User talk:Pia L/Archive 5



Image:Nevis_Willet.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Nevis_Willet.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Runestone categories
Dear Pia. Thanks for pointing out the runestone category mess. The first thing that needs to be fixed is merging Category:Runestones in Scania and Category:Runestones, Skåne. As for the naming of the categories, I am quite neutral, and since the Skåneland articles are more your field than mine, I am confident you'll make the right decisions. If you end up in a debate about the naming issues, I'll be around and support you if needed.--Berig 18:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, as for the actual style "runestones in XXX" vs. "runestones, XXX", I'd rather stay with the last style since renaming all the categories into "runestones in XXX" would take an enormous amount of time and imply many hundreds of edits both on WP and on Commons. I strongly doubt that the editors who supported the "runestones in XXX" were aware of the workload implied and the editor who nominated "Runestones, Sweden" to be renamed "runestones in Sweden" seems to have lost interest quickly.--Berig 18:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The easiest way is just replacing the categories. When doing the kind of massive category work that you mention, I prefer to just use rapid copy and pasting of the new category/ies into the articles and into the edit summaries, replacing categories that I consider obsolete in the process. Recreating the category "Runestones, Skåneland" may be a good idea, since there are so few runestone articles from the area anyway. When you have decided the category names and the structure you prefer, I can help you out with the leg work. Be bold! Best wishes,--Berig 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Berig, I've tried to read up on category stuff, but I think I have to ask for your help with the Runestones, because boldness and confusion make for a bad mix. ;) I got stuck before wondering if all category renaming/merging/redirects have to go through a "Category:Categories for discussion process" or if I could just place templates like Template:Category_redirect on obvious problem articles and let the bot Bots/Requests for approval/SelketBot 3 deal with them? The reason I felt a need to deal with categories at all is that the general Skåne category needs to be renamed to Category Scania to reflect the name of the main article. But I'm confused over whether or not redirects are still "soft" or if the use of Skåne in the category field on articles would automatically redirect users to the Scania category when the link is clicked. Now I'm sitting here wondering if "replacing categories" is the same thing as merging or renaming..Berig, sorry to be so clueless in this area! I think I'll just mess up things if I try to make changes before I at least get the basic concepts straight. Best, Pia 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Pia, I can take care of the runestone categories and I'll probably demand an "overturn" of the renaming, but that will have to wait until the day after tomorrow. Concerning your question, this is the first time ever that I actually run into a category problem. Occasionally, I have found a group of articles with a messy category system and I have just replaced the old categories with new ones according to what I deemed should be acceptable to other editors interested in the field (I just remove the old ones and add the new ones in their place). However, Scania is far from the obscure stuff that I usually edit. It might be best if you simply nominate *all* categories containing the name Skåne to "Category:Categories for discussion"  and suggest that Skåne be changed into Scania in all categories. As for redirects, I'm not sure whether it is useful to have category redirects, unless the renaming has not been done thoroughly (which it should, IMHO). Best,--Berig 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know about the discussions here when I changed the last article in "Runestones in Scania" to "Runestones, Skåne." Of course the two categories must be merged. As all other provincial runestone categories are named "Runestones, XXX" and not "Runestones in XXX", I prefere the first mentioned type. And of course the name of the respective province should be used (in English or in Swedish is another issue). Why make an exception from this rule here and group them into the little used term "Skåneland"? --Muniswede 08:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[:outdent] Muniswede, applying your municipal ideology on history is like trying to jam square pegs into round holes. Judging by your recent edits on Wikipedia in history articles, I suspect this conversation may be a waste of time, but here we go: The runestones in these three provinces are part of the cultural heritage of Denmark as well. They do not "belong" in a centrally-oriented Swedish municipality structure - some of them are part of the Scanian piece of the puzzle in the history of Denmark, part of the "early literature" of Denmark; important because they demonstrate an Old Norse dialect that is considered a precursor to the Danish language (Old Scanian/Forndanska/Fornskånska)..and the tales they tell are often about Danish-Scanian warriors - and some stones appear to tell tales about Blekinge people fighting up in Uppsala on the "wrong side" of the muniswede-fence, alongside the relatives or neighbors of the Jomsviking variety ;) I think. (Berig would be able to tell you what the real story is. All I know off hand or by heart are the old tales of the local folklore). The Skåneland runestones are perhaps also more commonly grouped and viewed from a Danish perspective because there are a lot less Danish runestones than Swedish, (only 50 or so in Scania). The recommended modus operandi when dealing with nationality changes, as per the category rule "Dealing with overlaps" is as follows: "When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a 'Foo of X and Y'. Instead, list articles in both 'Foo of X' and 'Foo of Y'". The grouping of the Skåneland runestones therefore had a practical application as well as a diplomatic: grouped together, they would have been a lot easier to list in Danish culture categories and in "Category:Runestones, Denmark" without it being an additional workload issue or multi-listing exercise. All the work that's needed in that scenario is to include "Category:Runestones, Skåneland" on for example 'Culture of Denmark' or a 'Runestones, Denmark' page, and they will all just automatically pop up on that list as well, no sweat. Without that category, I'd rather just to go along, for the time being, with the format "Foo in X" for the Scania and Blekinge runestones, for two reasons: 1> (main reason, actually)- I don't feel like stirring the pot, in case changing the 'Runestones in Scania' to a 'Runestones, Scania', or keeping 'Runestones, Skåneland', or a 'Runestones, Skåne' format mean taking on a fight that might result in having to rename all the other runestone articles in the runestones in Sweden category. 2> I feel it's OK for them to be different, since they are not exclusive to the Swedish history or Swedish culture sphere, but belong in two country categories and therefore don't need to be identical or conform to a standard "Swedish-provincial" format. Pia (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no "municipal ideologi" when it comes to e.g. runestones. The municipalities were of course created much later. I don't think any of today's subdivisions, or not even today's nation states were valid at the time the stones were cut. But if all the other runestones are categorized in a "provincial format" it would be confusing not to find the southern provinces among them. Skåneland is not very well-known term outside the academic world. --Muniswede (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Hungarian Americans deletion
Excellent work. My spellchecker and I fixed a few spelling errors. Hope you don't mind. Hmains 02:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

other lists
Can you do anything about the lists that already have been wrongly deleted? Belgian Americans, English Americans, Finnish Americans, German Americans, Norwegian Americans, Swedish Americans, Swiss Americans. Thanks Hmains 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

list theory
You may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. Thanks Hmains 19:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

more list
I am silent only because I am just not interested in the arcane WP rules and the unpleasant debates, though it seems someone has to do this to protect what they want--otherwise the attackers will prevail. If you can do it, and you seem very capable, good work and good luck. Hmains 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

House of Munsö
Hi Pia L, I am still having the old dispute over the House of Munsö with user:Pieter Kuiper. He wants to remove stuff, while I want to keep in things that I find interesting. Please, join the discussion and give your opinion.--Berig 16:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks dear Pia for your great and interesting comments. Keep on the great work!--Berig 12:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lists of African Americans
Any thoughts on this current deletion project? Thanks Hmains 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

lists of Americans
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 22 Thanks Hmains 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

more lists
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 24 for English Americans Hmains 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Scandinavian languages
Hei Pia, thanks for the comments on my changes to the Scandinavian languages description. As you can probably tell, I have just started my Wikipedia experience and it is taking a little time to iron out some of the usual newbie issues. I have changed my previous entry in both structure and content (including some references). I hope that you find it more agreeable. My main point about "Scandinavian" as a description of the North Germanic languages is simply that there is no "Scandinavian" language branch of Germanic that is distinct from North Germanic. There are only the east Scandinavian and west Scandinavian branches of North Germanic. Since the term "North Germanic" is established and "Scandinavian" is both redundant and non-neutral, the former should be used. I hope that I presented a more balanced view of this in the new version of the entry. Cheers, Bruvssa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruvssa (talk • contribs) 12:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Pia, thank you for the new message. You are welcome regarding the reference.  I have added a discussion about the use of "North Germanic" and "Scandinavian".  Common use does not mean unbiased use.  If there are neutral terms available, they should be used on Wikipedia.  As it turns out, I have several friends and family members who are representatives in the Norwegian Sami Parliament and have already started the process of trying to rid the Parliament webpages of "Scandinavian" to refer to the North Germanic languages and to change the policy of the Parliament to use only "North Germanic".  I am also going to try to get them to add a discussion about the use of language in colonization and assimilation practices and to condemn the general use of "Scandianvian" to mean North Germanic.  That should add at least one reference for Wikipedia and should open the posibility for a more honest presentation on the pages. Thank you for the suggestion.  By the way, I am quite aware of what prescriptive linguistics is since I have a doctoral degree in linguistics.  The issue here is not one of prescriptivism, but of sensitivity to a historically disinfranchised people. By the way, I also know many linguists around the world, including most of those studying Sami languages, and I am going to start a campaign to convince them to turn their back on the term "Scandinavian". The wrongs of the past are in the past, but they do not have be perpetuated today or in the future. Peace. --Bruvssa 23:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Category discussions
Hi Pia - yes, you do have to tag all categories you list for discussion - there are different tags for speedies and for general listings, though.The "Edit the category" section of WP:CFD says what tags should be used. Thanks for the best wishes for the exhibition - I really need to edit my page! The exhibition finished about three weeks ago. It was a success in terms of people enjoying it, and it got a couple of good reviews, though sadly there weren't as many sales as I hoped. Grutness...wha?  00:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't know if it's likely to confuse things or not, but I suspect that it'll be OK as long as you didn't delete anyone else's comments when you removed the old nomination. Grutness...wha?  22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Telegony (heredity)
Hello!, don't you agree this would be a better article title than the present one? I've added a brief note to mention origins of the theory in Aristotle and its use in Greek myth, but I see that you are preparing to add text concerning C19 theories of telegony, so I won't study it up.. --Wetman (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My edit seems to have evaporated. Perhaps my "save" didn't take. I'll have to give it another try. --Wetman (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)