Talk:Vale

Vale not a land form... as in Vale a deceased person
My employer on occasions send notices out when someone the organisation knows dies.... he puts at the top of the notice "Vale Joe Bloggs"... is this correct use of the word and if so what does it mean?

or should it be hale?

Your comments are welcome

Debbie Webb, Perth Western Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.114.47 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Vale is the Latin to say farewell. 58.106.26.122 (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree also with this use. Vale is used commonly in Australia in relation to an obituary. Would love to see this meaning incorporated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.4.45 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is vale as valley, other than this disambiguation page?
The full definition of vale as a wide river valley is here, and on no other page I can yet find. Why is this mixed up with the disambiguation page for vale?

Is there a second page somewhere showing again the definition of a vale as a wide river valley? I expect my link will be soon flagged as being to a disambiguation page. Perhaps I should use an external reference to define a vale and not rely on the wikipedia reference.

Prairieplant (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote it myself. I finally found vale on the Valley page, as a section heading, so made the link to that. Made clear that this is a disambiguation page, added link to wiktionary for vale, and made geography a section instead of the opening text that fooled me, and rewrote the sentence with the red-linked term 'chalk downs'. Geographers, feel free to improve it! Prairieplant (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked this a bit - reformatted the dab page, as the "valley" sense is not established as the "primary usage" of the word "vale" in the encyclopedia (if it was, there would be a redirect from Vale to the valley article, and the disambiguation page would be at Vale (disambiguation)). The "vale" section of Valley needs a reference - but most of that whole article needs references! Adding the wiktionary section is fine, but we don't declare "this is a disambiguation page" at the top: the "xxx may refer to" does that.  Pam  D  19:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! This is way better, clearer right away that it is a disambiguation page.  And you are right, the Valley page needs references. Much appreciated.  Prairieplant (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be academic.
To Prairieplant (talk):

Do not just undo changes, you should at least proofread. People edit the page because errors are too obvious. What you did was simply not academic. It drives volunteers away. Leschnei(talk), IdreamofJeanie (talk)and I disagree on what standards to choose, but all of our changes did make the information displayed there more reliable. Review to see that each of us had taken some real mistakes away. However, your last edit simply brings them all back.

Rectifying some unclear formatting is not a proper reason to 'protect' words truly not spelt 'vale'. For example, 'våle' is definitely not the same as 'vale'. Go to ask a Norwegian toddler and they will teach you. 'Å' is not an accented form of 'a', but a distinctively different letter.

What a waste of time...

110.174.132.162 (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean about being academic. My own goal is to keep articles like the other ones in Wikipedia, which is a different goal, I think. The layout changes made new categories that were quite different from the categories on the page already and it was hard for me to see them as an improvement in clarity. The format of the new headings was not ideal either. If you think that the Norwegian term does not belong on this page because of the different pronunciations of the letter A, with its mark over it or without that mark, why did you leave it in?


 * I did not simply undo changes, I rebuilt the page to match the one noted in my edit description, line by line.


 * I have learned a lot about disambiguation in Wikipedia from this very page, when I first mistakenly linked to it in an article that used the word vale, which you can see in a conversation on this talk page that happened in 2013, 7 years ago. Other editors have taught me a lot. The page is simplified by putting the Table of Contents on the right, so that a person can see the list of other uses rather quickly. I did not do that originally, another editor did, if my memory serves me at all. Perhaps some other editors, like, will weigh in on this and see things yet another way. --Prairieplant (talk) 16:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

--Prairieplant (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A reply:

It is nice that the message has been delivered. Perhaps the strange formatting was too uncomfortable to the eyes. Actually, we have different focuses. My primary concern is that the information should be displayed logically, despite its style. You can sense that I am pretty much an inclusionist. I added the sub-category 'as part of its name' because someone tends to delete certain headwords while others would like to keep them.

My practice is meant to let both sides feel comfortable. After doing that, the table became not so logical. So I removed it. I should apologize that I was not ready to invest time to learn about the required scripting. Keep it up, Prairieplant, Wikipedia is for deligent editors like you to maintain. Perhaps occasional editors like myself's duty is solely to give you the heads up.

The word 'academic' mentioned above means 'correctness comes first, user-friendliness comes second'. If either must be sacrificed, preserve the former. Errors are absolute while styling is relative. Your reversion of corrections was clearly not proper.

My ISP is currently down, hence the IP address is temporarily different.

Thank you Prairieplant (talk) for the effort paid for building this online referencing website.

It takes time to edit things. I had deleted the Norwegian headword with a mis-matched spelling previously, but then it was brought back. A better way to keep things right is to advise others about that, which is why I typed tgese paragraphs here.

165.228.11.59 (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Anither reminder:

Please proifread the articlw page agaun. Certain bew errors currentlu stock out like a sore thumb. I am too lazy to proofread and edit again, sorry. Wikipedia's future lies on the hands of dedicated people likr you.

165.228.11.59 (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)