User talk:Jonathan Mays

February 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Judi Dench appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Request move
Hello Jonathan I’ve replied to your post, here. If you do wish to refine your proposal (which I for one am OK with) I suggest you add a post-script to your original proposal, to assist the closing admin (I've suggested a rationale, but it's up to you what to put, of course). It would also be appropriate to notify the other participants to check if they’re OK with it ( I don’t mind doing that, but it might be better coming from you). Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

PS:Just a tip (and, if this, apologies!): I notice you made quite a lot of edits when posting your comments. If it makes it any easier, there’s a sandbox facility you can use to rough out what you want to say before posting it in an article (you can also create your own personal sandbox for the same purpose (viz) if you like) And I suppose you know about the preview function; anyway, regards (again) Moonraker12 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)o

Thanks. See my note on the main Talk page. I don't know how to amend my proposal, so happy to leave it to you if you like. I'm quite new to this.

OK, I’ve let the others know and invited comments (there’s something of a deadline, as RM’s get evaluated after about seven days; it could go either way, it could be re-listed. It’d be easier and better if everyone was happy with the one option) Moonraker12 (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Looks like everyone is happy so far.

Teahouse Invitation
Hello! Jonathan Mays,



Swabian Jura
I’ve made a couple of edits here. I’ve added some stuff to your section on naming; can you check to see if it’s correct? I got it from here and here, but there’s no source given; do you know of one? Also, it might be worth re-naming it to "Etymology"; a lot of articles have etymology sections, and the terms are of interest in themselves. I’ve also restored the "Swabian Alps" name to the lead sentence; like it or not, it’s still a common enough term in English, so it should be there, particularly if it's in use in other articles. The explanation further down should cover the matter adequately. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the edits work really well - particularly the ones in the etymological section - the only problem with using that as a title is that the section also discusses the translation of the terms into English. Maybe "Etymology and Translation/Terminology"?? Anyway, I think it's all coming together quite well.

I slightly re-edited your Swabian Alps edit, just to make it a bit more parenthetic to what we agreed should be the main translation of "Alb".

Btw, did you say that you are an English translator? Can everyone read this?? Jonathan Mays (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it’s looking OK
 * I’m trying to remember where I saw that albhros comment; I’m hoping I’ve got it right.
 * And "Etymology and Translation" would be fine. Do you want to leave it at the bottom of the article or move it up? The current heading is OK for where it is; if it was closer to the top of the page "Etymology" or "Etymology and Translation" would be better.
 * I’m wondering what to do about the examples of the term "Swabian Alb" in other articles. As it stands (I think we agree) it’s a bit of a misnomer, and isn’t covered by WP:ENGVAR. I’m thinking the word Alb should be italicised, or swapped for the word "Jura"; what do you think? Where it occurs a number of times in an article (like here) italics might be best, but for single mentions (eg here) a swap would be easier. I’m thinking of making a start on them; are you OK with that?
 * On your last comment "can everyone read this": how do you mean? There isn’t much in the way of privacy on WP. Anyone can visit your talk page and read it, (and even if you erase something, it’d still be in the edit history as a previous version) OTOH the sheer volume of stuff, and the climate of good manners the project strives for, tends to limit problems. But it's wise to be a bit circumspect.
 * And no, I’m not a translator; I have enough trouble with English! Moonraker12 (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that.


 * I took a look at the article on Cuesta. I agree - Swabian Alb is not good here - it needs to be italicised, or even better replaced by "Jura" as the article is more geological. Generally, though, I personally prefer "Swabian Alb". As a rule of thumb, I think the convention for foreign words is italicised the first time it is used and then, the term having been introduced, non-italicised thereafter. This is provided the word can be pronounced by English speakers and incorporated into the language: so, "Luftwaffe", for example, would work; a really long German word, though, would have to be italicised every time. My feeling is it's best to avoid this with shorter ones, as it's not good visually. Obviously, you dislike the term "Swabian Alb" so maybe you'll chose "Jura" anyway. I guess it's personal preference really. I usually go for "Alb" in spoken English, as at least it resonates with "Alps" and then English people will ask, "Where's/what's that?", when I say I lived there. My fear would be if I said "I lived near the Swabian Jura", it might be more a complete conversation stopper...Jonathan Mays (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not replying earlier; I've been out of circulation for a while.
 * As far as the convention goes, it’s the practice here on WP not to italicize in text when a non-English word is the title of an article (eg Bremsstrahlung, Gesamtkunstwerk) but AFAIK non-English words are always italicised elsewhere (books for example), at every occurrence. And it isn’t just long words; Amt is as likely to be in italics as Alltagsgeschichte. The exception would be where the non-English word has become familiar enough to be regarded as English (Luftwaffe might be an example of that}; "abseil" is treated as English (and is declined as such; abseiling, abseiled) abteilung isn’t. But the default position would be to use italics; not italicizing a non-English word would be wrong, while even with a loanword it wouldn’t be wrong to use them.
 * As for personal preference, you're right, I do dislike the term "Swabian Alb", as it stands, as it is simply wrong in English; and I get nettled when told (not your comments particularly, you’ve been pretty civilized about this, but it happens all the time here), with a large helping of condescension, that we should use a term here (in English) because it is correct in German. And not just German, either). But I have to say that having discussed it with you the penny has dropped that German sources mean Alb when they say "Alb", which I hadn't twigged before.
 * As for your experience with people knowing where you live I can’t gainsay that, obviously; but I’d suggest you might be surprised. The region probably isn’t that well–known outside Germany under any name (if I said my home was near the Cotswolds, or the Vale of White Horse would many people outside Britain know where I meant?), but anyone who has done Geography at O or A level would know of it, though they might well only know it as the Swabian Alps or Swabian Jura. Those are the common names in English, after all, so somebody will have heard of them.
 * Anyway, I'll do what I said, as it seems the best compromise; economical, yet makes the point. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you mean when you say "the penny has dropped" about Alb meaning Alb in German; I assume you mean that when the word is used it refers to the Swabian Jura, in the way that when we talk about "the Dales", we always mean the Yorkshire Dales by convention, even though there are presumably dales in other places, and "the Valleys" means the South Wales Valleys etc, as previously discussed. The difference from what I can glean from the etymological stuff you posted is that Alb was once a common noun in German but no longer is, as was Alp in the singular. I once had a conversation with an Austrian (in German), and when I mentioned the "Alb" she registered it as a proper noun, and asked "What's that? Is that a river?" Perhaps it's a bit like "the Downs", which may once have been in general use in English in the singular form, who knows; or a bit like "the Shires" which I would imagine is pretty meaningless in the States or Australia. Anyway, there's nothing particularly new here - I think we've said most of this before, but one thing did occur to me - you expressed a frustration about using the word "alb" in English, because it is something ecclestical - I wasn't sure if you'd realised that the word is pronounced with a "p" sound in German. So when I speak of the "Alb" in English conversations I say "Alp", so it resonates with a word the listener knows. Anyway, apologies if this is raking over the same coals.

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.