User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2010/Sep

Not a matter of great moment but...
... I don't think there's much point in adding diacritics to sort-keys in WP tables, such as the one in Opera North: history and repertoire, seasons 1990–91 to 1996–97. The diacritics are in place for what is visible to the user, which is all that matters, don't you think? Thanks, however, for the dab-ing - I should have been more careful. Best. --GuillaumeTell 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

St Matthew Passion
Hi Chris, I saw that overnight in some articles a link was changed to St Matthew Passion (Bach). That is an indirect link, please undo to St Matthew Passion, as agreed in a discussion in Classical Music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining! Johannes Passion was moved then to St John Passion, but it's (still) St Mark Passion (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Capital of France
Bonjour Chris,

We seem to be interested in some of the same articles, and I just fell par hasard on the Capital of France, which you edited last March 14 [].

I would like your opinion: what is the purpose of such an article? Since the reign of Philippe Auguste in the 12th century, the capital of France is & has always been Paris. In fact, to be exact, Paris was chosen as the capital of his kingdom by Clovis in the 6th century and, even when the seat of the government of France was not in Paris, Paris was the capital of France.
 * When Louis XIV established his court at Versailles, the capital of his kingdom was still Paris, even if he governed from Versailles.
 * Paris was the capital of France in 1871 at the time of the Commune, even if Thiers established his government at Versailles.
 * Paris was still the capital of France after the fall of France in 1940 & during the German occupation of the country between 1940 & 1944, while Vichy was the capital of the "État français", not of France.

I see no purpose in that article & believe it should be either deleted or moved under a different title.

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please go to my page for continued discussion. Aurevoir!  --Frania W. (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on René Girard
Hi, with your edits on René Girard you removed - possibly inadvertently - the language markup that had been inserted there for better accessibility. Could you please avoid removing the lang templates in future? Best regards, ChristopheS (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point about names such as Jack Lang and Émile Durkheim. Because they are/were both French, I don't add a language change to their name in the context of a French article - speakers of French typically pronounce them with a French accent, so marking up Jack Lang as an English name is not going to make it more intelligible to a French screen reader user. If these names occur in an English article, I find the issue less clear-cut. If I can't argue that the names "belong" to a specific language, then why add language markup? However, I usually add language markup when a name can be clearly linked to a language (even though WCAG 2.0 does not require it), which is the case with René Girard. For book titles, quotes and other passages, I consistently use language markup. I hope I'm making sense to you ;-) --ChristopheS (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Pivot of Civilization
Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you'd edited the page.



The article The Pivot of Civilization has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This page is almost completely unmaintained (only six edits in the six months since its original author was indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia), almost completely unlinked (only from Eugenics and Margaret Sanger), completely unreferenced (and unlikely to be referenced in the future; I can't find any articles about the book), and almost completely unread (stats.grok.se says it was viewed about three or four times a day last month). The original author of this article appears to have written it as a way to push their POV that Margaret Sanger was evil. As a result of these circumstances, the article is of very poor quality; aside from its grammatical errors, before my recent edit, it entirely failed to mention the main subject of the book it's ostensibly written about, which is birth control (or, as Sanger wrote, Birth Control.) Given the non-notability of the book, as manifested by all of these circumstances and by the fact that the book has only four reviews on Amazon despite having been published 88 years ago, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever take the trouble to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 02:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB change to template argument
This is a really minor issue, but I wanted to point it out just to make sure you were aware of it. Your recent edit of rheology delinked a word which happened to be passed to the navbox template as an argument; this caused the navbox to function differently. I assume this was inadvertent since the comment was just about delinking common words. The way that particular type of navbox template works is that the heading in the navbox must be replicated exactly in the parameters for the uncollapse function to work, hence the problem. Hope that makes sense... anyway I fixed it trivially, so as I said, not a big deal. Thanks! David Hollman (Talk) 15:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

AWB and edit-summaries
Hi. Your recent AWB edits to articles such as Stretham, Henry Hervey Baber, and Six Preachers have just been reviewed; all the changes were satisfactory. The edit-summaries (ES) in each case however were very unsatisfactory, as they did not adequately summarise the edits being done; even worse, in these three cases at least, the edit summaries were exactly the same: (sp, date & link fixes; unlinking common words using AWB). In none of the cases were date, nor unlinking common words carried out. Please review the edit-summary guidelines --Senra (Talk) 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)