Talk:Carabane

Meters are not Canadian English
The changes started here; as of the time of this edit, there was one convert template in the infobox, with the "abbr=on" parameter set so it had no effect on national varieties of English. The article then contained five instances of "meters" and one of "centimeters", and none of "metres" including any prefixes.

Neelix got the ball rolling CST 17 Nov 2009 23:43 UTC User:Neelix (Added imperial measurements)
 * Added three convert templates, two from "km" and one from "km2"
 * All were to default resultant units, with no "sp=" and no "abbr=" parameters
 * Result was three changes in spelling from "km" to "kilometres"
 * Result was also the retention of the six prior "meter" spellings, unchanged.

Note that the Canadian spelling is "metres", not "meters".

Note further that the changes by Neelix were unwitting changes. He was oblivious to the fact that he was changing exsting usage in the article; it wasn't a deliberate change. It was the use of a black box to make the conversions, without any understanding of how that black box works. There's no evidence that he knew that he was making a change; he would not have seen that change on the edit page. That black box only shows its input on the edit page, not its output. Even if he had seen it, there is no evidence that he understood that overwhelmingly complex convert template to even realize that he could change the resultant output, let alone that he knew how to do so.

Jimfbleak took the next step 21 Nov 2009 07:21 UTC User:Jimfbleak (ce):
 * Saw those mixture of original "meters" entries with those three "kilometres" from Neelix, and changed the one centimeters and five meters, plus changed spelling of "gray" and "travelers'", and removed "while", and other changes probably not related to national varieties of English.

Then in consecutive edits
 * 21 Nov 2009 16:18 UTC User:Neelix (→Transportation and energy: Converted nautical miles into kilometers and miles)
 * used default to-units, no "abbr=" or "sp=" parameters, but no effect on spelling since the "km" use the symbol in the result.
 * 21 Nov 2009 16:29 UTC User:Neelix (Implimented conversions for all remaining measurements)
 * added convert template to remaining "metres" and "centimeters" (after Jimfbleak spelling changes), with no "sp=" or "abbr=" parameters
 * changed "21-meter-long wharf" to "wharf 21 m long" resulting in "wharf 21 m long", perhaps he did not know how to get the complex behemoth to work in the original word order. He/she could have used " 21 m -long wharf" resulting in "21 m-long wharf".  I have no particular preference on the word order used. Not knowing the complexities of template usage, while it is a good-enough reason for making that change, wouldn't require the change to be kept once you figure out how to work the template.
 * The usage before these changes was about as consistent as it ever gets. It wasn't Canadian English; it was United States English. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion at which Gene Nygaard arrives is not accurate; he does not go back far enough. My very first edit (the creation of the article) included such spellings as "favourable", "neighbouring", "traveller", and "grey"; all these are Canadian English spellings. The original regional variation of English used on this article is closest to Canadian. British English is acceptable as an alternative because of the small connection the British have to the island. American English is in no way an acceptable alternative; it is not true to the history of the article, nor does the United States have anything to do with Carabane. Neelix (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was stable in American English long before your unwitting change of that. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And those six "meters" spellings were in the original version of the article.
 * Note further that this is not an article with any close connection to any national variety of English. As such, American English is very much acceptable according to our rules. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was originally written in CE by Neelix (and I think we can assume he knows what dialect he writes in). This was accidentally changed to BE during FAC when the dialect wasn't spotted and the article assumed to be inconsistent. There was an offer to revert that change (here) but mutual agreement was that it wasn't important and to leave as is (here). This is the essence of ENGVAR and of collaborative wiki editing in general: we don't go to war with each other over this petty stuff. Everyone agrees the dialect isn't important wrt to this subject and no dialect is significantly superior as far as the reader is concerned. Edit warring (diff1, diff2) to impose US English and attempts to derail the FAC (see Edit Summary on second diff, and an inappropriate Oppose at FAC) are most unwelcome developments. We have guidelines to prevent this kind of nonsense timesinks, not to cause them. Colin°Talk 11:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Several points:
 * When Neelix wrote the words on the talk page, he wrote "meters" and "centimeters"; he wrote it in American English, not in Canadian English.
 * It is only when Neelix used a black box which shows only the input, and not the output, on the edit page that some of the spellings came out as "kilometres"; even then, all the original "meters" spellings remained. It doesn't take any great genius to figure out that there was no intentional change in spelling in that edit.
 * It never was changed to British English: the spellings remained "motorized", "recognize", "centralized", "authorized", "Islamized", and "colonizers'" throughout.
 * If we assumed that what had already been said above were true, we would already know from what was stated above that other editors have also been involved in the stability of this article in American English. Neelix says he wrote "grey", and I've already pointed out that Jimfbleak changed it from "gray" to "grey".  So somewhere in between, it would have had to have been changed.  Technically, we wouldn't know yet that another editor was involved here; it might have been Neelix himself who changed it to "gray" to conform with the "meters" and the "-iz-" American English of the article.
 * However, the biggest problem is that what was said above wasn't true. Neelix lied; he used "gray" in the original article, further evidence that he wrote in American English, not in Canadian English. Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me restate that a little bit; I have no reason to believe that there is any intentional wrongdoing in Neelix's misstatement as to what he had done in the earlier edit; his fault is in not going back and double-checking before making that statement. I have no other problems with Neelix's editing except for his use of a template when he didn't know how to use it properly.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gene, please do not accuse editors of lying, which is "intentional wrongdoing". The original article version isn't 100% consistently one dialect and I'm prepared to believe this was accidental and the comment above about writing "grey" just a mistake. The chap is Canadian. What motive would any editor have in deliberately writing in a foreign dialect like US English on a topic that has 0% US relevance? The original text contained "neighbour" (2x), "colourful" (2x), "favourable" (2x), "fervour" (1x), "traveller" (1x), "travelling" (2x), which are all British/Canadian spellings. It also contained "traveler" (2x) and "meter" (6x) and "gray" (1x) which are US spellings. The "ize" spelling is not an Americanism and there are a significant minority of non-US writers who follow the Oxford spelling rule. The three US spellings were removed by Jimfbleak on the 21 November making the article consistently British English of the Oxford variety. We either accept the original article was intended to be Canadian English but had a few spelling mistakes, or we adopt WP:RETAIN's ruling that that Jimfbleak established the variety to use by editing to British English. If there are any differences between CE/BE that affect this article, then whichever of those two options meets the least editor-friction or effort should be adopted. Please try to get the point: these rules are to defuse conflict, not make them. Colin°Talk 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I clarified my statement. It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.


 * Try to sell that "Oxford spelling" to the people who run around changing the spellings in British-related articles, and see how far it gets you. And I doubt very much that Jimfbleak normally runs around making distinctions between Oxford-style spelling and normal British English, as you have implied. It was just a change propelled by seeing the "kilometres" which resulted from improper use of a template, contrary to the established spelling style for "meters" in this article.


 * Note also that "traveller" is indicative of nothing. That is American English, too.  Webster's Third lists it as an "or" variant.  It isn't listed as Chiefly British.  My general impression is that the single-l version has become more common in my lifetime; the double-l version probably used to be the most common one in American English.
 * Note also that "traveler" is more indicative. But I suspect it is common enough in Canadian English that we cannot draw any conclusions about its usage either. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So now, in addition to accusing someone of lying, you're making rude comments about paying attention. "Clarifying your statement" is not the same as apologising and striking the remark. I don't see how you can assume Jimfbleak only saw "kilometres" when there are six other words (over ten instances) with Canadian/British spelling.  The history of the single-l version is irrelevant to this article. We have a Canadian author who produced an article that is in Canadian English, but with a few spelling mistakes of the US-English variety. That's the most likely conclusion, is it not? Colin°Talk 19:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology and 'caravan'
Etymologically speaking, the word 'caravan' refers to a group or pack (usually in the context of travel). Carabane is clearly a group or pack of islands, and it seems remiss not to mention this most obvious stab at an etymology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.3.36 (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source which makes a link between the two terms, feel free to add it to the article. Neelix (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedian method appears to permit common sense connections. I got my etymology from |dictionary.com 79.78.3.36 (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "Carabane" was used long before the English language was ever spoken in relation to the island. As such, the suggestion that there is an etymological connection between the terms "Carabane" and "caravan" must be sourced if it is to be included in the article. Neelix (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See wikt:caravan. Seems virtually all European languages (including fr and pt) got it from the Persian. Concise OED 7th ed says that English got it from French, which got it from Persian. LeadSongDog come howl!  23:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Really cool topic, but this article could use some work
Very interesting island with the mangroves and all. But I find the prose and logic hard to follow in several places. Seem to be places talking about the country as a whole, not the island (climate). Also, solar lighting for cars and roads caption (huh??) The two maps up top seem to be in different north orientation (and also lack any cutaway showing Africa, so we can see where in West Africa the place is (making us tromp off to other articles and maps).  The Gambia and Senegal map is hard to understand.  There's a bunch more.  But really the thing seems kind of "off".  Just had a hard time following it. Perhaps in some ways, the effect of the translation is still present.   I'm just a little concerned that this is FA and was run very recently on the Front Page. TCO (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have rephrased the caption of the image depicting the island's wide roads to state that the roads are "illuminated by solar-powered street lights" rather than "illuminated by solar lighting". Is that phrasing less confusing? I don't believe the climate section to be discussing the country as a whole; is there anything specific in that section that you believe requires removal? What makes you say that the two maps in the infobox are in different orientations? I don't think that it would be appropriate to add a map demonstrating Carabane's location within the continent of Africa; it is important to show the location within the country of Senegal, but readers of an article about a specific island within Senegal should already be familiar with the location of Senegal within Africa or else they should be going to the article about Senegal for that information. For comparison, the featured article about Ann Arbor, Michigan does not even provide a map demonstrating the city's location within the state, let alone the country or the continent. What do you find confusing about the map that demonstrates the crossing points through The Gambia? I would be glad to address any concerns you have if you are willing to be more specific about what you find 'off' about the article. Neelix (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Well the term is used "the country", also, it's pretty unlikel that climate will vary much over the space of a very small, low barriar island. Plus I have just been googling and it seems like there's a lot more kitesurfing further north. Plus inadvertant confusion is never surprising as it takes huge effort to write clear text.

2. thanks on the caption.

3. Maybe they're in the same orientation, but do you even know? Have you checked? It's not for me to prove you wrong, but you ought to make sure you are right as a service to the reader. Plus, I can't really tell on that 1890 map where the ocean is cause the thing is so cropped! Even if the orientation is not a flaw we are not well presenting the information to the reader. Not giving him a good picture of the situation.

4. A little cutout of West Africa would do a hell of a lot to inform the subject. There's a legion of newspaper editors who show foreign news stories who would disagree with you on not informing the reader. Asking the reader to go read a different article (which may or may not have a good map) is more of the crap-slack Wiki attitude. Um, and (a) what we do in a different Wiki article is not a good guide for what we SHOULD do for the reader (there are a lot of bad practices), and (b) yes, I think the average reader of this article knows where Michigan is wrt to the world better than Senegal and you are being obtuse and evasive if you disagree (and I would gladly bet thousands of dollars against you that a market research blind trial would back me up), and (c) Michigan has a distinctive "mit" shape to it, while Senegal is stuck in with a bunch of other countries along the side of West Africa.

5. Gambia: A.  you don't have the word Gambia on the map. B. Text is illegible at the scale that you show it. C. You don't clearly describe the path someone would be taking. (I could probably nuke it out, but why make me solve a puzzle).

6. There was a lot more that made me feel off about the article, but it is real work to have to explain it to you granularly. But see also the comments I left on Sandy's page. Is a bit more in there.TCO (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just looked at the Gambia map again. You know you don't even have Carabane shown on that map?  That is really a lousy graphic and lousy caption.  The whole point is that to get anywhere in southern Senegal from northern Senagal, you need to cross the Gambia.  Perhaps this is still a worthhile point to discuss wrt Carabane (as it has to do with relations with the capital and such).  But still, just SAY THAT.  Don't make me slow down and puzzle-solve.  Honestly, at first I was wondering if it had something to do with river transits from east to west (and it doesn't).  This is one more thing giving me a sniff of muddleheadedness of Senegal content versus Carabane content.  And I have surfed our Senegal article as well (also a translation).TCO (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Where are you reading the term "the country"? The word "country" isn't used at all in the "Climate" section.


 * I can't find country, forget that. But I will still bet that the climate does not vary from side to side of that low, small island.  And that the winds in the north and northeast refers to the Dakar coastline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

3. I know that they are in the same orientation because the 1890 map matches up with the satellite image of the island on Google maps. The purpose of the 1890 map is to demonstrate the contour of the island itself and to demonstrate how Brosselard-Faidherbe viewed the island. If the map is not cropped, both of those purposes are obscured. How would you recommend that we better present information to the reader?


 * I can't tell on that map even which direction the river is flowing. I see all kinds of land and channels around the island.  When I look at the Senegal image, it seems that that Casamance is broadly east-west, with a jag to northwest at the end.  But when I look at that cropped image, the bigger water channel is southwest to northeast.  But no flow is indicated anyhow.  That also brings up that there is land all around that island and I really have no feel for where the ocean is and where within the widening mouth Carabane is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)


 * In terms of improving the maps, I would show one that is less cropped and so that we can see the other islands around Carabane, see the relation to the ocean (how much "inside the mouth" is it). If you want to show the details of the island, we should have a blown up version (probably in article, not in lead), that is drawn specifically for the purpose.  The 1890 version is actually too small to really see much of the different parts of the island.  The Senegal overall map and Gambia map are rather similar, so perhaps we can combine those somehow. I would have 3 maps (we can figure out what goes where, don't worry on that for now).  One that is Senegal overall, showing Gambia and Carabane and Dakar (the upper right corner of that will have a cutout to show the West African coastline).  Second that is a blowup of the Casamance River mouth, less cropped than current, and showing the relation of ocean, other islands, river, etc.  Third that is just the island.  In terms of how we do all this, we use "my mapmaker" and do a lot of this from scratch (so we SERVE the reader), rather than playing around with current maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

4. I do disagree with you on this issue. Wikipedia should not be Americentric; American readers should not be privileged over Senegalese readers, and no assumptions should be made about the standard reader's nationality or geographical background knowledge. An explanation of where Senegal is in relation to the rest of Africa is as inappropriate here as an explanation on the Ann Arbor, Michigan article about where the United States is in relation to the rest of North America.


 * I think if you want to be multicultural, instead, I would make sure for Ann Arbor that enough of the recognizable features of North America are shown so that the reader can locate the place in his mind in the world. I'm much more used to the multiculture types arguing for a bit more explanation of common geography in Europe and America (which I yeild to) than to argue that we DON'T need to show where strange places in Africa and Asia are.  That's just insane, to assume something you KNOW is not true for the majority of readers.  You're really defeating a purpose of wanting to educate the Amercanocentric person, if you fight on something like this.  Plus it WON'T TAKE ANY ROOM.  You're not using that NE corner on the map of Senegal anyway.  Look I'm the kind of person who LIKES geography.  Who knows where the Straights of Mallacca are, but I did NOT know that Dakar is the westmost point of Africa.  Would have no idea if this place was at the bulge of Africa or further down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

5. A. The word Gambia is on the map twice. B. I have enlarged the image. C. Any number of paths might be possible, but only two main crossing points are; the purpose of the map is to demonstrate the two points, not all the possible paths.

A. It's on the river. It's NOT indicated in the same kind of text as Senegal is. B. Shake your manly hand. C. I'm fine with the crossing points, obviously the bridges and roads and ferries will be near major towns. My concern was more to explain this as a general issue of the segregation of south Senegal from north. D. Putting Dakar and Carabane on the map would also help the illustration. But we need to rework all the maps. For an article where geography is a key interest and feature, the maps here are just not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs)

The image you are referring to that doesn't point out Carabane is a new one that User:LeadSongDog added today to replace the one you complained about. If you know how to put the pushpin in it, I would greatly appreciate your help. Neelix (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC) ✅LeadSongDog come howl!  18:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I've now added another map to locate within Africa, though it needs some cleanup. Feel free to do so.LeadSongDog come howl!  20:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

shoal and alluvium AND mangrove-trapped sediments?
Seems like a lot of bluelinking for a mangrove sandbar at the mouth of a river. And the mechanical dumping of terms and blue linking shows a lack of care in understanding things and then conveying them. We repeat the clunky description in lead, when a cleaner, simpler description (it's a freaking sandbar) would serve us better in lead which should be easy reading). For that matter, when I follow the link to alluvium, the Wiki article there does not really well describe what the heck alluvium IS (as opposed to is not).  And it says alluvium means non-marine setting (but we are on the coast!?) and also specifies a mix of clay and sand (but we are all sand!?)  And is it really helpful to discuss this island as a "shoal", a term that normally refers to a reef or such (shallow water danger for shipping), but not to something sticking out of the waves.TCO (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in the mouth, not at it. Because of tidal effects, "sticking out" is time dependent. Hence the levees to protect the rice paddies from salt intrusion. In fact, the waters there are hypersaline. See:

If this all seems like trivia to you, ask the inhabitants of New Orleans what they think about the importance of salt-tolerant-vegetation-stabilized sandbars. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think of it as trivia. I think of it as very INTERESTING.  I just don't get the impression from the article of the author really understanding concepts or conveying them to the reader.  All we have is these terms "shoal" and "alluvium" dumped on us.  I think me going and reading the wiki definition of alluvium is more than the author has done.  I'm ALL FOR EXPLAINING the cool salinity and sedimentation issues.  Dumping those translated wikiterms was not getting it done!TCO (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on your dismissive comments of the work 'the author' did, I am beginning to get the impression that many of your concerns are not resulting from problems in the article but rather from the false assumption that I simply translated this article from the French Wikipedia and didn't bother to gain an understanding of the concepts being discussed. While there is no way for me to prove to you that I put a lot more work into the article than that, the real issue is not how the article came into being but whether the article is conveying the information it should be. What about the "Geology" section do you believe requires expansion? Do you think that it would improve the article to include definitions for the terms 'shoal' and 'alluvium' in that section? Neelix (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What POINT are you trying to make when you refer to alluvium? (BTW, just following that wikilink leads me to a definition that it is clay-sand aggregate and non-marine.  (In contrast to our situation, no?)
 * The alluvium is non-marine. I have added a sentence explaining that the alluvium has developed because of the saltwater streams that cut across the shoal. Does this added explanation sufficiently address your concern? Neelix (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the geology is interesting, but is better understood as a process of a shoal, with mangroves in it, trapping sediment. You will have to expand the thought further on the saltwater streams for it to make sense to me (what are you saying is happening)?  Also, if you read that wiki-article on alluvium is pretty confusing.  What the heck IS alluvium?  I would just ditch using it as a term (feel like you are straining to find a reason to justify it, rather than thinking of what the physical situation of the geology is, and then explain that to the the reader).TCO (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's not really much to say about the geology that's specific to Carabane. The whole area (most of Senegal) is sedimentary rock (or eroded from it and redeposited) sitting on top of the West African craton (the top of which starts some five km down). This source gives some idea of how old the different areas are. Have a peek at the area on google map's satellite view and you'll see how the neighboring rivers all wander together, especially to the north. It's rather like a giant mud flat. Tidal action tends to drop a little more sediment wherever the flow transitions from a defined channel to open water, but that's all that defines the location of the sand bar at Carabane, not any underlying rock structure. Go back some Ma and the rivers would be elsewhere entirely. They wander. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"all-pervasive"?
Is this redundant?TCO (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it to be; it hasn't been stated with different phrasing elsewhere in the caption of that image. What causes the term to be redundant? Neelix (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Merriam Webster: "Definition of PERVASIVE: existing in or spreading through every part of something". . (Drop "all".) ;-)  TCO (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Neelix (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Carabane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901101011/http://dakite.ausenegal.com/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=166 to http://dakite.ausenegal.com/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=166
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518064648/http://www.gensenegal.org/ecovillages.htm to http://www.gensenegal.org/ecovillages.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716174023/http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UAB/AVAILABLE/TDX-1109106-120149/jtg1de1.pdf to http://www.tdx.cesca.es/TESIS_UAB/AVAILABLE/TDX-1109106-120149/jtg1de1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carabane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217080356/http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/Rapport%20Expertise%20France.pdf to http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/Rapport%20Expertise%20France.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616054720/http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/index.html to http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080521130437/http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/visite-carabane.html to http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/visite-carabane.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071217080356/http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/Rapport%20Expertise%20France.pdf to http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/Rapport%20Expertise%20France.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119035050/http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/rapport.pdf to http://www.kassoumay.com/joola/rapport.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526005927/http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/photos-carabane.html to http://www.kassoumay.com/carabane/photos-carabane.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)