User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2013/Jan

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Colonies Chris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi!

In March 2010 (here) you changed stipulates to the IMHO less neutral speculate, in describing the more "modern" attempt at etymology of the Swedish name Gustav. Was this incidental, or based on an opinion that the Slavic origin is more speculative? If so, do you think that you could find some source criticising it?

The "older" etymology (according to Nationalencyclopedin, which gives both), as the "staff" or "prop" of the Gauts, anyhow should be treated more fully, since it has been historically important. It was "the official etymology" for 400 years; I myself encountered it, when reading about Gustav Wasa in school, where we still read a somewhat 'nationalistic' enthusiastic description of the deeds of the first King Gustav. However, I thought that the linguists now had abandoned the 'Gaut-staff' etymology completely. I'm minded to change the article, but less so if there are reliable sources still promoting the "older" theory, or critcising the "modern" one.

Best regards, JoergenB (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi JoergenB - my change was simply to fix an incorrect word choice. 'Stipulate', meaning to impose a condition or requirement, is clearly not right here, so I corrected it to 'speculate', probably what the original editor intended. Since there is no reference for this statement, I can't go beyond that - I don't have any specialist knowledge of the topic. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. My interpretation (as a non-native English speaker) was rather that the IP meant that the "modernists" claimed or decided that this is the etymology (a usaga somewhat similar to the one in a "stipulative definition", I think); but perhaps simply Swedish "stipulera" is a bit weaker than English "stipulate". Anyhow, thanks! JoergenB (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings. As you were the one who originally (in line with 6 July 2010‎ Talk:Cà Mau RM) originally 6 July 2010 upgraded spelling to Thừa Thiên-Huế Province I thought you'd want to know it's been moved counter all geo RMs and RfC majority twice. Very tiring, as doesn't seem possible to stop these moves. Advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Was this change needed to be done? | change of page name. If not advised do revert it back.111.91.75.211 (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The articles's title now matches the name of the publication, Hinduism Today. There's no need to include the word 'Magazine'. That would be like The New York Times Newspaper - completely unnecessary. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." Colonies Chris (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

By that account the title should better be earlier than the changed one. Hinduism Today looks like a subject of current Hinduism all over, and not magazine as such.111.91.75.211 (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The capital letter is significant. "Hinduism today" could be a review of the current state of Hinduism (but it would be a poor article title), whereas Hinduism Today - capitalised and italicised - refers to a specific publication. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this if and else needed when the earlier title was just fine. The change makes no sense.111.91.95.240 (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The previous title was not fine. The name of the magazine is Hinduism Today, not Hinduism Today Magazine. There is no need to add the word 'magazine', because there is no other similarly-named article from which it needs to be distinguished (compare, for example, India Today or Russian Life). Colonies Chris (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That is your personal view. Any such changes of title has to be done in simple ways not this unorganized way without even informing its talk page.111.91.75.72 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not 'just my personal view'. It's the agreed way that publication articles are named in Wikipedia. I've given you an explanation, a link to the relevant guidelines, and a couple of examples of similar magazines that are named without 'magazine'. I could come up with dozens more. If you disagree with the naming guidelines, I suggest you take it up on the talk pages there. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seafood mislabelling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal Court (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Martínez (surname) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Cuenca Province and Province of Cuenca

Chuck Thompson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Baltimore Colts

Hank Majeski (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Boston Braves

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)