Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:45, 29 January 2015

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Happy New Year Poeticbent!

Poeticbent,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

A good 2015 to you and yours!

I hope it is happy and productive. Regards from Irondome (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WKS Śląsk Wrocław sockpuppet

Hi, I found another sockpuppet (Special:Contributions/Teufelsgrund). I know him as User:Germania Breslau because of his edits in Simone Moro. I am not familiar with the mechanics of en.wiki, could you report this sockpuppet? I read that you too have had to deal with him. Thanks in advance. --Rotpunkt (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rotpunkt. Will do, Poeticbent talk 01:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacifications of villages in German-occupied Poland

References have two small errors.

The name is wrong, the article describes "town and villages".

Luftwaffe destroyed not only Wieluń in Sptember 1939 but also Sulejów and Frampol. The bombings weren't exactly pacifications.Xx234 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xx234. I'm looking into it right now. Poeticbent talk 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hans Krueger

On 19 January 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hans Krueger, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Hans Krueger was never tried for the massacre of Lviv professors on the grounds that he already received a life sentence? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hans Krueger. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Harrias 16:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

This wiki-kitten is here to say "Thank you for your continued efforts to make this project better". Like a kitten, Misplaced Pages may occasionally scratch and bite, or barf, but it is still worth it! Cheers,

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisting of TfD for Template:Infobox academic division

PoeticBent, Template:Infobox academic division has been re-nominated for deletion/merger, following a DRV filed by Andy Mabbett. You participated in the previous TfD discussion, and I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the newly re-opened/re-listed discussion at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Pacification actions in German-occupied Poland

I don't know how to quote Markiewicz in a short way. I can correct the wrong Kulesza reference in the Note a using a full reference to Markiewicz. I believe you understand the references apparatus.Xx234 (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC) IPN doesn't limit its own inquiries into atrocities committed against Polish nationals to the present-day borders of the country due to legal and logistical considerations, see Xx234 (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xx234. I read it. Here's where the real confusion comes into play. The title of our article does not indicate upfront who committed the pacification actions described thereafter only that they were committed in German-occupied Poland. The massacre in Koniuchy was not perpetrated by the Germans. The official list of villages in our article includes only the present-day voivodeships, I don't have a concrete proof why so, and can only read between the lines. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 07:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

IPN declares partial inquieries, I don't know how to collect all inquieries regarding pacifications. Some of them don't use the word.

The Polish article describes all pacifications under Germans, ie. the UPA ones.Xx234 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So perhaps we should consider mentioning all pacifications too in our own article (with all the needed clarifications of course), or, change the article title again in order to limit ourselves to what has already been written. What do you say, Xx234? Poeticbent talk 14:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• The only thing I don't know, Xx234, is how to avoid the needless repetition of the War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II, and keep the two articles equally viable. Pacifications should remain as a sub-article thus featuring original data. For example, in Polish Misplaced Pages the difference is made clearer at the level of the article title. The actual content is greatly expanded thereafter: one article is called Zbrodnie niemieckie w Polsce (1939-1945) with subsection Pacyfikacje wsi, and the other Pacyfikacje wsi polskich podczas okupacji niemieckiej — a major expansion of the above. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Extermination camp

Hi there,

Many thanks for your assorted contributions to this article. If I may polite suggest though, the structure of the article was better before. Different areas of the article were broken down into different sections for Nazi and Ustaše. Under the edits you've made that logic is lost.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.0.208.18 (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. But please keep in mind that this article is not about genocidal regimes of World War II but the Extermination camps as such. Dividing the article content in two, based on who run it, rather than how it was being run is not only confusing but also illogical. There were similarities between Nazi German and Ustaše camps whose purpose was mass murder and that's what interests us most. Both regimes formed together the Axis powers with parallel intentions. Let's focus on the extermination camp extended definition in here and not on the regional special interest categories so much, Poeticbent talk 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

citation clutter

"please do not edit-war, the formatting of all other citations is neat and tidy. Forced line-breaks stand out like a sore thumb and make it hard to follow copytext in editing window uninterrupted, also, when copy-pasting, please update old access from 2013"

No, they are not "neat and tidy" at all. The usual citation clutter that one finds in most articles, I find, makes them almost totally unreadable and uneditable. Just ask SlimVirgin. The idea that one can "follow copytext" in the usual cluttered-up form is absurd: it's almost impossible to tell where copy text ends and citations begin, or vice-versa. Moeover, because of the clutter, it is almost impossible to check citations properly; this is probably one of the reasons there are so many errors. My own guess is that writing them in an easily visually paresable form would reduce the errors by about half. Just a guess.

For this reason, on articles where I'm doing a substantial amount of work, I prefer, where possible, to use short-form citations, see WP:CITESHORT. This is quite easy to do for cites to books and academic journals (which usually also happen to be the best sources). For other sources, the best way to get rid of the clutter is to remove them all into list-defined references, see WP:LDR; LDR does have some disadvantages, but it's still vastly preferable to having the clutter in the article body.

The particular case you're complaining about is part of a clean-up exercise to fix a particular type of citation error; I don't have time to do a wholesale revamp of all the articles, but I probably do more careful checking of the cites than most people engaged in this sort of routine exercise. Because the usual cluttered horizontal form is so difficult to visually parse, I use a small script that turns the cite into a form that is easy to visually parse; this makes it much easier to spot mistakes and fix them.

Note that there is nothing wrong with the vertical form of citation; all the citation template documentation shows both forms. In fact my little script does try to reduce the amount of vertical scrolling by putting items that naturally belong together on the same line, for example "| last =" and "| first =" (it's still a work in progress); doing this also has the benefit of making it a little easier to check and visually parse.

So, yes, my change is not ideal; it would be better to convert it to short-form or use LDR, but that is not feasible in this sort of mass clean-up exercise. It is, however, vastly preferable to the usual unreadable clutter that infests most articles.

On the subject of the access date, two points: (1) access-date is not only the date when the url was accessed, but also when someone checked that the article text is supported by the source cited; that's the job of the article's main editors, so I never change it (if I tried to do so, I would probably wind up re-writing the whole paragraph, and looking for better sources) (from the citation template documentation: "Note that access-date is the date that the URL was checked to not only be working, but to support the assertion being cited (which the current version of the page may not do)"; and (2) book sources don't change anyway, see the documentation at template:Cite book: "access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book".

For these reasons, I have restored the easy-to-parse form, but moved it into list-defined refs to reduce the clutter. I hope you find that acceptable.

--NSH002 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge templates?

I saw your name in the list of opposers to a merge of {{infobox academic division}} and don't quite understand your argument, please explain. To my understanding, the organisation of a university has nothing to do with how we call an infobox internally (which a reader doesn't even see), as long as the facts are displayed well. - I engaged in the suggested merge of {{infobox hymn}} and {{infobox musical composition}}. The character (and category) of a hymn is in no way diminished if the same (!) information appears under a different internal template name (I suggested {{infobox composition}}). Compare a hymn in two version: hymn and composition. You see that "composition" even tells the reader "hymn", a fact he doesn't see in the former. - If two templates serve the same function to the reader (!), why would we want to maintain and update two? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Gerda Arendt, funny you noticed, because I no longer have any objections to that proposal from a month ago. However, spamming 19,369 transclusions while attempting to resolve mere 16 entries is what I don't like. Templates that make visually appealing infoboxes are all equally fine. As far as actual readers, there's no difference. Poeticbent talk 19:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)