User talk:Kudpung/Archive Jan 2010

Important Wine Project discussion needs input!

Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)#Ready_to_go_live.3F. All input and view points are welcomed. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern - GA nomination

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your kind comments, and greetings also to you for the New Year.

On the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Worcestershire, thanks for the invite/suggestion. I find myself needing to try to pull back some of the time and effort I've been putting into Wikipedia, so that I can direct them at other things. If I could afford the luxury, there is quite a bit I could contribute to Wikipedia, but in the end, it doesn't pay the bills.

On the Malvern, Worcestershire article, it's a privilege to be able to contribute, and I'll continue to do so as best I can. The referencing system isn't 'mine' as such. What I did was implement someone's suggestion, do my best to make it work, and show how I got there. However, you'll see from my dialogue that having done this, I have my doubts about the utility of the new referencing layout for this type of article. My own view is that the referencing layout used in Malvern Water article is simpler to implement and more suited to the Malvern, Worcestershire. In other words, it seems more optimal for the Malvern article, whereas the style we're currently trying to implement is more optimal for an article like William Shakespeare

However, it must be said that I was only able to come to that view after implementing the suggested layout. So it was a useful learning exercise, and the ensuing dialogue did get me to better clarify my observations, which itself is always useful (see the sub-heading Inline citations, editing citations, and referencing layouts in the Malvern talk page dialogue). The reason I expressed my doubts early into the new referencing style, was that having realised the issues involved, I had a social responsibility to desribe them as best I could. Thus people could decide which way they'd like to go either early on, or after getting a feel for the issues involved. That is, so people could make informed decisions and indeed perhaps come to a consensus.

You'll see also that I did get concerned that my expression of doubts might cause discouragement and stall the project. For this reason, I continued to implement the new referencing layout to demonstrate good faith, because discouraging others is not my style. So, having expressed my doubts, and clarified them as best I could, it was then a matter of seeing which direction the consensus would take: The Malvern Water style, or the Wakefield style. I still think the Malvern Water style is more optimal, but I see my role as contributing as best I can whichever direction the consensus goes. And part of that contribution is showing others how they can implement the style they indicate a preference for, insofar as I can figure it out.Wotnow (talk) 07:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Hi Wotnow. Thanks for your detailed response. I don't think it will stall the project at all. What we now have to achieve for the article however is consistency - particularly if someone comes up with the idea in the future of proposing it for FA. The Harvard tags are great for book references, but for general inline references, I personally find it is easier to type them by hand using the one-click ref/ref insertion instead of using a template. All a matter of taste - and habit, I suppose. I have added a lot of new refs in the last 24 hours this way to satisfy the reviewer's demands, and it would be great if you feel they could be improved. It won't slow down the review. Thanks for all your work on this article; although Gyro and I are old Malvernians, we certainly don't claim ownership to the article, and we all feel privileged to be able to contribute to serious articles for the encyclopedia :) --Kudpung (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Kudpung. I rather agree with you on the formatting. If you look at my own earliest contributions, like say John D. Barrow, you'll see they were that style (ref Barrow, J.D. (1990). The World Within the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp.342-343 ref). I 'upgraded' the reference on 18 December 2009, "using Wikibizzo tricks learned since original citation". I've implemented Wikibizzo templates as I got more 'sophisticated'. Sometimes it's useful. But sometimes, perhaps oftentimes, there is little or no extra referencing information imparted thereby. Rather, what one has achieved is enslaveship to Wikibizzos. We can observe this everywhere in life. The anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski had a term which applies to this sort of thing: "the confidence trick of new inventions".Wotnow (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

I hope I can fix at least some of the additional issues: indeed, one is fixed already. The Malvern Girls College issue relates to another article. Hanley Castle School is probably a deletion. I can probably fix the Town Council/UDC issue from VCH [note page was the editor, not the author, so that the words are not his]. Peterkingiron (talk)

Don't worry too much about Peter's comments. Although partially valid, they weren't raised by the reviewer. Nevertheless, on his advice I've started reluctantly hacking stuff out that we can't get fixed in time. IMHO the red link to malvern St james should stay - red links are, according to policy, a stimulus for someone to create the missing article; they don't affect the quality of the content (unless the article is literally peppered with them). I'm sure a responsible reviewer understands that this is a serious article that a lot of hard work has been put into to make it comply with the rules.If it were an FA nomination, perhaps a tad more strictness would apply. But personally, I don't think there is any reason to want to make Malvern an FA. As a place, it's pretty unniteresting for the rest of the world! My main endeavour now is to get the other Malvern related, and Worcestershire articles up to scratch. Problem is, I keep getting diverted into editing and improving articles that really have nothing to do with my own knowledge base - such as plain copyediting etc.--Kudpung (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the reference to Monasticon, though imprecisely for the moment, as the text is not in Google Books. Please let me sort out these issues as far as I can. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's OK Peter, I certainly don't intend to revert any of your edits - if anything, I've been cutting some of my own contribs out; I am well aware that I have a tendency sometimes to go OTT with details ;) In fact I hadn't realised you had been busy making a lot of improvements as we speak.--Kudpung (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I had been away over Christmas, so that today was the first opportunity to contribute. I have spetn most of this afternoon on it, but will probably not do much more today. I think we are left with 2 issues that I have raised: Monasticon would require a trip to Birmingham; we need a source for the UDC: that may have to be the record office. I will reinstate the redlink on Malvern St James shortly. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi KP - can you stop editing for a moment - I'm trying to merge my changes/fixes, but the page is changing faster than I can keep up!

Hi Gyro. I've just deleted a whole bunch of over references on your advice, but I found it extremely difficult. For the moment, I really fail to see how that template system of yours & Wotnow's for making citations saves any time - if anything it appears to quadruple it. It's now 02.45 am here, and I'm going to bed before I get a divorce suit!--Kudpung (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

All fixed. The ref system is quite simple, once someone actually explains it! I'll add a description to the talk page. I think the big advantage is that it makes the wiki source much more readable - although it does split the refs into two different places - the actual citation in the text, and the full details under references. The citation templates make it easier to give full information, rather than just a link - reviewers are starting to insist on them (see Malvern Water), which I don't think is a bad thing. Anyway, sleep well, and see how it looks in the morning. GyroMagician (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What a splendid effort all round. And ya gotta love those editing conflicts when two editors are trying to save at the same time! I have re-added the Hembry, Cowie & Cowie (HCC) ref for the Malvern Link merge, as it is central to that sentence, as a reader who checks it can readily see. The Hansard ref is useful, and complimentary, so I'd not remove it. I concur that one can overdo the ref clusters, but the occasional complimentary cluster can also add to an article, as I think in this case. Moreover, we can never know who will check it, and find for themselves a whole new information world to check out and contribute back to Wikipedia from. I dunno about you guys, but I've had many such serendipitous finds.

I also see GyroMagician that you added the url from the duplicate HCC ref. I realised of course that I was formatting a duplicate ref, but by that time I was a bit jaded, the resolution wasn't readily evident to me so I left it at that, as it wouldn't hurt a GA. But with a fresh perspective I've sorted that. That by the way, is one of the advantages of listing the references in one place. One can far more readily spot duplications and errors, whether or not you're looking for them. Even if you look at the Shakespeare article you'll see that the exercise enabled me to spot an error (McMichael & Glenn - line 199) which I was neither aware of or looking for. I was simply trying an experiment to combine two styles while creating a benefit to the article I was experimenting in.

But I of course see Kudpung's point, as I'm sure you do Gyro. That is, there is a trade-off between the gain from ever-more complex uses of Wikibizzos, and losses entailed therein. Our experiment with the Shakespeare-style highlighted that, and I think we've hit on just about as good a compromise as one can get. After all, it will list a reference regardless of whether it is in placed in the body of the article in simple or template format, or grouped in the reference section. So it's as useful as necessary, but robust to different styles.Wotnow (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation

The only templates that I am currently aware of are those created by GyroMagician at GyroMagician's neat trick on Malvern Water discussion page, and more recently GyroMagician's 'Howto' on Malvern discussion page, both of which have been copied by me at User:Wotnow. You'll see from my own userpage, and my comments on Malvern Water discussion page and elsewhere, that I credit my awareness of this referencing style to User:Chienlit's implementation in the Vincent Priessnitz article on 15 November 2009, after which I tried it myself. Whether Chienlit picked up elsewhere or worked it out I don't know. I see the earliest contribution from Chienlit using the {{r|"Ref Name"}} template was on 17 October 2009, in the Hubert Latham article.

But I see the {{reflist|2|refs= ... }} template was added to the Hubert Latham article by User:Autodidactyl on 14 October 2009. Where that editor got it from I don't know. At this stage, it looks a bit like an innovation that's been quietly evolving behind the scenes. For further description of my own current method of implementing the style, see my additional blurb at Reference templates for the Chienlit innovation, which is the name I've given it for now, pending evidence of the innovation being creditable to someone else.Wotnow (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Some hopefully helpful information

Hi Kudpung. I have added a section to my user page, in which I provide what I hope are Illustrative examples of co-existing referencing styles in the process of editorial problem-solving. I hope it is of some help. As always, it was at least a useful learning exercise for me, as is usually the case when trying to formalise one's own learning into a way that hopefully makes some sense to others. Wotnow (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Wotnow

Origin of List-defined references

Hi Kudpung. You may like to know that having fleshed out the issues as best I could on my user page, I then took the next logical step, of acknowledging Chienlit and awaiting a response regarding any earlier history that I hadn't found. It turns out that Chienlit picked up the idea from User:Maedin, who was also kind enough to provide further information. It transpires that its implementation was advertised on 21 September 2009, in the Wikipedia Signpost. The Signpost links show the innovation traces back to July 2009, when there was extensive discussion and a straw poll, resulting in strong support for the innovation, and subsequent implementation by User:Dragons flight. There is also a Help page explaining List-defined references.

I have of course updated my user page to reflect all this, and to provide all the relevant links to the topic in one place. The exercise leading up to this, by myself and Gyro, also prompted by your own comments which deserved addressing, was far from fruitless. We independently arrived at the same conclusions as those whose efforts led to the implementation, and our elaborations are a good supplement. Of course, some of the reservations that you expressed are to be found in the July discussion. But the overall conclusion was the same that we arrived at. It is optional for indidual editors, and works with other styles, so doesn't interfere anyway. But of course, that is no longer just the conclusion of Gyro and me (I never thought it was anyway, it just seemed we were elaborating the unelaborated). A number of others got there first. Wotnow (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Malvern Girls College: Moving comments

Hi Kudpung/Archive Jan 2010! It has been suggested that an article you have created or edited be moved and renamed. You are invited to join the debate and leave your opinion here: Talk:Malvern Girls' College#Move

Geograph images

Please upload images from the Geograph British Isles project directly to Commons. This makes them available to all the WMF projects and allows them to be better organised. You can use this tool to make the transfer very easily. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I know about that tool, but it requires some kind of special login that I've never been able to figure out. --Kudpung (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You need a TUSC account, which you create here and to verify the account you then make the required edit to your user talk page here, which I see you've now done. The other alternative is to use the basic upload form on Commons and replace the contents of the "Summary" text box by the Wiki code available for each image on the Geograph project. You can find the code by clicking "Find out how to reuse this Image" below the image, then scroll down to the "Wikipedia Template for image page" and copy the code in the text box. Adambro (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TUSC token cda9c0040338fa2c10d3b37010615482

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account! Hmmm... we'll see...--Kudpung (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MStJshield.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MStJshield.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Used in User:Kudpung/Malvern St James (draft)] an article in user space being prepared for new main article page.--Kudpung (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a 7-day grace period to move the image into article space. If it does not make it in time and is deleted, any admin can restore the deleted image for use in article space. Skier Dude (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

new article created and moved to article space.--Kudpung (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

IPA, RP, etc.

Hi. User:Lfh has just altered the IPA pronunciation at Worcester College, Oxford (which I attended) so that the final "r" is pronounced. I ferreted around a bit and found a discussion about the pronunciation of Warwickshire in which you participated, and then your contribution at Talk:Warwickshire#Pronunciations. If, as Lfh asserts, WP:IPAEN includes RP (which I speak, with an admixture of colonial and Yorkshire vowels), then the final "r" sound shouldn't have been added. I would have no objection to the addition of an alternative version with final "r" sound - which I can do by re-inserting the previous version, but I'm reluctant to do that just now without a second opinion by someone who clearly knows more about this stuff than I do - i.e. you.

In fact, what I know about phonetics could be written on the back of a postage stamp, and I've had a run-in about this stuff with Lfh or some other unintelligible expert in relation to a similar situation on some other article, probably about opera, whose title I forget, where I just gave up. All help gratefully received! Best wishes. --GuillaumeTell 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guillaume, I have already had a run in with Lfh over this, but he/she remains intransigent. See User talk:Lfh#Warwickshire. As a professional linguist, lexicographer, (and RP Brit from Worcester to boot), I am sure that he/she has clearly missed the point, and misunderstood the function of the IPA. American is rhotic, British is not (except for some isolated minority a reas), and even the Americans do not pronouce final 'r's where there aren't any - or do they say Arizoner, Dakoter, Iower, Louisianner, Nevader, or Oklahomer? I think not, and I would not add an IPA 'r' to the phonetic transliteration and insist they do! I strongly discourage non nationals from being prescriptive over the way the natives pronounce their place names. and languages. There is also no such thing as a Standard International English pronunciation, and whatever Lfd contends, it is not the place in Wikipedia for a consensus of few to redefine the established practices for the use of the IPA for many. However, as you will see HERE, I would be reluctant to get involved in an edit war over it after already having reverted (I think) one of his perceived 'r's, but together, and maybe with the help of User:Boynamedsue who has a similar problem with Lfh's ideas, we may be able to exert some gentle persuasion before escalating to RfA..--Kudpung (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. I see that an anon IP has reverted the Worc Coll pronunciation that I mentioned above, so I'm going to let sleeping dogs lie (unless it is unreverted, of course) for now. But are you sure that Lfh is in fact American? His/her talk page has comments about Milton Keynes, MK Dons FC, Dr John Reid, Muralitharan, Rugby Union, London boroughs, Welsh musicians .... How many Americans have even heard of any of those? Best. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought I read something of his where he said he was from the US, but I may be wrong. No matter, he appears to be advocating an Americanisation of British English. Not really the kind of editor I want to ruffle the feathers of, and I wouldn't bother if I wasn't a professional linguist and lexicographer  :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been enjoying the discussion at the IPA Talk Page, what I can understand of it, but there isn't anything useful that I could say that hasn't been said already. I was surprised to discover that Worcester, Massachusetts isn't pronounced Warsestuhr, and that no-one has got round to telling us how to pronounce Worcester, Western Cape.

On the subject of RP, I was walking home from my work at Leeds University some years ago and was accosted by an oriental chap who showed me a piece of paper with an address on it and asked me, in halting English, how to get there. I pointed him in the right direction, and his face lit up: "Ah! You speak Standard English!", he said, having, I assumed, been baffled by Leeds accents.

I was in Malvern recently, doing the Elgar trail with musical friends. My only previous visit there, years ago, was to Le Croque-en-Bouche (with the same friends, one of whom lives in Bretforton), where we encountered the rudest restaurateur that I've ever met. Nice food and good wines, though. --GuillaumeTell 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the IPA debate has turned to become the usual cyclic pattern of people repeating themselves and everyone else. I've tried to wrap it up with a kind of bulleted conclusion, but I'm not holding my breath. The main thing however, is that probably after this discussion, nobody is going to risk an edit war (3 reverts and all that stuff), so we can probably safely change the IPA renderings to reflect the way that the majority of people pronounce the place names (the majority not necessarily being the local residents). Maybe someone will pick up on my suggestion for showing both AE and BE pronunciations where they might be significantly different. Again, this can be done boldly without need for a great debate. Unfortunately, I'm very committed to the Worcestershire, the wine, and the school articles, and I wouldn't have time to scour the encyclopedia and do it myself. I might do it on the fly though. BTW:thanks for your tweak to Bretforton. I'm glad you like Elgar, have you seen my new article about Julius Harrison? Nowadays there aren't any particularly special restaurants in the county; for many years my favourite French restaurant in the whole world has been the Côte d'Azur in Vientiane, Laos, close on the heels of the Entroe des Artistes in Avignon. Naturally they both serve my favourite reds: Cairanne, Gigondas, and Vacqueyras, top crus from the Rhône, and Calvados (spirit) from Mayenne where I spent much of my youth. --Kudpung (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, I've recently had an anon editor try to alter the pronunciation of Wootton Wawen, he was correct with the pronounciation of wootton but wished Wawen, prounounced by locals woe'n, to Waiven. I have re-corrected the edit to reflect the local pronounciation, amd as my phonetic knowledge is nil that probably all I can do. I can't understand why people would qustion a local pronunciation even if phonetically incorrect? Argrogan (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Argrogan, there's some rather more intelligent talk going on in the sidelines, particularly among the' Worcs crowd (See: User_talk:GyroMagician#IPA) because we were affected too, and many of us are members of neighbouring county projects. I know your village, and I know how it's pronounced. The local pronunciation is pretty much how any one would utter it from its Latin spelling so you are perfectly entitled to revert what someone else is doing. Articles about places are a dodgy topic though, because nobody really has an academic level of local knowledge, and that leaves the pages open to interference from anyone anywhere. We once had a very obnoxious American try to give us a lecture about Malvern water, and the Royal Family, and then put all sorts of POV, COI, and other banners all over the page after we had very tactfully proven he was wrong. As far as the IPA is concerned,I suggest you just write the IPA the way Wawen is pronounced your/our way, and it will be right for all the Waweners, the rest of us from the Midlands, and for my students in Bangkok, Delhi, Hong Kong, and Singapore. --Kudpung (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW: Your article is coming along very nicely indeed. The very long paragraph in the history section needs splitting up and more references.--Kudpung (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, thanks for the support in this I am rather new to Wikipedia and so I am opften reluctant to be as bold over these matters as perhaps I should be. On the history section, yes your right it does need to be edited and shortened and referenced a bit more, I thought I had a summarised version in another source but I can't put my hand to it at the moment.
As for Col Throckmorton in the Sambourne article he is mentioned particularly as they are the Lords of the Manor that Sambourne is in and so, at the time of WW1, the first family of the district.
Thanks for your advice on these matters it is greatly appreciated, I like to see feedback on my contributions to see if I'm goiing in the right direction. Sambourne was the first article I created and tried to follow the guidelines for settlements in its preparation. Regards Argrogan (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

meetup

I missed you last time your were in England. It would be good to try again next time. I suggest you contact me by e-mail at (deleted at request of poster) I suggest you remove this addresswhen you have noted it.

I'll be back in Malvern again in April. I shall be staying about four weeks.--Kudpung (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleased to hear that you will be back in Malvern in April so if you are able to meet up with others I would welcome learning of any meeting. --DonBarton (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good Don. I'll keep you informed.

Malvern GA nom

I do not think there is now much that can easily be done with the references. I have eliminated a couple more incongruities in them, but I think this is the time to seek the final (?) review. Last time I was involved in edits to GA status, once another editor and I between us had found all missing citations, it went through, without anything being converted to citation templates. This article has them in such quantity as to make the text almost unreadable in editing (until they were taken out and placed in a spearate section). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

AND CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU

And a badge for you, with congratulations for kick-starting the process in the first place. Or was it a crank-start? :-) And for leaping into the driving seat at key moments, and holding onto the rails when others of us careened in various directions. Regards. Wotnow (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I've removed the badge to my user page, because from there it triggers some automatic stats for the Wikipedia software. Please do the same for yours.--Kudpung (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of places

Hi Kudpung, thank you for that notice I have left a comment. Likelife (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I have made a hopefully helpful observation. Wotnow (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Watchlist

Hi, just noticed that in your newsletter the link to the watchlist, under New Aims, is pointing to the Yorkshire watchlist rather than a Worcestershire one. I do not mind you monitoring the Yorkshire articles, the more the merrier, but it leaves the Worcestershire ones a bit vulnerable! Keith D (talk) 11:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It is because I cribbed the layout from Yorks! I really ought to find out how to make a termplate for the newsletter so that one fix does all.--Kudpung (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Keith D (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just thought that I can set up and run one for Worcestershire at the same time as I run the ones for Lincolnshire, Warwickshire and Yorkshire. If you are interested let me know. Keith D (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Towcesterrrrr, et al.

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Fortnum's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possibly unfree File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WorcsCoatArms.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I think you'll find that the image is cleanly within the PD realm. You were quite right in that it should not be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

the big r question (IPA, RP, etc.)

Well that was certainly something! Not entirely conclusive, but at least it cleared up our positions. If nothing else, you now think that WP is attempting something it shouldn't (pan-dialectalism), rather than the greater evil of forcing Britons to speak like Americans!

I see you're a professional translator. A subject I had quite a fascination with when I was at university. Are you involved with Wikipedia:Translation (list)? I used to be, and may go back to that in the near future. Lfh (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite hairy. Ugh! - diaphonemic (pan)-dialectalism - Oh my teapot! The Amis drive on the right, the Brits drive on the left. Let's all drive down the middle to be on the safe side! I keep the debate on my watchlist but I won't be going back there, because they got hacked off at my pointing out of the flaws in their arguments, and my clear demonstrations that they weren't being very helpful by turning the talk into a discussion about unrelated things (or put more bluntly: clouding the issue because thy couldn't or wouldn't look at the problem in perspective).
Funny thing is, I actually checked out all the Wiki pages on the IPA, their talk pages, and the talk pages of all the contributors to the IPA articles, and I find that:

• IPA page(s): Although a truly immense amount of work has been put into it/them, it/they go(es) far, far beyond the mission of an encyclopedia, try(ies) to be an all-authoritive work and the ultimate handbook on the subject, and has/have become a platform for everyone who knows a bit about the IPA to write a bit (or a lot!) about it. I think the Encyclopedia Britannica sums up the IPA best - in just four paragraphs - which shows at least that the Birtannica hasn't forgotten what an encyclopedia should be, and that it most probably does not practise the Wiki system of consensus by the few, to be imposed upon the many (bit like a Thai style military dictatorship really).
• Most of the contributors to the Wiki IPA know the IPA (and linguistics as an academic subject) exceptionally well, but they have probably never been outside their native America, or used the IPA for any other purpose than just talking about it. The discussion would have taken a more focussed direction if some of them had actually lived in non-English speaking countries, and/or taught English (or any other foreign language) in them - or in other words, used the IPA in real real- life situations. And of course, if they had properly read what people were saying from the beginning and not lost the plot (your original dilemma).
• Most of their talk pages and the associated IPA talk pages are one of the biggest collections of slanging matches and anal academicism I've ever come across in Wikiland. Kwami, who appears to be actually quite an intelligent IPA specialist,linguist, long-time contributor to the Wiki and an admin:

  The weird thing is that in RP it really is /ˈwʊstər/, with a real /r/. You hear that if you put "is" after it. Well, in real RP, anyway. Maybe not in local Worcester dialect. So we might could say "locally /wʊstə/", but not "rp: /wʊstə/

  He is wonderfully wrong of course, it is exactly the opposite of what he is saying - and what the heck is real RP? I come from just six miles outside Worcester. Malvern is one of the towns in the the UK with the most marked use of RP, almost to the extent of it being its local accent, and an awfully rather posher one than the 'southern' or Home Counties RP that some liguists mistakenly claim to be 'standard' British English. "It is the business of educated people to speak so that no-one may be able to tell in what county their childhood was passed."(A. Burrell (1891):A Handbook for Teachers in Public Elementary Schools). Malvern is a Mecca of the most elite of British boarding schools; it is a place a where daily clothing is by default, Burberry, green welly boots or Veldtshoen, and thick wooly stockings. People carry hockey sticks, lacross sticks, or shooting sticks everywhere, and drive their kids to school and go to Waitrose in Landrovers with permanently attached empty horseboxes (I often feel that Malvern and its mansions, manors, and manners should have been the model for Midsomer Murders). You go into a pub's lounge bar and nearly everyone standing at the counter is a 'Sir' somebody or other with an accent to match, but wearing worn out tweeds and looking as if they've just come in from planting potatoes. Neither of the 'r' s in Worcester are pronounced by the educated majority. However, if like some of the few, you use the other bar in the pub, or go to work wearing a pitchfork, you most probably will roll them all. And roll around in draught cider (with a rhotic final 'r') too!

  On British accents, probably the best authority is Peter Trudgill with whom I've had the greatest honour of working in the past, but no one seems to mention him.According to his user page, which again is 99% all about languages and nothing about himself, Kwami has never even been to the UK. Strange page for an admin. I once nearly put up for adminship, but because my edit count is low due to my lack of (pa)trolling, I would probably be wasting my time. Anyway, those admin interviews are worse than a British army promotion board, so I just plod along and enjoy very good relations with the members of the Wikipedia project I founded.
  Translation? Well, it's one of the many hats I wear, but like I mentioned in that discussion, 'professional' is the operative word, and when I get home from work, unlike most academics, I try to switch off from llinguistics :) I might have a go and translate something from French or German into English for the Wikipedia occasionally, but it has to be for articles that I feel are already 100% correct in themselves, and whose subject matter interests me personally, such as Rhône valley wines, the settlements around my French home, or the places I lived in during my 18 years in Germany. --Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung (et al). Thanks for the link to the update on the big r question. One might think there'd been an invasion of pirates, going about the place with their "aarrrrrrs". On the Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Rhoticity in place names page, I didn't hold much hope for a logically reasoned outcome when the response to my own comment appeared to miss the point entirely, while at the same ascribing to me points I'd not even made. Not being an expert in the subject of linguistics, or dialects in general, I'd have to climb a learning curve to contribute to the technical discussion. While I remain capable of that sort of thing (as I think most people are), the cost of such energy-intensive exercises is often not justified.

But I could make observations at the coneptual level, which you grasped of course, emic and etic being something you're bound to be grounded in. And I daresay you know some of Geertz's work (some of it was on Thailand as I recall), and of course this C. F. Voegelin and Ward H. Goodenough (I have a photocopy of part or all of that text somewhere, from a second year Social Anthropology subject). I would have been a bit surprised if there had been a satisfactory conclusion. At least I now know from whence come those symbols in brackets after the title of some articles. Frankly, as a not uneducated reader, I have often found them to be less than helpful. Take the Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi article. I've known of this fellow's works for years, having reviewed his earlier works and works on his works. In those days, I made my own assumptions about how to pronounce his name. At one point in my Wikipedia surfing, I checked out the article, looking for something that would make sense to me. What I saw was not that helpful.

Then I put my own pronounciation to someone, who had a very similar name, and who replied that it sounded about right. So, I amended the article to have an easy to understand pronounciation. The sort of thing a lay reader will appreciate. And I may be wrong, but my assumption was that Wikipedia had more lay readers than experts in any given field. My contribution was then amended, but in a very helpful fashion, that again made sense to me as a lay reader. And to me this points to two primary and related yardsticks to aim for: First, what is X for? X in this case being an article, is it to inform? Next of cours, who is it to inform - who is the audience? And how does it present to that audience? (A theme not dissimilar from my approach to the referencing templates question on my user page).

Thanks too Kudpung for the Worcestershire newsletter, and the pun. Much appreciated. <P<By the way, I had a bit of a look via Google for some clues to that book on English dialects which I could only remember the colour of (very handy). A bit hopeless of course, barring serendipity, or hitting on an effective heuristic. The book would have been early 1970s, and this is reminiscent of the cover, execept that the book was written in English for an English readership, not an Arabic one (it's possible the cover is a copy, that does happen across cultures). But those are the only clues I currently have for that distant memory. Wotnow (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And then there's Sandra Boynton's linguistic solution to international chocolate foraging, which does it for me! Wotnow (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What was that English dialects book?

On the offchance, I just did a quick search of Google books using "English Accents OR Dialects", and limiting the publication date to between 1965 and 1980. I then clicked through the pages until I hit this page, which contains the title Discovering English dialects. No colour/cover cues, but the title looked vaguely familiar, and the publication date is around the era that I had a series of intermittent dialogues with the Englishman who showed it to me. The next link showed a familiar-looking thumbnail cover photo. So I clicked that link, which took me here, to a familiar-looking cover, title, and author name for a 2008 reprint of a 1978 publication. I don't know at this stage if the cover is that of the original 1978 publication, but it sure does look familiar, including the author name. Wotnow (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I see Peter Trudgill is credited as one of the contributors - that is important.--Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oundle

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Likelife's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reply.

The fact this page has a very informal tone to it.

You may ask why point this out. But it is very important that we keep Written and Oral English separate. Please keep that in mind whenever you are editing. Pandaaj, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandaaj (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

HI Pandaaj; this is a user talk page. we can say what we like here as long as we remain civil, and discuss Wikipedia business. However, I urge you to review the many deletions several editors have made to you recent contributions today, and also to take a look at what you write in your own user space at User:Pandaaj/Chobes, and to read the offer of help I posted on your talk page, and please remember to sign your messages.--Kudpung (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mister 'Kudpung', How 'wonderful' ‎that we can 'talk' here. I never need to make a conscious decision to remain civil as I am always civil. Always. I find your comments unsavoury and hurtful, I merely try to expand the content of wikipedia with first hand knowledge of these articles I have edited. Watchfully yours - P. Man

Pandaaj, I really have no idea what you are talking about. Please take a look at your talk page at User talk:Pandaaj. If you need any advice for your editiing, we will all be pleased to help. Please remember to sign your messages. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mister 'Kudpung'. I am just agreeing to the fact that I am able to remain civil on my user page as well as informal. Perhaps straying from the topic that we are talking about at the moment, do you know more about Horsham than I do? My colleague does. I understand that your interests are great Malvern, which as you say 'outdated'. To be frank, I love worcestershire. Therefore I shall fight for the cause of Worcestershire, of wherein I live, and if necessary die for it! With kind regards and always Watchfully yours P - Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandaaj (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review and lessons thereof

Hi Kudpung. Thanks for your observation and comment. I arrived at a similar observation via the process of logic that underpinned our dialogues. It's promising to see that Wikipedia guidelines and policies do not fall entirely prey to illogical processes and conclusions, whether by conscious deliberation, or default. Likely a combination of both. I.e. sometimes illogic is avoided not so much consciously, as by not going in directions that take one there. Nevertheless, I do see some good reasoning in several guidelines, so we know there is conscious deliberation combining both reasonableness and logic. You may find my subsequent comment of interest, not least for educational reasons. Regards Wotnow (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirected AFD

That's kind of what I figured - thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Milford Haven

My recent revert of your edit to the Milford Haven page was triggered by the fact that you failed to inform that you intended to transfer a section of the text from the article to the talk page. Your comment was simply 'Condensed'. That is all I saw and I reacted to it. It would have been more apparent to your intentions if you had stated in your edit that you had moved it to the talk page, or stated 'please see talk page'. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I have never refered to the article in question as 'mine'. My history before the attempt at GA status is minimal, vandalism reverts if anything. My style of editing is to repair and expand, I very rarely delete unless it is obvious opinion or nonsense. If our styles clash I'm sorry, but I was only editing to several points being made by Silktalk, thus the railways section was in reference to a the validity of the GWR poster and the history to his desire to split the section in to a new article. There is no desire to 'own', just to challenge the removal of information that others may find valid. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault, as you said, for not putting 'See talk' on the edit summary, something which I usually always do when it's appropriate. I worked by the book with that removal though, and it's sometimes quicker to WP:BOLD than have a long drawn out discussion about a minor issue, especially when working against the clock as in the case of a GA review. I know I came into to Milford Haven without knocking the door, but we never do, do we? One sees a job needing doing, and one just digs in. You weren't claiming ownership per se, but there has been a slight general auora of maternal protectiveness about the article, and I could never understand why my initial offer to review it was rejected - long before SilkTork turned up. But I'm not after badges for GA work, I've been around the 'pedia too long for that kind of stuff; at the end of the day, I just like to see accuracy and quality, and working on articles about British places is one of the areas where I think I can be of greatest help to the community. You'll see that I've continued to make some minor, but important improvements. Let's not imagine for a moment that it's a reviewer's job to knock an article into shape, they help out with some obvious things that they can fix quickly, but the rest is up to the authors.See: Talk:Milford Haven/GA1#On hold (copyediting). --Kudpung (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kudpung. You have new messages at Tomas e's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Milford Haven - BBC refs

Hi Kudpung, I wasn't "blaming you" for the shortcomings of the etymology section or anything; I'm lucky to have a good source on Welsh placenames, and I'm just trying to help. I probably should have had a look at that section weeks ago, but there you go. I'm sure everyone editing this article at the moment, yourself included, is doing so in good faith. Best wishes, --Pondle (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is, that nobody has been systematically following the comments on the talk page. They appear to have been relynig solely on the edit summaries, The main author and GA nominator hasn't visited the pâge for a week, I was already blamed for tidying some non-focussed stuff which i did 'by the book, so instead of editing I , I put the details and the sources on the talk page for somebody else to do. I then got told I was interfering with the GA process, and that That section was ruled out, folded up, and put away, without the action. With a little more collaboration (or should I say co-operation) things could happen a lot smoother. It's sad that all the hours I spent on that article doing the dirty work with the references that were in really poor shape was not appreciated. Anyway, good luck with the GA. There is no reason to think that it won't pass. It just needs focussing now, and some of the trivia cutting out.--Kudpung (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your work was appreciated Kudpung - you did a vital job sorting out the refs, trimming editorial interpretation, adding the compass etc. etc. I just think there's often scope for misinterpretation and miscommunication on Wikipedia, and perhaps that was the case with other editors on this article. I have to confess I've only dipped in and out of the GA review discussions myself.--Pondle (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)