User talk:Xed/Archive2

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Messages in the article namespace
You asked: So is it just a design issue? It's too big? - Xed 22:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My answer: At least for me -- yes. I think that CSB is an important goal for the Wikipedia, and I have been doing a little bit of that on my own outside of the CSB framework. On the other hand, if people aren't going to use the banner, it does no good. At least you've recently removed the line at the top and the extra white space, which is an improvement. Personally, I'd like to have the choice of a smaller banner that just mentioned the Collaboration of the Fortnight.

Because I am involved in the Japanese Collaboration of the Week, which currently doesn't have a banner, I've been looking at the other COTW banners (see User:GK/Collaborations. My personal opinion is that only the Collaboration of the week banner has gotten it right. For all the others, I think that the extra lines, the graphics, too much unnecessary information, the excess white space, and especially the extra-large font for the Gaming Collaboration banner all detract from their messages. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 08:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The discussion on Village pump policy was more about the smaller templates here, but you're probably right. In the CSB (big) banner's case most (or all) of the text at the top should go, and it could lose the gaudy colors. Also, the text below "CSB Collaboration of the fortnight" could be smaller. I like the logo though. I agree that the Collaboration of the week is the one to model it on. We are discussing reforming the CSB project at here. It needs to be simplified along the same lines as the othe CotWs. Feel free to help if you have time. - Xed 01:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * For the moment, I am trying to stick with just the Japanese COTW. There are more than enough articles there that needs work to take up most of the time that I give to the Wikipedia. Still, I am also doing my little bits to counter systemic bias outside of the CSB project by doing things like adding some of the more important Japanese poetry anthologies to the List of Poetry Anthologies. That does bring up a question. I see so many places that deserve to have the {Limitedgeographicscope} tag (for example personal name), but right now, it looks like that tag is not being used much. Any comments?


 * re:the CSB logo: It does nothing to tell what the project is about, so I don't think it does anything to help the CSB project. A better logo would be to choose one of the more realistic world map projections (e.g. Dymaxion map, Gall-Peters projection, Robinson projection, Goode's Homolosine or Winkel Tripel ) with all but North America and Europe in outline and question marks added within the outlines. Still, my vote would be for no logo at all. gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 10:18, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Economy of Europe
Hi, I noticed you'd earlier supported this new article's nomination for Collaboration of the Week. It has been re-nominated, having been worked on a little and has gained backers. Simply add your support here. Obviously such a big project needs as many users with relevant knowledge as possible, so hopefully this will promote it a little. Thanks, Grunners 00:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to say, please do not give up on the CSBT. It may take time, but I believe that the project will get off the ground. I would be happy to discuss ideas with you about how to make that happen. Danny 02:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I want to say from the start that while I share many of your concerns, I do not share your pessimism. Please give me some time to think of a more thorough answer for you. And please do not despair. I have some ideas I want to push. Danny 23:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:African writers
I'm working on fixing orphan categories, and African writers has us in a bit of a quandry. Really we have categorized writers by nationality and not by continent. Would you object (or better yet help?) in classifying the authors this way? see Category:Orphaned_categories for Nov 6th for some comments. Thanks --Sortior 22:12, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, and have updated the orphan category page. My suggestion is to parent the category to Category:African culture. Do you have a better suggestion? Thanks Sortior 23:17, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thing that make you go Umm
Hi, just wanted to point out Umm Kulthum. I asked someone to translate the French. Danny 14:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for telling me. I'll reply to your email soon. - Xed 15:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See also my new article, Quobna Ottobah Cugoano. Danny 15:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

LRA and Mai-Mai
Thanks. I'm hoping to fill in some Wikipedia gaps on African armed groups. BanyanTree 18:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Partition of India
You voted for Partition of India, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.

CSB reorganization
Yes, i had thought to break up developing world into geo, history, politics etc... If you have any objections i'm happy to listen. however, it strikes me that developing world is a massive topic that may be more easily organized this way. We could also include underrepresented areas of the developed world this way.

I had thought to merge everything into the sublists, but I haven't heard much feedback about it, hence my slowness to move that way.

Peregrine981 04:29, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.

Rulers/Monarchs
Hi,

Thanks for the comments.

The reason I chose Rulers as the title was because it has generic connotation, as opposed to Monarch which, although it means sole ruler, is usually applied to Kings/emperors etc. rather than chiefs/princes etc.

I felt that the use of generic terms in the titles would make it easier to determine what it was the listing was about rather than using a plethora of different styles or titles in the heading which would make it difficult to determine the actual status of a given incumbent and compare it with the status of an incumbent in another list. This is why I have gone down the route of dividing the lists into Heads of State, Heads of Government, Colonial Heads and Rulers.

In its widest sense monarch could be also applied to any head of state, but I chose to use the term Head of State for the heads of sovereign or autonomous modern states, reserving Rulers for defunct states or modern tribal states or polities. --JohnArmagh 23:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found your anti-Theresa McKnott disendorsement comments quite interesting, particularly your comparison to Florida and references to ghettoizing. Sometimes I forget that there are a handful of people such as yourself at this site. Keep up the good work and don't let the cabal win!!! Lirath Q. Pynnor

Hi again Xed,

There is certainly mileage in your argument - I can see its merits.

I do wonder, though, about the nature of the 'tribal' monarchy - I get the impression that kingship in these areas (which I have generically called states though I am not altogether happy with that word - and you consider, perhaps rightly, is superfluous anyway) is more akin to the 'overlordship' enjoyed by, for instance, the Anglo-Saxon kings in England rather than a monarchy as we understand it in the modern sense. Certainly the fact that they are not recognised as 'sovereign' (in that they exist within an internationally recognised country - even though historically that country only exists by virtue of the semi-arbitrary way in which the Europeans carved up Africa with little consideration to the pre-existing states) makes the ruler subordinate to the head of state - which may deny them of the term monarch.

Certainly once I had created the page I wondered whether the word Dahomey was more appropriate than Danhome in the heading - and I think you could be right - For Hogbonu I have used ".... Hogbonu (Porto Novo)" but I think that is clumsy - but I wanted to go down the route of making the title more 'searchable'. I clearly haven't come to a consensus myself.

I have used the phrase of the < > state of < > because it neatly divides the states into ethnic groups for listing purposes and possibly means that if you did a search for lists rulers of Fon (or whatever) states having the ethnic label would help.

What I change for one I will need to change for all similar circumstances for consistency - I have no objection to this - but after all the work I don't want someone who disagrees with you to come along and say they think it should be something different yet again - I might never get to finish off all the lists! --JohnArmagh 11:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congo Crisis traffic jam
Hi Xed,

You clearly know a lot more about it than I do, so I'll wander elsewhere for a while...before coming back to mess up your writing. ;) Also, do you want to be the one to move Congo Civil War?  It seems like a significant action given the history of the article and, as someone who is really new, I feel vaguely uneasy about doing it instead of one of the long-time contributors who developed it. Cheers, BanyanTree 17:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts about how the article(s) need to have a high degree of readibility, and also share a certain sense of dread about the move. However, I think giving First Congo War its own page will ultimately simplify the explanation of events from the Banyamulenge uprising in 1996 to the stalemate in 1999.  Right now, it feels both dense and lacking in depth, if you get my meaning.  (Though I may have spent way too much time on it and lost all perspective.)  The quality of the article will drop for a while as all the cutting and pasting makes for blocky transitions, but in the long run I figure it will come right.  I also realized that I should let the FAC page know (that was a pleasant, if complicating, suprise!), and I'm half hoping that somebody from there objects so I don't have to go through with the move, and the resulting work.  Regards, BanyanTree 22:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Congo history box looks great! Also, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding on "references". And here I thought those external link numbers were just eye sores. I do have a question though. The one time I tried to move an article to a page that already existed, I had to have the old page deleted in order to retain the edit history. That's not really an issue for First Congo War as I was planning on just a cut and paste, but do we have to delete the blank Second Congo War before moving Congo Civil War in order to keep the history? Let me know, and congrats once again on the box. Cheers, BanyanTree 20:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)