to be the guy looking after alot of the rugby stuff on wiki, noticed you after I created the Swiss rugby sites and thanks for all the tidying you did there. Anyway, you don't happen to have a fair use image of a rugby ball lying around do you? There's been a change to the {{User Rugby Union Player}} template, and the new image is pretty crap. If needs be I'll take one myself, but all I have here is an Addidas training ball, and should really be a Gilbert ball as it's more recognisable. Cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it again. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you have a look please. I cannot find the old image for some reason. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Occitan

I've reverted your removal of this category from Bruno Julliard; have you removed it from many? I see that the category has been almost completely depopulated, and I've been trying to find out who did it.

The category is misnamed, and because of a faulty system for renaming, it's taking time to get it named properly; it should be "Occitan people", or something of the sort. Unless you think Julliard isn't Occitan, there's no reason for the category to go.

Ah, I see that you are responsible for at least some of the depuplation. Note that removing a category and text from an article is not a minor edit, and shouldn't be so marked. Edit summaries are also required. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He is not an Occitan personality. These types of classification are, at best, disruptive to the wikipedia. --Bob 09:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing disruptivbe about them. What is disruptive is your depopulating the category, without explanation or even edit summaries, pretending thast your edits are minor, all while taking no part in the discussion of the category. If you continue to remove the category you may be blocked for disruptive editing. If you have a serious point to make, make it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1#Category:Occitan personalities; if you can show that the category should not exist, then it will be removed; until then, do not depopulate it; this is against Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has been discussed at Talk:France and just above on this page. It has also been discussed on the page of biography of a living person (Jean-Marc Lofficier) who was less than happy of being labelled as such. It is POV Catcruft that should not be used. --Bob 09:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First, discussing it on your Talk page, or on a Talk page of an article not in the category, isn't enough. You need to discuss it in the correct place. Secondly, living people don't have vetos over articles on themselves. This is your last warning. If you persist in this (calling the reversal of your illict depopulation "vandalism"), you will be blocked from editing for a period, in order to help you to cool off and think about the issue. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So you will abuse your disecretion?? People like you should be stripped of all admin duties.

No, I'll apply Wikipedia standards in this case. Look, it may be simply that you're unaware of the implications of your action. In discussing the future of Category:Occitan personalities – whether to rename it, or remove it – editors will look at its contents. By depopulating it (something that you're not supposed to do; as the template on the category reads: "do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress"), you interfere with the proper discussion of the category.

Now, you not only depopulated the category, but did so without explanation and marking your edits as minor when they weren't. Again, let's assume that you did this out of ignorance of what's required. Still, you need to calm down and consider both your original actions and your response to my correction of them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was actually up for speedy renaming due to a spelling mistake. Something which is irrelevant for the actions that I took in removing a POV definition from biographies of people that should not be classified as such. --Bob 09:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That was the original reason, but it was quickly moved to a new section for more substantial consideration. If it's PoV, then you can argue that in the proper place; if that view is accepted, then fine — the category will be deleted and removed from the articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Raclette.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raclette.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, who is Didier Esquieu and where did you get this image from? Is there a link to a page Mr Esquieu releases rights to the image? Without this information, it's still no source. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Objection to personal remark

I put the following comment on Talk:AIDS: I object to the personal remark Create your subarticle with your fetish for vitamin C within it by user Grcampbell (Bob) above. This is inappropriate and I take it as violating the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please restrict comments to discussion of what will or will not appear on the article pages and do not make remarks about Wikipedian editors. --Coppertwig 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Caps

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cap_%28sport%29&diff=59646846&oldid=59593220 -yes it is - I believe that caps are still awarded. Jooler 13:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation

Hey Bob, I see you've been doing a lot of work on anglicising tonnes of terms on wikipedia, usually French ones such as « département » or « région ». But did you ever consider that these terms, once angliscised, may actually become more confusing to many readers ? Languages develop new words, new ways of calling something, by taking a word from a foreign language and using it to describe a certain something or other. English has done this with French more so than most other languages on the planet (remember the post-1066 Norman ruling class, i.e. French influence on English?). I agree with you that when a term already exists in English for that something or other, we should use the English term exclusively. But when we are describing something that exists only in France it makes sense that we use the French way of calling it. That is why so many wikipedia editors have for several years used the French terms « département » and « région » to describe what is in France very different than the normal English usage of the words department or region. Same goes for the Fédération Française de Rugby, or for the FIFA for that matter or the SI. We have both read the MOS, and we have both interpreted it in two different ways, so any thoughts on finding some sort of compromise ? --Aquarelle 11:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No. WP:UE is very clear regarding the above. Also, articles about foreign language subjects are translated and this is not a French lesson. French terms are translated in the relevant articles which are linked to from say Manche for example. It does not make sense to use the French terminology especially when a more than adequate translation exists. Terms such as département do not appear in the OED, but department does. Department is also used by INSEE in English. The same applies to other translations that are currently ongoing. Regarding the FFR. The translation of French Rugby Federation is commonly used in English. I refer you to the BBC sport website as an example and the football equivalent already exists in its English form. However, I should also note that in cases where the French use is overwhelmingly used in English, I have supported keeping the French name. Examples include Académie française and Médecins Sans Frontières and would include FIFA if a vote every came up. --Bob 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example. - From WP:UE. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:UE says "If there is no commonly used English name, use an accepted transliteration of the name in the original language. Latin-alphabet languages, like Spanish or French, should need no transliteration, but Chinese names can use Pinyin, for example." Such is the case with the French usage of the German term Länder to describe the German federal states. Calling them by the German term leaves no room for misunderstanding. A region in English is normally a large area with definable characteristics but without fixed boundries. It's confusing to use such a term to describe the administrative regions of France. A department in English is equally different than département, and in the context of an article about France it seems we are talking about ministries (such as the U.S. State Department). As for the FFR, the google hit counts are hardly decisive. The BBC may translate it but there are plenty of other English sources who do not. I vote that we use the original name since there is no concurrence on the English usage. On cases such as the Académie française we completely agree. --Aquarelle 10:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already consensus among editors on this point. Take it up with them at WP:NAME. It is for English, not French or Macedonian or other. For an example, take a gander at this category : Category:UEFA. How many are in their native languages? there is no vote on this page, and wikipedi is not a democracy... --Bob 20:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Was the département and région issue ever thorougly discussed? It appears to me that you're the only one changing what the other editors had been doing for several years. But if a discussion did take place I'd be grateful if you would give me the link. As for the INSEE, the word "department" is not used on their English website, as you stated in your message. They use the French term département, probably because of the significant difference in usage between it and its English cognate. As I said, département and department are two very different things (as fluent French and English speaker I'm sure that you appreciate the difference). As for région, the difference is smaller but nevertheless significant. A region does not have fixed boundries like a province, state, county, borough, parish, et cetera. --Aquarelle 12:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been discussed on the CfD pages and the when WP:FR was up for discussion. I am not the only one carrying this out. Others are doing similar work such as User:Kiwipete. Also, you are wrong when it comes to department not being used by INSEE. PLease see here and here for examples. Now, if you don't want to do your own research and then come back with flasehoods just to push your POV, then no thanks. Wikipedia is clear on the usage of French terms when a translation is more than adequate. On another note, département and région are not in the Oxford English Dictionary whereas department and region are. --Bob 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Bob on this one, Aquarelle. The terms department and region are perfectly adequate in describing these French subdivisions. Each term has its own page which fully describes the use of the term as it applies in France.

Bob, have you noticed the changes made by WikiMan53 to Cantons of the Maine-et-Loire department? Could you have a look and suggest whether they should be reverted? Regards, Kiwipete 01:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Bob 08:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob, there's no reason to be so unpleasant, and certainly no need for accusations. « Département » is most definately used by the INSEE on their English pages at least some of the time, and quite possibly more often than they use the English cognate (for a few examples look here, here, here, and here). I did a little checking, and in four guidebooks of France that I found in the library all of them used the French terms, italicised of course, to describe the French territory to the English reader. In the classes I took about France in the United States, my professors exclusively used the French terms as well. As for the OED, you didn't need to say it twice - your argument there only answers the question of whether the word should be italicised or not (if it's in the OED it shouldn't, if it isn't then it should, but either way we can still use a foreign word). So from where I see it, the most common way for Anglophones to describe the French system is with the French terms, which lines up with what was decided here. Kwipete, thanks for your input.

P.S., paradoxically, the Project France page you gave me as a reference also employs the term Département ;) --Aquarelle 10:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you put forward a theory without any research. Did I state that département is never used by the INSEE? I think not. A quick search of the INSEE website will reveal that of the pages written in English, 338 state department while only 111 use the French term. Also, the terms your teachers used in the US is irrelevant. I have heard tenured professors stating that AIDS means Auto immune disease syndrome. Others also state that HIV doesnt cause AIDS. These people are not always correct in their usage of the English language. Also, I didn't give you the Wikiproject page as a reference, but stated that when it was up for discussion the usage of French terms was discussed. --Bob 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob. Sorry I didn't have the time to read all of your discussion, but it seems to me that Anglicising all French terms - such as département is an unneeded extra step. First off, it's most likely that the word you have "anglecised to" has a different meaning than the French one, and secondly, it's best, whenever possible, to leave French appellations as they are for further reference. I think a good solution would be to use an italicised French term (as this is the most common way of presenting foreign words in english-language texts), perhaps followed by the best-suited translation between parentheses (and this perhaps only the first time the word appears in the article) - or nothing at all.

It's just that a "department" in English does not denote the same thing as French "département". I think it is best (and safest) if we keep this logic in mind.

Take care, best,

THEPROMENADER 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the English definition for the French department is exactly that which is defined by INSEE for département. Please see the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary. Also, the guidelines in Wikipedia state that we do not italicize words that appear in the English dictionary. For this reason it is wrong to italicise commune, canton, arondissement, department, region etc. --Bob 20:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford dictionary has taken the pains to include the French definition of department - but most readers will not, nor need not, look to this reference for a "real" definition when reading the article - and not all references do this - so this is a rather uneccessary extra step. Whether it is in English or in French, the reader will most likely not know what a "department" (or "département") is anyhow, so best let him know that (at least) it is a real and existing French administrative term, and not some other form of English "interpretation". THEPROMENADER 21:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't share your opinion. If the INSEE uses the English word in the majority of its eglish texts, it exists in the OED, is not a transliteration and is a real definition and word used by international statistical institutes in English, then I feel that we should also use these English terms. --Bob 22:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems as though you have decided to do something that is not neccessary - even confounding to the reader - and are simply making arguments in favour of your decision. Dictionaries and references have a set purpose and context - it is certain that in a dictionary we know (or have already read) the word we are looking for, and for the INSEE, it is certain that what we are speaking of - a particular administrative region - but wiki articles do not have the same context at all. Best keep things simple - no extra step needed! I hope you see my point. THEPROMENADER 22:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: It's all about what level you want to cater to. Personally I consider "anglicisation" as "dumbing things down" - I do have faith in reader intelligence, and naming what "is" as it is is nice too. I'm in no way vehement about this, but I do think it a good idea to aim up when we can : ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER 00:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, please stop with the Anglisisation - there's no need for it, really. We don't have to dumb things down for anyone; in doing so we're just making ourselves and Wiki look dumb. We are not making a guidebook for the world-illiterate. Please don't do this anymore. THEPROMENADER 09:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It has already happened in almost every canton, commune, arrondissement, department and regional article. As you see above, others have been helping in this, as it is along wiki guidelines, especially as the INSEE use the English terms, as does Eurostat. --Bob 16:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Too bad that I didn't notice it sooner, and too bad that you didn't think to discuss such widespread changes before you made them. Or did you? How many were you, and where did you bring this up for the first time? THEPROMENADER 17:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When the WP:FR was up for discussion, the topic was raised, also when we redid the French article a while back, check its history. All categories were changed as well, and the discussion took place on the relevant pages, also the page naming was discussed on the relevant master pages. --Bob 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion like that, but as you participated you would have the pages in your watchlist; could you be so kind as to point me there? THEPROMENADER 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the page on my watchlist. I have very few pages on my watchlist, I use Special:Contributions instead. However, I think it was on the Wikiproject proposal page, also on the France talk page (though that is doubtful) and on the CfD pages. --Bob 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're certain to have these discussions in your comtributions list. That would be fine, please. THEPROMENADER 09:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob, well done on continuing with your edits. You've got more balls than I have in ignoring Promenader's ranting. I'll pluck up some dutch courage and start anglicising the "Arrondissement of x" and "Arrondissements of the x department" pages. Kiwipete 02:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No such thing I'm afraid... There were under 10 left out of 100, I wasn't going to leave the project half-arsed, when I start something I like to see it through to the end. Now all region and department pages are similarly formatted using the same nomenclature, which was not the case before. --Bob 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really get the sense of the above, but if I am to understand this correctly, there was no discussion on this at all. Kiwipete, save the slander and provocation as neither are an answer to any question asked here.

Homogenisation is an argument, but only in the case of an already-existing situation. Who began the Anglicisation - and when? Was it the article contributors who "started" the Anglicisation, or is this the work of only a few?

If there already existed a majority of already-Anglecised French articles, I can see that the rest could be completed without much ado or discussion - but if this isn't the case, and but a few have decided to impose their own point of view unshared until then, in modifying the contributions of many (since perhaps the beginning of Wiki), and this without any discussion at all, this is another thing entirely, and even unacceptable. THEPROMENADER 09:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As the discussion progresses it's becoming clearer and clearer to me that no large-scale discussion on this issue ever took place and that Bob and perhaps two or three other editors set out to change what most of the original article writers had instituted. It is clear that the INSEE has no official policy on the English usage of the terms as they very evidently use both interchangeably (why would we look to the French guys at the INSEE for advice on English anyways ?) and that there is a solid base of authors and university teachers who use the French nomenclature (sorry Bob, but tenured professors are credible. Who are you to crticise them anyways ? Wikipedia is based on the œuvres of these intellectuals). If Bob can't put forward any proof of previous concurrence then I vote (yes Bob, I'm voting again) that we start changing the articles back to their original form, and that we make an effort to homogonise things as much as possible. --Aquarelle 12:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Before weighing one way or another I still would like to hear concrete proof about what was decided, when, and by who - if it was the contributions of the article contributors themselves through the years that created a vast majority of articles using Anglicised terms, I cannot say anything against anyone striving to finish the job - but if this is not the case, any such change should at least be brought up for discussion before they are put into effect. My decision will depend on this answer. THEPROMENADER 16:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion was made here with a consensus to move, which was carried out (I didn't participate so it wasn't in my contributions). The region article was then also moved as a result, quickly followed by the relevant categories and subarticles. Further rantings on the subject were then made here (by a Turkish lawyer living in France) although they seem to have been deleted since. Similar debate has taken place elsewhere regarding other French terms in the English wikipedia when a more than adequate english form exists in the OED, is used by internationally recognised organisations in English, and indeed by the French government in English (INSEE uses the english form 4 times more than the French form on English pages and the French foreign offices uses the English forms on English pages [1])--Bob 16:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll forgo the examination of any arguments for a massive Anglicisation for now, thank you. As for the authour of a such decision, as far as I see, a vote to move one article is not an excuse to move all articles - and the overall consensus on even this vote was, to say the least, wee. Have you anything more? THEPROMENADER 16:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made the effort of opening some sort of discussion about this on the WP:FR talk page. I'm sending the same neutral message to everyone - if anyone here would like to spread the same to anyone knowing anything on the subject, please do. THEPROMENADER 14:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Super 14 peer review

Hi, I was wondering if you could comment on the Super 14 page at it's peer review here. I would really appreciate the input. Thanks. - Shudda ^talk 22:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Paris Reverts

Thank you for your support against Hardouin's latest sockpuppet. I've reported him at WP:3RR. Cheers! THEPROMENADER 22:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I will will start to help with the clean up of the Paris article. It does seem rather cluttered... but sockpuppets don't seem to help much with this I suppose. --Bob 22:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the redundancy I was trying to deal with. The intro can be improved (namely the "trade routes" part), but I think the first line even over-underlines the fact that Paris is only the centre of an agglomeration. Someone (our old freind) seems to want to hammer and trumpet it in (with extra mention of "his" neck of the woods as though it is Paris) to even the dumbest of all of us. Not very productive or flattering to the article, granted. He reverted yet again, but thanks all the same. How many do you have left? THEPROMENADER 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once again for weighing in on the side of coherency - although you and Hardouin/Metropolitan seem at complete odds, and I somewhere inbetween. Can I ask you both to add comments to the article talk page instead of simply reverting? We have to keep up at least some form of diplomacy. As far as I'm concerned reverts without any talk page commentary are warrent themselves to reversal - we must show justification for our actions to retain the rationality in our edits. Otherwise it's just a draw-the-line me-over-you revert war - very tiring and not very productive. THEPROMENADER 16:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with many French articles. A few have undertaken the task of "Anglicising" French terms in Wiki articles (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement") - there doesn't seem to have been any discussion about this, so your point of view would be welcome. I think a good place for this discussion would be the WP:FR page. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why are you directing everyone to another page than that most concerned with the French articles we are dealing with? I don't understand this. If you do that then you'll have to send the same to all those I've already contacted - check my contributions list. Also, the wording you use in your message is not neutral like mine - you are suggesting that there is opposition to an existing Wiki rule, but that rule in fact does not exist - otherwise we would need no discussion! Anyhow, best, THEPROMENADER 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, on second thought, best move the discussion to the relevent WP:FR page. Your choice of a locale is not fitting at all. THEPROMENADER 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no place set up on WP:FR for a discussion. I set it up on MOS as it may reach more people so we would have a more balanced view. --Bob 16:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There's one set up now. It's only normal to place the discussion as close as possible to the concerned articles, and it's only fair to give a say to those already involved and in that area. If it is the "right" sort of attention you are looking for, you can call anyone you want to the discussion - but best hold it in an on-topic place. So now you can find the discussion here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing everyone up to date with the new link - that was really cool of you. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OED question

Hi Bob- Who knew that writing English articles in English could be such perilous quest? I'm sure if it came to a vote, reason would prevail. Anyway, do you know of any cheaper options for an OED online subscription? What I saw was $295 per year, and I'm not ready for that yet. -Eric ^(talk) 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of universities buy subscriptions that work from any of their IP addresses. Maybe if there's one in your area you could swing by and log in in order to get free access. 295$ sounds pretty steep. But you made it a point to tell me that you use the AHD and not the OED... Watch out for bloatedness (or should I say "bloatocity" - both aren't words but can probably be found in the OED) and obsoletisms. --Aquarelle 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be nice, but no universities nearby. My local librarian is interested, though. -Eric ^(talk) 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing for an online subscription. I have access to virtually all journals/dictionaries/academic works online due to my position and field of work. (bloatedness is a word and has been documented back to the 17th century if not before. bloatocity is not a word.) --Bob 19:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I would expect such an entry from the OED. Exactly what I was talking about... --Aquarelle 20:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not limited to the OED. --Bob 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I prefer bloatocity, personally. --Aquarelle 21:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank Hadden

That should be okay all that stuff you mentioned

†he Bread ³⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)