User talk:Tomas e

• /Archive 2007
• /Archive 2008
• /Archive 2009

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest

Thanks for the comment on Carl Daniel Ekman. I'm afraid I can't add much on engineers, etc. I just ran into the Canadian book and knowing something of the topic beforehand decided to right it up. I'd guess some of the translation was perhaps a bit old fashioned, is there any way you can check this out in Swedish? Also how to get this to a B rated article? It's a bit short, but perhaps, the length fits the sources. Any help appreciated. And thanks again. Carldaniel (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to get out more information you did, I would probably have to go to printed sources. Dædalus - which is a yearbook for history of technology - is not available online. He gets mentioned on some websites which list Swedish inventors, which seem to quote some more recent "popular" books, but not too much to add more flesh here. Tomas e (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wine ratings

Thanks for all your fantastic edits to the wine ratings page. It's much improved. One of the suggestions I received on it was to consider putting the specific tasting methodologies from Parker or WS to take it out of its current "stub" status but I wonder if perhaps those methodologies would best be suited for those specific pages. Any thoughts?

Wine styles

Hej Tomas!

OK, maybe that was a bit to fast, but I saw the category which had, Gewürztraminer, Riesling, Pinot gris, Sauvignon blanc, Sémillon and added Syrah also, i was thinking more of Shiraz true. But I agree that it is not really correct, but again the problem is the page about the grape or the wine. I see you point and suggest that we take away the other grapes also then, or do you consider any of the above grapes to be wine styles???? I do, but not from the classical point of view and I consider Shiraz to be also, but now the Shiraz page is called Syrah so ... :-)

You reverted my other edit also .... I think (but could not find it when I did the edit) that there is a style guide somewhere that states that a article should start with the simmilar names, see e.g. Mourvèdre. I think that Shiraz is well enough known to qualify to be in the very first part and I still say that Shiraz is not only a wine style but a grape, which is what the page is about!!! I will try to find the style guide. --Stefan ^talk 00:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

See MOS:BEGIN, maybe not 100% clear "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." only say may and " Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), also known as lye, caustic soda and (incorrectly, according to IUPAC nomenclature) sodium hydrate, is ..." which is a bit better, anyway that was the reason I did the change and I still think it is correct, but no big thing, if you think that the page now is correct according to MOS then I will let it be. --Stefan ^talk 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was perhaps a little brief in my edit comment. The reason in this case is of course the prominence of "it's from Persia, not France, so it is actually Shiraz"-views with no support in reliable sources, but based on myths, partially spread with wine writers. The article's edit history is filled with contrary-to-RS edits in this vein. If Shiraz is placed next to Syrah as an equal synonym I'm sure we'll get even more non-constructive edits to this article. For "noncontroversial" varieties having two common synonyms, I don't see a problem having them next to each other. But Syrah is not quite unique, have a look at Scheurebe, where Sämling 88 appears down the road. And by the way, although Shiraz is a very common synonym, it's actually just one out of 75 different officially recorded synonyms (including variations in spellings): [1]. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for pointing out the other grape varieties in this category; given this I fully understand your reasoning. I took them out. (I must say that I have some problems in seeing a Sauternes, a high acid 10.5% Hunter Semillon, and a modern-style fruity Australian Semillon as one and the same wine style...) And of course, for consistency it's either none or all 500+ grape variety articles, and in that case we should simply place Cat:Grape varieties in Cat:Wine styles. Or possibly create a Cat:Grape varieties used in varietal wine or something similar, but I guess the article International grape varieties fills that purpose. It's not a proposal - just my view of how it should be handled if we wanted to list varietal names under wine styles. Tomas e (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

So your argumnent for not following MOS reverting me is that "If Shiraz is placed next to Syrah as an equal synonym I'm sure we'll get even more non-constructive edits to this article"?? Then I suggest follow MOS and ask for the page to be protected. That it have 75 synonyms is not a good reason to not put any in the first sentence, none of them is close to Shiraz when it come to beeing common. Remeber the rename discussion, see the talk page, there is lots of evidence there for Shiraz beeing just as common name as Syrah. And that Scheurebe does not follow MOS either is not a good reason, see Mourvèdre for one that does follow MOS. I will fix Scheurebe??? --Stefan ^talk 12:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article has a very tiresome history of non-RS edits. Primary names for grapes should follow reliable sources such as Oxford Companion to Wine or the Vitis International Variety Catalogue. The move (back) from Shiraz to Syrah followed a significant expansion of the article, to add more on the variety's pedigree and history from academic sources. The only other grape variety where I can image that the wording of the intro could be "controversial" would be Zinfandel. I hope you noted that MOS uses the term may, not should, so your claim that I advocate not following MOS is not correct. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1. See my previous edit, I was very clear that MOS:BEGIN stated may.
2. The primary name (Syrah) is following RS! Shiraz is also following RS? Just check your source Oxford Companion to Wine "Shiraz is its most commin synonym" and " SHIRAZ, the Australian name for the SYRAH grape, widely used elsewhere, and therefore a name better known by many consumers than its Rhone original", sorry I miss your point?? (I should have used this as a argument in the move debate, to quote the unltimate Wine RS as a argument in the naming debate saying that Shiraz is a more common COMMONNAME would have been nice :-)
3. Sorry for stating that you do not follow MOS, what I meant was that the non-RS was the only reason you had for reverting me.
4. As for Zinfandel, Primitivo (or Crljenak Kaštelanski) it is not at all as common compared to Zinfandel, as Shiraz is compared to Syrah, but I think the Zinfandel should be updated also. I would say that Shiraz is a more common name than Syrah^{The Oxford companion to wine, page 627}, and therefore should be in the first sentence. --Stefan ^talk 12:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Any comment? Or can I summarise the discussion that you think my edit would give more non RS edits and that is more importaint than MOS:BEGINs suggestion? --Stefan ^talk 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)? --Stefan ^talk 06:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a comment. As it's been a long time since I was involved in the editing of this page, I will not actually make any additional edits at this time but only say this, hopefully to add the perspective of a third pair of eyes: If you start with "Syrah or Shiraz", then to me it seems redundant to end the paragraph with "often under the name Shiraz". If it could be called either Syrah or Shiraz, why wouldn't it be marketed under the latter name as well as the former? It makes as much sense to me to add that it is also marketed under the name Syrah! I speak only about the writing style, not wishing to take sides in the Syrah vs. Shiraz naming controversy. --Alan W (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(I understand that this comment could just as well have been made on Stefan's talk page, but I am reluctant to duplicate my entries.) I have taken the liberty of editing the first paragraph, so that the second sentence seems to show an awareness of the change that was made in the first. Ordinarily I would not be so hesitant and apologetic about a small edit, but I am well aware of the long ongoing controversy over the naming of this grape and wine! Regards, Alan W (talk) 23:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you abusing your authority and threathing me for no reason?

Huh? Take a look at these please -> [2] [3]

I'm eagerly awaiting for your answer.

Regards. -- Mttll (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see which authority I've abused? I've restored various non-contructive or controversial edits from you, and added standardised user warning templates, with reference to Wikipedia policies. Your edit history unfortunately suggests little interest in improving the encyclopedic quality of articles, but very much ethnically/politicially motivated POV-pushing which already has earned you several blocks. Since we're talking about wine-related articles, because of your edit of List of wine-producing regions, I have to point out to you that I haven't seen you make one single constructive edit to a wine-related article. I'm glad to see that you at least no longer try to move Turkey to Europe, since these edits didn't suggest any familiary with the principles of WP:RS. The cross-references for Cyprus and Georgia I added to that article were intended to avoid rather than invite to move entries for "bordering countries" between continents. Moving the main entry for any of these to another continent is not helpful to readers of this list (and that, rather than ethnically motivated tit-for-tat is the guiding principle for an WP:NPOV encyclopedia), since Cyprus shares a viticultural history with Greece, and Georgia shares a recent viticultural history with other ex-Soviet countries. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, excuse me, but why is my edit history any business of yours?

Now, back to the topic. Cypriot and Georgian wine producing regions are geographically located in Asia ([4]), but these countries are considered European ([5]), but then so is Turkey (again [6]). Thus the whole thing is hypocritical.

You are right, I don't care that much this article in particular. I care about how transcontinental countries are listed under various articles for the sake of neutrality, consistency and elimination of hypocrisy which I believe is as important as the content of Wikipedia itself.

Regards. -- Mttll (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of users, such as [7] is public and easily visible, just as the edit history of articles, and the block log of users. But I'm glad to hear that you are intrested in correctness in articles in principle; everyone can make progress. Tomas e (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Will you now address the issue in question? -- Mttll (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If you still wish to move countries between continents, I suggest you bring up the issue on the article's talk page and add your reliable sources there. Since this is likely to be controversial, a short cross-post to WP:WINE and the WikiProjects for the countries in question could probably bring in more knowledgable editors on the issue at hand and help reaching a consensus. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 09:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

your comments

no problem, nice of you to talk to me after though, most editors don't even bother retracting their harsh statements, so your comments are appreciated. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Bonneau du Martray

• Thanks for the note, I see what you are saying - but as I said in the edit summary, the quotes are not vintage specific reviews per the section in WP:WINEGUIDE, but comments from independent notable authors on the estate itself and its standing. WP:WINEGUIDE talks about the relationship to restaurants and notability, and awards/reviews like Michelin stars would almost always be noted on an article about a restaurant right? The paragraph can probably be improved, I make no claims to being a good writer but I don't believe it should be deleted entirely. Camw (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but while Clive Coates and Hugh Johnson are major critics, but in my mind, they're not alone in being "industry standard" in the same way as Guide Michelin. I'm more in favour of using this kind of ratings to decide notability of wineries, than to have the information included in the article. I'll bring up this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine to hear other project members opinion about inclusion of this kind of information. It's a matter of principle for use in future cases rather than very strongly held opinions about this specific section; I think it would tie in with some relatively recent discussions about notability. Tomas e (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much any major movie, music or book article will have a section on reception from notable critics, subjects equally subjective as wine. Camw (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Meekers

Okay, what do you think now? DS (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

LIV-EX think there maybe errors in their page

Hey Tomas! Take a look at this blog entry from someone affiliated with the London International Vintners Exchange. Overall a positive outlook on the Wikipedia page but they mention some inaccuracies though they don't detail what they are. I am going to contact the author via twitter and see if we can figure out what they are. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. I think I may be somewhat off on their indicies; I sort of remember having seen more than two, but gave up on correcting, because a lot of their material is for paying customers only. Tomas e (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Erlang

Apologies, my bad on that one. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No problems! Tomas e (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Margaret River (wine region)

Hi Tomas, Thanks for your input and the useful links to guides I will read up more on Wikipedia’s encyclopaedic wording regulations and some of the other guides/regulations. That quote you mentioned was straight out of James Hallidays 2009 The Australian Wine Encylopedia from Hardie Grant Books. Due to quoting the reference in footnotes I don't think copyright will be an issue. Although I will look into trying to rephrase the wording. If you spot any other wording on the page that you think is out of place feel free to notify me. It’s not my wording but from the books so sometimes need to be looked over and cleared up. Want to be able to contribute although I still am a bit of a newbie and definately have a few things to learn, do you have any key advice for someone starting out? How long have you been contributing with Wikipedia?SpringSummerAutumn (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I'm finding one of my major challenges is having to reword things although written in reputable 3rd party sources the language doesn’t always fit guidelines probably.SpringSummerAutumn (talk) 16:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Many wine books by reputable authors (and James Halliday must definitely be counted to that category), which have facts straight, are still somewhat "promotional" (or personal or opinionated) in tone because they are written for wine lovers, and are wine guides! In many such books, dry facts about e.g. history of the region and the size of the vineyards, can be mixed with (just made this up, but you get the point) "when visiting the region, few things beat drinking a bottle of good Chablis with fresh seafood at blablabla...". While such books can be used as sources for the dry facts, an enthusiastic drinking recommendation (as in this example) shouldn't make its way into a Wikipeda article. If you've ever browsed Oxford Companion to Wine or The Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia, they tend to take an approch where the entries are more dry, facts-driven, and usually well researched - and have text which is typically up to Wikipedia standard.

About me, I've been contributing logged-in since sometime 2007, and wine is the area in which I contribute most to articles; although I do more of article assessment and other project-related "metatasks" in other projects. Tomas e (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Great info thanks I think i will have to look for a copy of Oxford Companion to Wine & Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia, By the way i Removed a lot of the wording you mentioned and then some on Margaret River (wine region) + where the wine region is mentioned in other pages ie: Margaret River, Western Australia, and also i deleted large sections of AFFW to try and clean up the tone, if you feel it's still not up to par feel free to point out any things you think may be slightly dubious. Also i looked at Screw cap and transferred it to it's own page Screw cap (wine) and am currently looking to expand/clean it up and add proper referencing. There seems to be lots of small stub pages on wine closures that may be able to merge all articles on wine closures ie: cork, stelvin, etc.. into one large page. Thanks again SpringSummerAutumn (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wine closures have been an area where we got a lot of commerical spam-type additions. I remember Zork as one example. Tomas e (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I have cleaned up and reworded more of the other pages you mentioned. i.e.: Langton’s Classification of Australian Wine and Concours Mondial de Bruxelles. Also I think a lot more needs to be fixed on Australia’s First Families of Wine to make it more encyclopaedic, I reworded/deleted parts of it but I still think the tone needs to be cleaned up perhaps, it sounds like ad still, Any ideas? SpringSummerAutumn (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Helvig of Holstein

You might be interested in Talk:Helvig of Holstein. Surtsicna (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, sources and naming of Medieval royalty isn't really my area of interest or expertise, so I don't have anything to add on the substance. (Charles/Carl XII was an easier call due to fairly unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME in English.) But since I sometimes do assess for WP:SWEDEN, I added a project tag which at least will make the request for move visible to one more project, in case that helps. Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: moving Berzelius article

I stumbled upon Jakob Berzelius by chance. If you see such blunders (which require move over an existing article - otherwise you can move yourself) don't hesitate to let me know. Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The Great Led Zeppelin Wine Pairing

Hi, I de-prodded this article as I found a few additional sources of significant coverage, including a decent sized article from one of the largest Australian newspapers. I'm not personally convinced the event is notable, but as Prod is meant to be for uncontroversial deletions, I'd rather see it at AfD where there is some wider input and discussion. Camw (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will AFD it in due course. Tomas e (talk) 16:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance of Articles on Living Swedes

I am increasingly interested in what criteria there might be for assessing biographic articles for importance. Can you help me find some written ones somewhere or are there even any? Seems a BLP might be a very very sensitive subject - wouldn't be too nice to have one's life story deemed "unimportant" by WP:SWEDEN, I suppose, while still alive. Or is that supposed to be a spur from WP:Sweden to these people to do something more notable and thus become more "important"? Also seems there might be some conscionable room for Jante Law action by those passing these judgements (no offense to you or anyone specific intended). Couldn't the whole subject matter be quite controversial, actually, and isn't here a bit too much room for POV-pushing in these actions? Cordially, SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you've probably seen, I've been doing some assessment. The main purpose of project assessment (because it is a tool for projects), in my opinion, is to organise articles - e.g., to give access to article alerts, and to find articles that need watching for potential vandalism. This is acheived with the project tag itself. Then there is the issue of finding articles that need improvement. The article class is of course the main tool for this, but the importance helps in establishing which articles should be worked to a higher class. Assessment instructions are found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Assessment, but as you will notice there is nothing really project-specific on that page; there has never been so much interest in the project as to develop that. I can admit to having used a somewhat conservative/strict assessment of the importance of biographical articles, but I think this is well justified. Please remember that WPSweden is not specifically a biographical project (although short and often not very good biographical articles make up a very large proportion of all articles), but covers all aspects of Sweden, such as history, geography, economy and culture.

My thinking has thus been the following: all biographical articles are classed importance=low unless there is clear evidence for assessing higher. Thus, many ministers, most historical prime ministers, Nobel Prize winners and major figures of Swedish culture are classed importance=mid, which by the way is the same class as most articles on Swedish communes and medium-sized cities. Class=high is then applied only to a select number of major personalities of Swedish history and current society. Top-class only contains two kings. I would guess that the biographical articles are distributed as around 85-90% low, 10-15% mid, 1-1.5% high/top. This means that importance=low ranges from Idol participants and people who are only noted for having displayed their silicone t**s in reality shows to most MPs, athletes in droves, professors who are major figures within their fields, members of the Swedish Academy, various queens, princes and princess and some rather major industrialists and financiers :-). I'm sure that there is room to reassess some articles from low to mid (and a few in the other direction), but I feel that the overall philosophy towards assessment of Sweden-related biographies is justified. So if you wish to reassess articles, go ahead. But please don't assess articles against other low-importance articles, e.g. "person X is obviously more important than Idol participant Y, so it must be minimum mid". Instead, use the top-down criteria and think "is there anything that clearly indicates that person X is more important to WP:Sweden than almost all other biographies in the project?" Regarding assessment of living people, there are no differences from dead people. I don't really see how POV and BLP considerations come in (although assessments of course could be disputed), since it really is a project tool to organise articles Please notice that some projects, like WP:NORWAY don't even assess for importance. Tomas e (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this extensive reply! Very interesting. Four reactions:

1. Norway has a good idea;
2. Living people such as a hard-working actor of many years' experience, appreciation and fine public reputation should not ever - under any circumstances whatsoever - anywhere - for any reason - be placed in the same category as a tits-and-ass reality flash in the pan bimbo of a half-season or so on TV;
3. There should be a special action category for BLP's and their life stories should never be classified as "low importance" as that quite obviously can be damaging to them - nowhere is it evident to a normal reader of WP that "it really is a project tool to organise articles" - and anyone looking at the talk pages of these articles in a normal, brief way (whiich more and more readers are doing) will get the impression that the BLP itself is unimportant according to WP (which theoretically could and may some day lead to a user who thus classified it, in this publication, being sued successfully for defamation);
4. Perhaps you, kind sir, would have to have an article about yourself classed as "low importance" to understand how offensive that could be?:

My sincere thanks for all the good work you do. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you approach the whole issue of importance in the wrong way! Let's take Adam Alsing as an example. The text produced on the talk page by "importance=low" is "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale". Neither more nor less, and the project's scale is applied to some 15,000 articles covering everything from Sweden and Gustav Vasa (top-importance) to, say, polkagris and Idol 2009 (low-importance). Don't forget that enwp is an international general-purpose encyclopedia - it's the online competitor of Encyclopædia Britannica rather than Myggans nöjeslexikon. :-) As to the WPNorway approach; if there hadn't already been an importance scale when I joined , I wouldn't have added one. An as to my humble self, I don't even qualify for importance=low since an article on me would not be notable. :-) I agree that there is too much of "popular culture of the last couple of years" in Wikipedia, but the problem there is that too many B- or C-class "celebrities" qualify as notable. However, we have to live with consensus being what it is, and project assessments is no place to try to compensate. Assessing all Swedish film and theatre actors higher than Idol participants for importance as part of a statement that "Idol sucks and theatre is more important" would be very much WP:POINT. Again, if you feel that there are biographies (of actors or otherwise) which merit a higher assessment, go ahead and change them. I can give you an example of an article I just assessed - Gunnar Björnstrand. A well-known Bergman actor with articles in 10 language versions. Perhaps that means he should be assessed importance=mid? Tomas e (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again! In the case of Alsing (whom I find rather tedious and charismaless, thus highly overused all over) I would agree, but then only out of my own personal POV (isn't that what the ratings are all about, though, anyway?). I do see your points about a global perspective, that the intent is such, and a good one, but unfortunately that is not the way the normal reader perceives these talk-page classifications. I have asked a few objective people to look in on some, and everybody seems to agree in principle. Swedes and non-Swedes alike get the same impression: The Swedish experts on en.WP consider the life stories of Ms. So-and-so and Mr. Such-and-such to be of "low importance", which then could equal reliable sources for the insignificance (borderline irrelevance?) of those treated people and/or Certain Swedish editors obviously want to control which of their countrymen are to be allowed to be considered important to readers of English. Sorry! Could it be possible that you are a bit blind to the way this rating system is perceived by normal users, among all the thousands and thousands who never or rarely do any editing? And the need to redesign it considerably to avoid such very unbecoming perception? SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing up the issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden - which isn't always very active - and come with a concrete proposal. Should we do away with the importance parameter for the project? Should we elaborate on the project-specific assessment page with a view to suggest significantly more biographies in "mid" and "high" by providing concrete guidelines? Should we develop a FAQ or a template for the project pages specifically explaining the assessment scale to living people? This sounds a bit like stuff for the WP Biography project. Actually, I have no idea if this type of issue has already been discussed there; you could ask over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Hope to have time to follow it soon. Thanx! SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Wineries

By that logic, there should be no category called "wineries." Every winery is located somewhere. --Gilabrand (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you actually read WP:CAT? No, this means that articles on e.g. Spanish wineries are placed in Category:Wineries of Spain, and not in Category:Wineries and Category:Wine companies as well. Tomas e (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Winery list mergers

(CCing you on a note I left on Mick's talk page. Feel free to join the discussion over their)
Well it looks like we ended up getting an admin who didn't want to spend time reading the discussion to see where "consensus" is aligned with policies. That is a shame because, as other unbias editors have noted, the distinction between WP:LIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY is more clear cut than what people on the AfD were giving it credit for. That said, I fully support the "plan B" option of merging these smaller sub-lists into a larger List of notable American wineries. Though to be fair this standard should be applied across the board to List of notable Australian wineries, List of notable Greek wineries and (god help us) List of notable French wineries, etc. I am absolutely horrid when it comes to creating tables so if you would be willing to create the initial page, I would help comb through the categories and populate it. It would also probably be better for you take the initiative with merging the List of wineries in the Barossa Valley since my efforts to improve the article weren't so warmly received. As for the format itself, I don't have any firm inclinations of what exactly they should look like. They definitely shouldn't have external links to the wineries websites or a horrendous, blatant POV advert section like "iconic wines". What ideas do you have? Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

since when is

1 rev edit war? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I take your point - you think one of the two templates I added here would have been justified only after another revert? However, as you have just been unblocked a few hours ago from another case of edit warring, simultaneously disregarded policies about removing deletion templates, and have made other edits to the same article which have been reverted by other editors than me, you unfortunately seem to display a cretain disregard for some Wikipedia policies. In such cases, people need reminding by means of the standardized user template. But now you know you are two reversions away from a longer block than the last time, and please 1) refer to Wikipedia:Removing warnings, and 2) seek consensus on Talk:Golan Heights Winery before making changes of this kind, hard as it may seem when it is an issue of this kind. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

KSI

Hej! Inte för att wajna :D Men "collect" finns inte som översättning av Inhämta - så varför ändra till det? Språkrådet skriver "inhämta upplysningar --- obtain information" och inhämta = obtain, aquire. Så att byta namn till collect är ju då mot Språkrådets (som är Sveriges officiella språkvårdsorgan) definition av ordet. Det verkar inte som den bästa översättningen.... ProbablyX (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Språkrådet har ofta fel, rent språkligt (!), och gör nästan lika stor skada som nytta, särskilt med översättningar. Engelskan betraktas alltför ofta som en lek för svenskar, även för högt uppsatta experter tyvärr. Utan att ha sett sammanhanget (ingen länk dit finns här) så blir "inhämta upplysningar" oftast bra översatt med "gather information" - rätt att "collect" inte är så bra i de flesta fall, men både "obtain" och "acquire" kan ofta verka lite larvigt högtravande i sådant sammanhang. Förslag: använd gather! mvh SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with handling this conversation in English, as we're talking about the correct terminology to use in English, not any issue where we interpret Swedish sources differently. We're talking about Kontoret för särskild inhämtning here, and I claim that it was previously seriously mistranslated into English, as "acquisition" has a very different meaning in the defence area. To put it bluntly, in areas where you need more or less subject matter expertise, I've often seen linguists go wrong -sometimes even seriously and ridiculously so- in their translations into their own native language. When it comes to defence-related terminology I'm not even sure where to start. Quite simply, I don't consider Språkrådet a reliable source for military terminology in English, or for that part scientific terminology, engineering terminology, computer terminology and so on... Swedish defence terminology is a bit peculiar since it developed mainly without NATO influence in the post-WW II era, so using a general-purpose dictionary very often doesn't work. What gives a better result, is to match with the closest term used in NATO or US DoD terminology/nomenclature. I hope this explanation helps; as I'm sure you all understand I was trying to modify the article so it conveys the correct message to English-language readers, not Swedish-language ones... :-) Tomas e (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Another excellent reply. You are rapidly gaining my considerable respect. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Mercurey wine

Hello (bonsoir). Do you speak french? Because I very very litle speek english, It's difficult for me. I write for you because, I see what you write about "Burgundy wine" and the AOC of Burgundy. I write about burgundy wine and the AOC in wikipédia:fr (french). My questions concern the Mercurey wine who is "redirection" about Côte Chalonnaise. But I want créate Mercurey wine, the article speak only Mercurey wine (AOC). But you write in my PDD (english) of my PDD (french). Pmpmpmpm (d) 18:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Je comprend un peu français ("fr-1"), mais je n'écris pas beaucoup. You can write in French, and I'll use Google translate if I need. Yes, I've recently been adding articles on many of the communal appellations of Côte de Beaune (now finished) and Côte de Nuits. Articles on the Grands Crus already existed, but I've expanded them. And then there are articles on the subregions of Burgundy, Côte Chalonnaise, which Agne27 (talk · contribs) have brought to a very good status. (Some appellation names are currently redirects to these articles.) I plan to add articles for the communal appellations in Côte Chalonnaise and Maconnais as well, such as Mercurey and Viré-Clessé, but first I will finish Côte de Nuits. However, if you've seen my articles, I create basic and very "dry" articles with facts and statistics, about location, premiers crus, and appellation regulations. I noticed that your French article on Mercurey is very much more extensive. But perhaps you can add some more information to the Mercurey article after I have created it in the near future. I could probably polish the English of your additions somewhat if needed. By the way, I've noticed that the wine coverage of French Wikipedia has improved and that you are one of the most active participants. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for create the article of mercurey wine. Pmpmpmpm (d) 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Tomas. You've been doing a stellar job with your category work and new article creation. Lots of good stuff and content in areas that have been sorely needing attention. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture taken during a recent weekend trip to Burgundy. Guess which vineyard that has this sign? Clue: it's not Montrachet. The file name includes the answer so don't cheat!

Thanks for those words! After spending the summer mostly on Swedish articles, I've tried to put more focus on wine again, and it feels good to actually write some articles rather than only try to keep pace with the cleanup and prodding of articles on non-notable wineries. My recent additions of Burgundy articles started out of a combination of a long-standing irritation over articles like Puligny-Montrachet Les Pucelles Domaine Leflaive and Meursault Charmes Roulot (articles on individual wines from individual wineries in Burgundy feels like a hopeless proposition, unless it's a Monopole Grand Cru) and the fact that I agreed to hold two classes on white French wines in our wine tasting club (in a course roughly corresponding in level to WSET's Advanced Certificate - but far from all participants take the tests at the end), as well as to arrange another tasting + dinner on the theme of Pinot Noir (=one-half Burgundy and one-half the rest of the world, in my interpretation). Phew! When I checked for some up-to-date Burgundy facts from the BIVB site in preparation of one of the classes (a speed lesson in Burgundy geography, terroir thinking and classification - the poor participants really needed wine after that...), I realised that their fact sheets per AOC + their overview statistical documents were definitely enough to create a reasonably good, although dry and bare facts-oriented article per AOC. After some thinking I arrived at the conclusion that we definitely have room for one article for each of the 44 communal Burgundy AOC, and that the Premier Cru vineyards such as "Les Pucelles" are best treated as part of the format of one article per communal appellation, since the Premiers Crus unlike the Grands Crus technically are not separate AOCs. And, of course, I took a glance at the frwiki articles, although I didn't quite adopt their structure. Well, there are still a few communal appellations still to go. And yes, I sniped off that parallell Category:Wines structure that also has been irritiating me for quite a while. I guess you remember the time when someone from frwiki tried to figure out how to iw-link to our paralell category structure. In those cases when it really is an article about an individual wine which is not a variety, not an appellation, not a winery, and not a wine style, I think we can put it in the non-s "Wine" article of the country and region in question. (Unless it should just be deleted...) When it comes to the category structure, I think that the categories of people related to wine is the biggest remaining mess, both in terms of category structure and of inconsistent use of categories and terms. Tomas e (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from FromVineyardsDirect, it has already had a proposed deletion once

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from FromVineyardsDirect, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! -- Atama頭 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, when I check the edit history I see that you are right, but it didn't have any {{oldprod}} on its talk page, which I did check out. Tomas e (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of FromVineyardsDirect

An article that you have been involved in editing, FromVineyardsDirect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FromVineyardsDirect. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 21:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Wines

You are mistaken in removing Category:Wines (for individual wines) which is a distinct subcat of Category:Wine (for general articles about wine). There is a process (cfd) for deleting or renaming categories and emptying categories is abusing this process. Occuli (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the categorization of Category:Medieval wines under Category:Wines. The whole Category:Wines is fairly pointless given WP:WINEGUIDE, and other categories under Category:Wine, has generally been misapplied and caused confusion. Taking away the articles that don't really belonged there gave a category structure with little point left. And talking about "abuse", I have not deleted any categories, I have tagged them for deletion using the CSD C1, which is supposed to be acted upon after a minimum of four days. Was there any ongoing CFD or other discussion that I affected by removing mis- or ill-applied categories to any articles? Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than delete the category as empty, I have listed the matter for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18#Category:Wines. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Seems sensible, since with Occuli there was now actually an objection. Tomas e (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: this; while the CfD discussion is ongoing, you should stop re-emptying any of these categories. I added the category back into Category:Italian wines so it wouldn't be speedily deleted as empty while the conversation was ongoing. I'm going to re-add it for the same purpose. In theory we could completely restore these categories, but unless someone demands that this be done to have a proper discussion, I'm not going to bother. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I thought that the device for that was {{hangon}}. Tomas e (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Safer just to populate it. An admin is able to override {{hangon}}. In any case, Occuli has also posted an objection to your reasoning on my talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as we know that these deletion "discussions" sometimes devolve into "bold phrase vote counting" for admins who want to make quick "30 second closes", it would probably be better to make clear your suggestion with a bolded comment. While we will still hope that an admin takes the time to read the discussion, you never know. Also, we may want to think about a WP:RFC if this defaults to non-consensus. I think the root of people's objection is this "out of process" claim which seems to prevent people from doing needed housekeeping. (Not to mention opens them up to spurious claims of being a vandal and abuse. Occuli's accusations for an editor in good stand reeks of a lack of good faith) If all the "keep votes" contentions are based on this "out of process" perspective then I think an RfC on the process may be merited. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to state the obvious, what is important when it comes to categorization is of course that articles categorized in the correct way, avoiding overcategorization and so on. Actually, it is interesting to see how this boils down to some peculiarites in the English language where I would say that the uncountable noun is used somewhat differently than in related languages. To give some examples, category corresponding to Category:French wine is called "French wine" in French (fr:Catégorie:Vin français) and in Dutch (nl:Categorie:Franse wijn), "French wines" in Swedish (sv:Kategori:Franska viner) and Norwegian (no:Kategori:Franske viner), "Wines of France" in Spanish (es:Categoría:Vino de Francia) and Portuguese (pt:Categoria:Vinhos da França), and in German they use a completely different structure, with "Viticulture in France" (de:Kategorie:Weinbau in Frankreich). While I can't claim to be fluent in all these languages; I notice that nowhere else has a distinction in categories between singular and uncountable wine and plural and specific wines been introduced. And as you know, in some respects dewiki and frwiki have a better wine coverage than enwiki has. Tomas e (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rating of Malmö FF

I will work with improving the sources ASAP. should I write here when I'm done or should I nominate it for assesment again? Reckless182 (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, give me a "ping", and I'll have a look when you feel ready. Tomas e (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright I've improved the citing as well as I can for the moment, It would be great if you could rate it. Since it is the 100th anniversary for the club next year I will have more material such as the 100th year book. Based on that I will also do an extensive rewrite in the history section. The overall goal is of course to make the article a featured article.Reckless182 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I put a comment at Talk:Malmö FF. In general good referencing and language, but the specific claims about the 1933 scandals really need a reference, but that was the only thing that held me back from B-class at this point. Once you fix that you can reassess it yourself! Tomas e (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Two citations for the 1933 are now there, one web and one book, should be enough.Reckless182 (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, agree with the upgrade to B. I guess the flavour of the article is one written by an enthusiast regarding the subject, but still in an encyclopedic way and in good English. :-) Good work. Tomas e (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Urban winery

Hello Tomas e, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Urban winery has been removed. It was removed by Jclemens with the following edit summary 'Decline PROD. Unconvincing rationale.'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jclemens before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm trying to make conversation with a bot, but it's interesting to see this bot message arriving 9 days after the PROD template was removed! Tomas e (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Corton-Charlemagne

I am always so pleased whenever someone makes such a nice addition to one of the articles I wrote. It's one of the best things about editing here. I planted a seed, now sit back and watch it grow, and blossom. Thanks for your additions to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those words! I see the article was started by you way-y-y back in December 2005... :-) Tomas e (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne or Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne

One should be merged and redirected to the other, which?? --Stefan ^talk 11:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, capitalization can always be discussed (and I don't always see consistency in French), but there is definitely one "n" too little in "...onel" compared to "...onnel" when I double-check with CIVC's website, so I'll merge away that one. Thanks for the tip, I see I have edited both at one time or another without realizing they were duplicates. Tomas e (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, saw that you had edited both :-) thanks! --Stefan ^talk 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadbent

Breach of BLP. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Agne's handling of it - if you take out everything including cautionary remarks posts, similar questions just tend to be re-added. And an informative edit summary has never hurt anyone, I'm told... :-) Tomas e (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sweden, Norway and the Union

Thanks for your comments on my talk page and the talk page of Sweden in Union with Norway. I agree with you that it is probably too Norway-centric, and that both the headline and the periodisation are matters for discussion. You may not yet have discovered my grounds for creating that article, which are to be found on the talk page of Union between Sweden and Norway. That article sorely needed to be revised, and I stated the reasons already on 22 May 2007, under the headline: "Dissolution of article needed". I concluded it with a warning: "I may soon start work on a ruthless revision of the Union between Sweden and Norway article, but I'll leave it to others to write the article that is missing in the History of Sweden series.

I made good my threat when I discovered user john k's call for help to interpret the nature of the Union on 27 May 2009. Please see my answer to him of 17 December. My article "Sweden in Union with Norway" is really a by-product of the revised article on the Union. I removed the most Sweden-centred parts of that article and added new information to make it more balanced. Since I used mostly Norwegian sources, the end result was inevitably slanted in the opposite direction. For that reason, i invited other contributors to set it straight. Having made the revision, and the article more in agreement with the contents, I extracted it from the "History of Sweden" series. But then I had to fill the void left in that series, and I did so by putting the deleted bits into the new article. I considered another headline, e.g. "Sweden during the 19th Century", but settled on the present title, since the Union was the main focus of the original article. It was created in 2003 under its present headline, and was included in the Swedish history series in 2004, under a different title: Union with Norway (1814–1905). The only other article dealing with Swedish 19th century history was "Oscarian era".

After your intervention, I am convinced that another headline would be better, and that the article should go more deeply into internal Swedish history during the period. A better starting point could be 1807, when the events that led to to the loss of Finland and the Union with Norway began. A lot of the contents from the two Svwiki articles could be translated and included, and of course improved. But it ought to contain more information on the Union with Norway than the Swedish articles, which seem to avoid the subject.

As I wrote last week on the "Union" talk page, my Sweden in Union with Norway was meant to be included in the "History of Sweden" series and might be too slanted, "but I trust my Swedish friends to improve it. As I wrote two years ago, my intention was to leave the writing of that article to others. But I found that I had to start it, to avoid a gap in the series." Are you possibly the one to improve and maybe move the article? Roede (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Expedition Robinson

Hello, I appreciate your suggestions. I checked out your profile page and I was wondering, since it appears that you have knowledge of not only Expidition Robinson, but the Swedish language aswell, would you be up for creating a voting history section for the latest seasons page when I create it? If you can I'd deeply appreciate it. Sincerely, Munch60477 (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I saw your articles because I sometimes check out newly created articles related to WikiProject Sweden, with a view to fixing assessments for this project and interwiki-links to Swedish Wikipedia (and some other obvious things like adding templates and obvious article deficiencies). So when I do this I "comb over" many articles in many subjects rather quickly rather than improve them. I wouldn't want to promise anything I won't have time for. But let's say like this: if it's one article and you start by doing what you can with Google translate (or something similar), I can probably find time to correct it and make any necessary additions. In that case, give me a "ping" when you've written it. Tomas e (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Symington Family Estates

On January 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Symington Family Estates, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Home, home, on the Illinois Range

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

Catalan wine as "a subcategory" to Spanish wine

This is something which remains to be seen, Tomas. Are you sure the French "vin de pays des côtes catalanes" is not a Catalan wine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Balart (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Hey! I noticed you had written something on the talk page on the Nobel Prize article some time ago. I am currently revamping the article and could really need more hands with copy-editing etc. If you got any time I would be grateful if you could help with something :) If you don't have time with any editing I need some opinions on the talk page on the History section; if you could look there I'd be very grateful! --Esuzu 15:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)