User talk:Anorak2

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Unforgettableid | talk to me 06:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

PAL
You may well be correct about PAL not specifying frame rate, but as it is strongly associated with the 625-line/50Hz system, it would be more helpful to touch on the subject and point out the situation anyway.

Fourohfour 11:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Forohfour, the article in its current state explains that already in the first paragraph:

"The term 'PAL' is often used informally to refer to a 625-line/50 Hz (principally European) television system, and to differentiate from a 525-line/60 Hz (principally USA/Japan) 'NTSC' system. Accordingly DVDs are labelled as either 'PAL' or 'NTSC' (referring informally to the line-count and frame-rate) even though technically neither of them have encoded PAL or NTSC composite colour."
 * I think that states the association in current terminology clear enough, while it also makes clear that this usage is "informal", which I think is important. But it would be factually wrong to actually _define_ PAL as "delivers 625 lines at 50 half-frames per second" in the first sentence, as did the version I reverted. That would give first time readers a completely wrong idea. IMO it is important to distinguish scan lines/frame rate from colour system, and to make the distinction clear to anyone curious enough that they visit the page in the first place. :) Regards Anorak2 12:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the current version is good enough for me. Sorry, I should have checked closer; I thought you'd taken out the only reference to it. Fourohfour 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

PAL
Hi,

I've been removing the "tag" you've been adding to the top of this article because this is completely non-standard in Wikipedia articles. There are a bunch of "otheruses" tags that may be appropriate for this purpose; see otheruses. Beyond that, a description of the confusion should be left to the normal prose of the article.

Also, requests such as "To editors: Please put information about resolutions and frame rates in more appropriate articles if avoidable." should be left to the talk page, as it goes against WP:ASR.

Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 11:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The "otheruses" tag would not exactly say what the box is supposed to say. PAL does specifically NOT mean picture resolution, so it's not just about different usages but about "wrong" usages. The problem is that many editors confuse the issue as well and clutter the article with a mix of both meanings which leaves the reader confused. The talk page has been widely ignored. What solution do you suggest for this problem? Anorak2 (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are other tags that may indicate what you want, whilst at the same time, drawing attention to the problem to other editors. For instance, see Disputed, or the complete list at WP:TC.


 * Note that this is by no means the only article that contains or attracts incorrect or misleading material! The solution is always the same: remove incorrect material, and discuss the problems on the talk page.  If a particular editor ignores the talk page and continually re-adds wrong material, bring it to their attention on their own talk page.  If they still continue to do so, then it may become a disclipinary issue (i.e. it's tantamount to vandalism).


 * The solution is not to put big disclaimers at the top of the article stating what the article isn't about! It may be appropriate to discuss the confusion in the normal prose of the article, but a big blue box is not the answer.  Regards, Oli Filth(talk) 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

West Berlin
Section on nationality. You are right, my formulation could mean West Germany did accept the existence of a separate nationality for the different German entities. But your ethnic argument is also not well reflecting the truth, it gives a false idea of the ius sanguinis as practised by the Federal Rep. of Germany. The Federal Rep. of Germany considered every person already bearing a legal identity card, issued by the competent authority within one of the four entities, as German, being her or him of what ethnicity so ever, and therefore to be entitled to get Federal German legal documents if wanted. This is and was also true for citizens of Frisian, Sorb or - let's say - Armenian ethnicity, born to an ethnic Frisian, ethnic Sorb or ethnic Armenian, already bearing legal papers of one of the German entities - no matter if he/she bore a German identity cards by birth or naturalisation. Beyond this group of bearers of legal identity cards two more groups of people were considered as entitled to get - if wanted - (but not automatically given) Federal German papers: 1) Persons, who were deprived their legal papers either due to the Nazi denaturalisations or due to the annexations after World War II, including the descendents of such persons. 2) Persons, who never bore German papers, but are/were of German ethnicity and lived in those eastern European states, where persons had been persecuted as ethnic Germans after World War II, including the descendents of such persons.

The difference is, nobody was treated due to her or his mere German ethnicity as a German, but due to his legal identity card of one of the German entities. And not every person being of German ethnicity in the world, is/was entitled to get Federal German documents, but only the above-mentioned two groups (and since recently additionally those born to legal aliens in Germany, if they opt at the age of 18/21 not to hold the citizenship of their parents). Other people of German ethnicity, such as Danes of German ethnicity from North Schleswig or elsewhere in Denmark, Belgians of German ethnicity from the East Cantons or elsewhere etc. or Paraguayian Mennonites of German ethnicity, or any descendent of a German emigrant to America identifying her-/himself as German by ethnicity, are not and were not entitled to get papers of the Federal Rep. of Germany. They may apply like other aliens. Your argument includes naturalised persons, but gives a wrong idea of who could and can claim papers of the Fed.Rep. of Germany. A Dane of German ethnicity has to undergo the same naturalisation procedure like a Spaniard without German ethnicity. If they would both speak fluently German they would even have the same advantage in passing the German test for naturalisation. So there never was an identity of the group of those bearing or entitled to bear legal German identity cards and those who regard themselves - or would be regarded by others - as being of German ethnicity.

These arguments of course go too far for the West Berlin entry, but how about: each person bearing a legal identity card, issued by the competent authority of East or West Germany or any part of Berlin would do it. I am open for any more fluent formulation. Sorry for the long argument. Best wishes Ulf Heinsohn Ulf Heinsohn (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we agree completely. Of course German nationality law is not based on ethnicity, I didn't mean to imply it did. West Germany assumed the single pre-war German nationality to continue and applied it to anyone who used to be German national before 1945, or their descendants, or anyone who was naturalized either in West or East Germany or West Berlin or East Berlin after 1945. Until 1966 East Germany did exactly the same, but since that year they declared an "East German" citizenship and applied it to everyone who used to be "German" national living in East Germany or East Berlin at the time. West Germany ignored this move and continued to apply "German" citizenship to East Germans (if they so wished), and West Berliners of course. I was trying to find a simple wording for these complicated facts without going into too much detail for the purpose of the West Berlin page. Maybe I was too sloppy there.


 * Anyway, the most important point is that there never was such a thing as a "West German" nationality. We should not use wording implying that it did, especially since many non-German readers aren't aware of this fact. Anorak2 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge
--Kippelboy (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)