User talk:Ch Th Jo/Archive1

Natalia Vodianova
Hi. Please excuse my curt edit summary when undoing your recent edit to Natalia Vodianova. Spelling wasn't the only reason, but the earliest revision of the article used British spelling, and it seems more appropriate for this particular subject anyway (being a European model resident in the UK). See WP:ENGVAR. The preference of "the largest english language audience" isn't a factor. Similarly, in the infobox, EU measurements should take precedence over US ones.

Also, your citation style unnecessarily duplicates information; it is not necessary to have both work and publisher. There's some discussion of this at Template_talk:Cite_web.

Please respond here or at my talk page, whichever you prefer. Thanks. :) –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I agree with you regarding your citations in principle; I'm aware of the distinction between "work" and "publisher". However, anything entered as the "work" parameter in cite web is automatically italicised, yet the Manual of Style prescribes italicisation for "newspapers, journals, and magazines" but not for websites. With that in mind, and because it's not necessary to have both work and publisher specified in most cases, the "publisher" parameter is often used for the name of the source, for formatting purposes. That was part of the discussion at the cite web template talk page I linked to. However, that's an aspect of the template so it might not really be worth debating with regard to a particular article. (Also, it can worked around using CSS, and I may do that later.) That aside though, there are instances (such as where you've put "Naked Heart Foundation website" as the work) where having both seems superfluous. Compare to the NFL and International Narcotics Control Board examples at Template:Cite web/doc: the "work" parameter is left empty, no "National Football League website" or "NFL.com" etc.

Regarding the choice between, say, "Vogue (UK) website" or "Vogue.co.uk" or various similar permutations, I'd say it doesn't really matter which of those you choose as it conveys the same information; I suppose the former is probably preferable seeing as the domain name doesn't necessarily describe what the site is in any way. In the case of Forbes.com, I'd leave the "work" parameter empty, as the "Forbes.com LLC" pretty much sums it up.

Incidentally, regarding the date format used in citations, it's not something I feel too strongly about, but I feel that YYYY-MM-DD, even though it's an ISO standard, just looks plain ugly, especially when several dates appear in close proximity to each other as they do in the references section. As I say though, no strong preference there either way, so I don't mind leaving that as is.

That leaves the European/US sizes and metric/imperial units issue. Obviously Wikipedia articles aren't written for the subject, but in cases where there are regional differences, I would argue in favour of giving precedence to the region with which the subject is most closely associated.

I'll edit now to change back the spelling and a couple of (I hope) uncontroversial things. I hope I can convince you regarding the order of European/US sizes as well. Thanks for the dialogue. –CapitalLetterBeginning (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:Komatsu 930E
Hi Ch Th Jo - you gave an edit summary to the Komatsu 930E article that the 960E section was moved to the new article on the Komatsu 960E-1 but the new article does not appear to contain the info or make reference back to superseding the 960E model ? And yet you redirected Komatsu 960E to the new article which does not appear make clear the distinction/relationship between the two models or have i missed it somewhere ?

- BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I've not researched the different models in depth, I just redirected the original 960E red link to the 930E article as it contained some relevant info when i found that page. It was just your statement on removal of material from the article implying it was in the new article that caught my eye( when checking the edit history).


 * If they are the same vehicle and that the official designation has changes (or that in some early press reports it was known as the 960E but its official release name is the 960E-1 - I would suggest a statement to that effect in the lead should suffice to clarify it (with the original refs), and if they are not the same a short section in the article (with refs) would be more appropriate as the link now redirect to that article.


 * Manufactures having separate pages for related model does not in my opinion always justify a separate wikipedia page as wikipedia pages are not substitutes for manufactures information or clones of there sites, so without major difference a table of the main spec difference and short a descriprion of relation ship such as the model x evolved into the model Y and was launched at Bauma or Conex in z year.


 * My interest in these and related articles is i started a Wikia site on tractors and construction plant so I often look round the related wikipedia articles and clean up some of the vandalism and non standard layouts, add categories, refs and link orphaned articles etc. The problem with wikipedia is you start a one place and soon its several hours latter and you are off in a totally different direction from were you started after a few small fixes and checking related links out.


 * Good look in filling out the large dumptruck manufactures / model pages into better articles from the poor stubs that some are/were. - BulldozerD11 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverting working external link
I reverted your removal of a link to a journal on Google books. Although the page displayed in Google, was the wrong one, the article still exists -- on page 195 -- as indicated in the citation. Please take a bit more care to investigate whether links are bad before removing them.

I also suggest you avoid reducing well formatted citations to mere piped links, as you did here. Regards. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tatra-Terex
Terex owsn Tatra see Tatra_%28company%29 Terex sells its 80 percent share of Tatra. here and Here. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)