User talk:Picapica/archive0509

French railways
Thanks for your message - I wasn't sure whether or not to use Chemin or Chemins as I had seen both, so decided to stick to Chemin for consistency. The main reason I used Chemin de Fer (capital F) was because it made its more clear where the abbreviation CF come from.

Feel free to move the pages around - you seem to know more about this than me. I only created the articles as a side-project to writing articles on SNCF locos and units (e.g. SNCF Class BB 22200). One thing I would ask is if you move the pages can you adjust the template Template:SNCF constituents? Thanks.

By the way. I really feel the SNCF page should be given its full name as a title and use SNCF as a redirect. What do you think?

Our Phellap 20:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, OP. Just one more ongoing project to add to my list... :) As for using the full name of the SNCF as the article title, I remain – on the principle of using the most widely used form – to be persuaded. Compare inter alia BBC. At present only de: and nl: (and not fr:, notice) use the full name, and in the case of nl: I have just had to rewrite the first sentence since whoever changed it from SNCF to Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français some time ago forgot also to change the introduction (which continued to begin "SNCF" is an abbreviation for the "Société... etc.").


 * There is also the point that state railways (in these "liberalizing" days) are increasingly being privatized but keeping the old familiar initials as a corporate identity: this is the case, for example, with EVR in Estonia, MÁV in Hungary, and VR in Finland, all of which orginally stood for words including the term "state railway(s)" though they are now limited companies. -- Picapica 11:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK/Wikimania 2006
Hi, this is a circular to Wikipedians in Ireland to draw your attention to Wikimedia UK, where the establishment of a local Wikimedia chapter for the United Kingdom (and possibly for the Republic of Ireland) is being discussed. See the talk page, as well as the mailing list; a meetup will take place to discuss matters in London in September, for anyone who can get there. On another topic, plans are being drawn up for a UK bid for Wikimania 2006, which would be conveniently close to Ireland. On the other hand, Dublin's bid was one of the final three last year - might we bid again? --Kwekubo 04:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian Naming Conventions
Reverted you edit of Nidelva to River Nid, following the WikiProject Norway guidance. This guidance has an excellent basis. Attempts to Anglicize Norwegian names result in multiple variants and confusion. One of my favorites is Vågå, which is rendered in various English language texts as Vaagaa, Vaaga, Vaga, Waga and Waage. Probably better just to stick with Vågå. Williamborg 22:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You say that you "reverted" my edit of Nidelva to River Nid, W.: by this, I take it you mean that you changed "River Nid" back to "Nidelva" (it was the text that reverted, underwent reversion). The guidance you mention may have the excellent basis you claim for it: one thing it does not have, however, is any mention of Norwegian river names (read it and see). Guidance is, in any case, just that: guidance, and not law.


 * I do not see how the translation into English of Norwegian common nouns and definite articles amounts to attempted Anglicization. The name of the river is Nid. "Nidelvan" means "the River Nid". This is no different from, say, "el río Ebro" = "the River Ebro"; the name of the river is "Ebro", and no-one would dream of saying "the River el río Ebro". This is the English-language Wikipedia and "River Nid" (or, American English: "Nid River") are the well established English-language forms.


 * As for your various renderings of Vågå, the convention of employing the most commonly used English-language form clearly indicates Vågå. Aa for å is usually historical and/or telegraphese (cf. Zuerich for Zürich). A for å is usually ignorance of the aa alternative where the typesetter does not have the å character available. The last two look like borrowings from Polish/German. -- Picapica 14:43, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree that the Norwegian naming conventions are light in that area. I've drafted a few thoughts. Suggest we continue this discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norway and have copied this discussion there. Looking forward to learning in discusion with you and developing a better Wikipedia. Williamborg 14:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)