Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:10, 8 August 2008

——————————————— TALK PAGE ———————————————

This is AlasdairGreen27's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 20 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Non-free use question

I have a question and I thought you might be able to help me. I've just uploaded a screenshot of Google Maps. I was wondering if I could upload af higher resolution screenshot, and if yes, at what resolution? Thanks Guy0307 (talk) :)

Re

Like I said to Rjecina, "beyond reasonable doubt". The sources are being listed and vouched for by relatively serious editors, and I did a little research of my own. It would appear that the majority Jasenovac victims did not die by poison gas, but are mostly as victims of a cutthroat knife. The Ustaše are generally famous for being literally "cutthroats" (koljači) themselves, as they preferred to conserve ammunition. It is quite possible that they ordered a quantity of specially designed knives for this purpose. There really are a large number of references to this knife, myth or no, and it deserves an article. You know I rarely change my mind ;) but I think I'm going to distance myself from this article for the time being. --DIREKTOR 00:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Zadar and User:Ragusino

Take a look please. I've put a little note on Direktor's talk page. Zenanarh (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair, no problem - thanks for letting me know. I hope the dispute works out. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alasdair. Zenanarh (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure :-). Hopefully this'll stop the silliness. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Negev Bedouins

I didn't know who to ask this, so I'd be really happy if you could help me (seeing you have some experience dealing with POV). The article has an anti Israeli POV. While it has references, they clearly come from unreliable sources. Unrecognized villages also has the same problem. I added the template {{prod}}, however two editors (including the main one contributiong to the articles) removed it. I'm thinking about taking it to medcab. Thanks! Guy0307 (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mate, not sure I want to get involved in Israel-Palestine stuff. I'll have a look though. Best, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand you. I took it over to WP:Medcab but there are a lot of cases waiting for a mediator, I dought there will be one soon. Any ideas? Guy0307 (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Two Ronnies 1987 Christmas Special

Hi, I created this page as I felt it has some historical relevance as it was the last (complete) show that Mr. Corbett and Mr. Barker ever produced together. It is also fondly remembered by fans of the show as being one of their best Christmas shows. As a lot of other TV episodes have their own Misplaced Pages page, I felt that this episode should at least have its own entry.

Thanks. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of wether this convinces you or not, I still feel that for such an historical episode, it does indeed require its own page. As for your point about the 1984 Christmas Special, I agree that it was right for that one to be deleted. --Bravo Plantation (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

One more thing

Excellent, Alasdair. One more thing has to be done.
I'll copy the explanation from Talk:Italianization to Talk:Fascist Italianization, to explain your redirect and to avoid any further edit-redirect wars with any newcomer that never reads history of edits before doing anything in sensible topics, as well as avoiding any misunderstanding from the side of previously uninvolved admins. The admins that worked on the case of troll that created that contentfork, are currently away.
Greetings, Kubura (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Another small step forward. It was an obvious content fork and I can't see anyone having any grounds to object. See you around :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nice work. I didn't even notice the Spalato thing right under my nose... :P --DIREKTOR 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer

Hey, is Brunodam banned for sockpuppeteering or not? If so, shouldn't we make that clear on his userpage? --DIREKTOR 14:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not. He got blocked for a week a couple of months back for socking User_talk:Brunodam#Sockpuppetry_case. He certainly risks being blocked again for a while with the latest three being busted, but I haven't seen any proposal to do so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, are you saying that with the verdict in about three sockpuppets of his there has to be another special report to get him reprimanded? --DIREKTOR 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Non English place names

Hi there, I read what you put on my talk page, and I see your point, but I'd also like to explain my reasoning. In some cases, I do agree that mentioning a non-English name in the beginning is a good solution to the problem you mentioned. However, I still do not understand why the majority places in Dalmatia and Istria and the islands must have Italian names when there is little reason for it. I speak of places like Biskupija, the Kornati archipelago and so on. I am also puzzled at why every single island must have the Italian name for it, especially since this has been initiated by an anonymous IP whose motives have raised my suspicions. Best. --Jesuislafete (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see your reasoning, and I agree with it, but I think that the wider issue is more important in that we need a standardised system of rules and policy so that for example an article about Rijeka does not have to say Rijeka/Fiume every time. There has been so much of that shit it is unbelieveable. Wiki has many Italian nationalists that want to give equal status to Italian names so that all the articles are kind of dual named. This would obviously be ridiculous; the best way to avoid it is to say "Italian name once, only once, at the start, then the modern English name throughout". A part of this is that we have to be consistent and not remove Italian names from articles, as this would be POV. We need to be firm, fair and consistent. If there is an Italian (or other language) name, mention it once, just once, at the beginning, then we're done with it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand, especially since the edit wars are getting out of hand. however, I feel it is important not to cater to ridiculous 'demands' (for want of a better word). I can see why they may want to put Italian on the islands, but I fail to see the reasoning behind Biskupija, Sinj and other places in Zagora. --Jesuislafete (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN

- which specific guideline of the conventions page you mention in the edit summary for the addition of "relevant" foreign-language equivalents do your reverts refer to? Would e.g. modern Italian (≠ Venetian!) Cittavecchia di Lesina be:

• archaic name
• relevant foreign language names used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place
• relevant historic name for a specific historical context ?

So would it be valid for me to add in the lead section of Belgrade article it's name in Ottoman Turkish in Arabic script proper? ^_^ I don't think that edit would last much..

What do you think about the idea of making a template that would route these, by modern usage totally irrelevant, alternative-language names to Wiktionary translation tables, which have no number-of-languages or obscure-script limitations, with the appropriate message "see names in other languages blah-blah.." ? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer is that if there are other names in other languages they should be mentioned but just once, and with caution, as the policy says, so no need to worry about archaic names. You make good points, and I like your suggestion about templates, but I think (and have a look at my reply to Jesuislafete above) simply that we need to put a stop to the perennial edit warring over names. That means we should apply WP:NCGN and mention non-English names once, only once, in the intro, whether they be Italian, German, Albanian, Venetian, whatever. Then we are done with it. The problem we face is fanatics that want to say e.g. Zadar/Zara all the way through every article so that there is equal status to the Italian name. Overcoming this problem is the central aim. If we could apply the kind of template that you suggest that'd be great, but it'd need to be a Wiki-wide solution. I think standardisation is the answer so that all articles are the same. Right now, our best chance of that is to apply WP:NCGN consistently. If that means mentioning archaic Venetian names just once I don't have a problem with it. Perhaps the ultimate solution may be a Dalmatia-Istria version of Names of European cities in different languages. I know there are already toponym lists of Italian names, but they were POV created. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

if there are other names in other languages they should be mentioned but just once - Err, where exactly does the policy page says that? Every Croatian island has a name in thousands of world's languages, but I highly doubt that the fact that it just does is enough for it to merit inclusion in the leading section, regardless of the historical significance. Why would English reader care about the name of Stari Grad in Italian, Mandarin or Inuktut? ^_^ Those 0.001% interested can actually click the interwiki link to other Wikipedias..

Massive lists such as French exonyms are IMHO totally non-encyclopaedic and ought to be transwikied to Wiktionary and merged to Wiktionary translation tables. There they could be looked up much more easily, and the problem of big lists would vanish (since each translation appears in its own article).

I've already seen that some articles of topics of multilingual importance (like Old Church Slavonic) have the section which lists names in languages in which the term has some relevance, or have in the leading section message "see names in othe languages" which links to the bottom of the article. I was thinking, why not just route all those to Wiktionary translation tables?

I understand the concerns for Italian irredentists, but think that loosely defined criteria that you mention (foreign-language name named can be mentioned just because there is one), and that I myself still cannot make out inside the WP:NCGN, are just beneficial to them and legitimize their edits that are motivated by pure pro-Italian POV. For they don't care about Venetian or Dalmatian language names of the Istrian & Dalmatian exonyms, they're just concerned with modern Italian ones, which themselves have very, very little historical justification (brief period fascist occupation of Dalmatia is but a blink of an eye in 3 millenia long history of Stari Grad). All those disputable and edit-warring-prone alternative language names should be a priori treated as acts of vandalisms, especially if added by IP addresses, unless the contributor provides reasonable argumentation that justify historical significance of modern Italian name (or that in any other language), unless that justification is obvious, as it is certainly not an "alternative name" neither in English, nor in Croatian. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ivan. My comment on User talk:DIREKTOR is of the same kind.

One example Šolta (Italian: Solta)?! Historically, Solta is not Italian! Maybe it is Italian in the present moment, but it's irrelevant for the article. What should be written in that lead is: Greek: Olynthia or Nesos Olyntha, Greek "y" was pronounced "u" so with Latinization of Dalmatia there was Latin: Soluta, Old Croatian: Sulent or Sulet, when Venatians came to Dalmatia they found Latin graphic "Soluta", since Latin "u" was written "v" it became both Venetian and Croatian: Solta and finally with standardization (diacritics!) of Croatian in 19th century Croatian: Šolta. This island was a part of Italy just from 1940-43. This is how the lead sections must be edited in my opinion. Relevant names attached to the geo. places by its rulers and settlers, not any name in any language.

I don't think that we must be hostages of Italian irredentism in an encyclopedia! Zenanarh (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Alasdair, lets not push this. The fact is that Šolta (for example) was known internationally as "Solta" for a very long period, and the Italian names are still used sometimes even in modern context. Whether we like it or not, Italian names have been used quite widely for a long period of time and deserve at least to be mentioned in the lead. The lead brackets shouldn't bother you guys so much. --DIREKTOR 11:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You agree with Alasdair on what point exactly? His misinterpretation of WP:NCGN that totally irrelevant foreign-language names should be mentioned in the lead, even though there's absolutely no justification (either historical, or of > 10% usage in relevant English literature) to do so? Please.. Don't trivialize this matter as if it's "just the lead section", because there's much more to it than that; casual English-speaking reader might even be deluded that the mentioning of an "alternative name" in Italian has something to do with the supposed overwhelmingly present Italian population in the area which is nowadays Croatia, bilinguality of the population or some general cultural significance of modern Italian language upon it - all of which there is none. We are not discussing here some cenuries-old historical Venetian or Dalmatian names, loosely written in incosistent orthographies, but the modern Italian ones, addedd by Italian irredentists hidden behind IP addresses, even on exonyms upon which there is historically virtually none Venetian/Italian influence exerted. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I support the addition of Italian names in the lead of articles on cities or regions who's Italian (not Venetian) name was widely used as early back as 50 years ago, and is still used sometimes (though admittedly rarely) in a modern context. Your description of them as "totally irrelevant" is thus not so correct. Also, removing even the lead names may be interpreted, because of this fact, as POV-pushing on our part, and might lead to future edit-wars. Lets not be uncompromising in this, what a "casual English reader" might draw from that one name is speculation, and frankly I find your assumption as something of a long-shot. --DIREKTOR 13:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

DIREKTOR you've misunderstood what I've written. I'm not against Italian names in the lead if it's relevant. In this particular case (Šolta) I've shown how it should look like and it's completely encyclopedic. So it appears that you support:

Šolta (Italian: Solta)

instead of

Šolta (Greek: Olynthia, Nesos Olyntha; Latin: Soluta; Old Slavic: Sulent, Sulet; Venetian/Croatian: Solta)

What is more encyclopedic? Keep in mind that modern standardized Italian language developed from Tuscan dialect, not Venetian. Since a large part of Dalmatia was in Republic of Venice in period 15th - 18th century, Venetian toponyms from Dalmatia were transfered to Italian. Also Venetian pronounciation often influenced the native one. It's clearly shown in this case. Venetian "S" was softly pronounced which resulted with "Š" (Sh) in Croatian instead of clean "S". Šolta (for example) was known internationally as "Solta" for a very long period - yes it's true, but it's not Italian name. It's both Venetian and Croatian, but definitely of Venetian origin, not "Italian". Solta (without diacritics) is ten times more Croatian than Italian. In the local church documents from 17th cent. in Croatian it was Solta (diacritics didn't exist). We should think about accuracy and quality, not about irredentist funny claims. If the lead section is accurately edited noone will have problems. Take a look at Zadar's lead section. I've edited it a half year ago, noone ever tried to change it, neither an anon fellow tried to do it recently. That is what I've thought of as relevant. It's historically accurate and it shows origins of every particular "other name". Zenanarh (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, lets get one thing clear, the so-called "Venetian language" is a dialect of Italian, not something else (no matter what the Venetian nationalists may say). But this is besides the point, why? Because the Italian names are derived directly from the Venetian names, i.e. they are identical or extremely similar.
Now to the misunderstanding: I am not saying that we should add (only) the Italian names because they were official 200 years ago, I am saying we should add (only) the Italian names because they were widely used internationally and are still used in rare cases even in a modern context (though not for the interior, for towns like Sinj). The other names are ancient and irrelevant for an article about a modern city/town, so they shouldn't be included. --DIREKTOR 14:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case you should remove everything except Spalato in Split (Greek: Ασπάλαθος, Aspálathos; Latin: Spalatum; Italian: Spalato). Get it? In my thinking you should do something else: a little research of Spalato. Is it Italian or Venetian? If it's Venetian then Venetian: Spalato, just because its origin of the name. Why? Well, Zadar in Tuscan was Giarra, not Zara. Zara was Venetian. Simple as that, nothing specially. I don't think it's some problem. Zenanarh (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Hehe, I edited Split before you posted the above ;) Once again, what I meant is that Italian names = Venetian names in modern, 20th century, use. We are talking about modern use, not ancient or medieval names. As for the Latin and Ancient Greek names, I've often heard from uninvolved users that they do not understand why they're there. Have a look at London (Londinium) or Paris (Lutetia). --DIREKTOR 15:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Think about it, Zen: if we standardize the use of these names we will finally get rid of all this nonsense. We will have a moderate "template" that we can collectively apply and protect against vandals when necessary. --DIREKTOR 15:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, I'm completely confused about the lead sections. In London there are no "other names" it's true. Not even Welsh: Llundein! And Wales is a part of UK!? So Llundein is not "other name", although in usage by some citizens of UK? How come Split has Italian name as the "other name" then? Per Wiki policy you can't say it's modern English. And you know very well it's not used in Croatia. It was historical name of Split in some period same as Ancient Greek or Latin ones. In that case we must discuss what "other name" means in WP:NCGN? Don't misunderstand me please, my motivation is same as yours: to standardize the use of these names so we will finally get rid of all this nonsense. Nothing more and nothing less. Zenanarh (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Copy/pasted from WP:NCGN:

1. The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}.
   • Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1).
   • Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.
   • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several ])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)". Zenanarh (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this policy, it appears that:

1) Split's lead (Greek: Ασπάλαθος, Aspálathos; Latin: Spalatum; Italian: Spalato) is correctly edited, with a lack of "Old Croatian: Spljet". Historical names are mentioned in "Antiquity" history section, but not in separate "Name" section. According to recommendation it should be done here, because there are at least three alternate names, then all names in the lead should be deleted.

2) Zadar' lead (Liburnian: Iadera?, Ancient Greek: Ίδασσα (Idassa), Ιαδειρα (Iàdeira), Latin: Iader, Dalmatian: Jadra, Jadera, Italian: Zara) is uncorrect, since there is well edited "Name" section. All names should be deleted from its lead.

3) Šolta's lead is uncorrect since Solta is not Italian historical name - it's Venetian origin or Croatian historical usage rather than any later Italian, also Solta is not name used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place as long as it's noted as Italian since that island was never inhabitted by the Italians, except Italian soldiers 1940-43. It seems that Šolta case is identical to a lot of those edited recently by an anon. Zenanarh (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, so let's decide to either go with the Split format (in parentheses in the lead sentence) or the (to be corrected) Zadar format (a separate 'names' subsection, but no names in the lead sentence). Decide which one of those two methods we are going to use and then change every article to that way of dealing with it. I'm happy with either one. Basically, I think it's up to us to choose, as NCGN gives us these options. We just need to be consistent, then it's job done as far as I'm concerned. Thoughts? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Obviously we can use both methods, depending on how many different names can be mentioned. There is no use of "Name" if nothing can be written there. So it appears that Split deserves "Name", while Zadar doesn't need a huge "lead". I really think that historical names are quality for the places so rich with history and with so many changes. In Šolta case there is also a space for the "Name", but then all article (very poor now) should be expanded, it would be funny if "Name" is larger than the rest of the article. It can be done simultaneously. Too many such articles are too poor. Before it's done there could be "lead" method used. The only real problem that I can find here is Venetian=Italian overlap. But we can resolve it this way: if historical name was Venetian for the place not inhabitted by Italians later, then Venetian - or Venetian/Croatian - Solta in Šolta - this case is additionally specific since Venetian and the native were identical in the same period; if historical name was Venetian for the place inhabitted by Italians later then Italian - Traù in Trogir (IP's will change it to Italian for surely and it does have some sense). Zenanarh (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and now we're back to the issue of whether or not articles like Hvar or Šolta need to have Italian names in the "lead". I'd say that we need to find out somehow whether "10% of sources in the English language" use Italian names in a contemporary context. --DIREKTOR 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to count, if a number of the Google hits is 10,000 or similar. Let's leave it to the zealots to prove >10%. Honestly I really doubt that there is >10% in a contemporary context. Why there would be so much of it? Probably it's possible in cases where places already have 2 names because of the bipolarized population. But it's not a case here, in Dalmatia. Zenanarh (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's where the problem surfaces. If we leave it to the "zealots", then we will (or may) have constant problems with the articles, and with Users, IP or otherwise, trying to add the name. I propose we assume that the coastal towns, villages and islands are mentioned by at least 10% of the sources with the Italian name (modern names in Italian, are identical to those in the Venetian dialect, medieval names are sometimes not, but that's irrelevant). That way we can ensure that the standardization will be acceptable to both sides, otherwise we risk future edit-wars because of this "loophole" in the strict policy. Its only a small concession really... --DIREKTOR 20:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I propose we assume that the coastal towns, villages and islands are mentioned by at least 10% of the sources with the Italian name - that would be a very dangerous assumption basically giving open hands to irredentists (just as Alaisdair's interpretation of NCGN that all FL names should be listed just because they exist), with which I don't think most Croats here would agree on. For once, I'd be happy to take a look at the "proof" that > 10% modern English sources use Italian Cittavecchia di Lesina instead of Stari grad. Google gives only 1 relevent usage hit for it, as opposed to thousands for Stari Grad. As I said earlier in my "uncompromising" post - irredentist should first prove (e.g. on the basis of some trivial google books/scholar/site search) that the Italian term is present in > 10% modern English sources, otherwise their additions should be assumed to be vandalism and undone. Maybe writing some local policy page dealing specific with Dalmatian exonymics, that would be voted on and take precedence over more general WP:NCGN? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that would give the "irredentists", as we like to call them, open hands. There is only one possible "loophole" in the policy, and we would effectively seal it by the proposal: there could be no more serious debate and conflict on policy concerning geographical names in Dalmatia. Even though I would not mind the more rigorous approach you're suggesting, my experience in the Dalmatia edit-wars makes me think that we need to try and be more compromising if the standardization we're aiming to achieve is to be as permanent as we can make it. --DIREKTOR 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

DIR don't be naive. Your proposal results with Dalmatia as the only place in the world with foreign names added to the native as the "other" ones. Why? Just because of a few vandals? No way. It's not correct according to this policy and it's not reflected in reality at all. It's a "highway to trouble", Croat (Dalmatian) users will be 10 times more offended than any vandal involved. For the vandals it's just a game, for the Croats and Dalmatians it is pride and true. How could you explain to an inhabitant of Brela that Italian name is there just because we assumed there's >10% of that name in English sources in a contemporary context and we transformed that assumption in a kind of policy? And Italians or Venetians never stepped in Brela, a little village of 15 houses! A vandal who edited those names a few days ago, doesn't even know where Brela is and what is it. He just took a dictionary or some lexicon and edit, edit, edit.... We should stick strictly to policy whatever it means, without any assumptions, it's the only way to be on the right side. There will be always some problems, because there will be always some vandals. But vandals should dance on our rhythm, not opposite. We just have to find the best way how to use policy and that's all. When we find the best pattern we should edit it that way. Any change will be vandalism as long as it's not proved that we did something wrong. It's the easiest and the most correct way. Anything else is chaos and trouble. Chaos and trouble is what we already have here, that's why we have this discussion. Zenanarh (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with the "don't be naive" stuff please Zen. Let's remember we're all trying to achieve the same thing here, just trying to find the best way of doing it. So what if we look at a couple of useful examples. Žilina in Slovakia is called Žilina throughout the article even though it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for over 900 years. The editors of that article mention the main foreign names once at the start in line with NCGN and then forget all about the issue. Covasna County in Transylvania does the same, even though it is ethnically overwhelmingly Hungarian and, if anyone applied the arguments that certain "friends" of ours like to use regarding Dalmatia etc, the Hungarian name for Covasna should be used at least when describing the place in a historical context. There are lots of similar examples if we have a look around. About Croatia, I've got no problem with how Rijeka is now. It's clear and consistent. (Poreč, on the other hand, sucks).
I think you are right about the problem with having a separate 'names' section in short articles. Perhaps, therefore, the solution is to:

• have the most important non-English names (maximum three of them) mentioned once in the lead;
• any 'names' subsections such as the one that I added to Zadar should be deleted;
• looking towards a permanent end to this names nonsense, we could merge together List of German exonyms for places in Croatia, List of Italian place names in Dalmatia and List of Italian place names in Istria into a single unified article with exactly the same style as Names of European cities in different languages: A (we could use that article as a template) and call the new merged article Names of places in Croatia in different languages. So we'd end up with each article starting something like Zadar (other name 1, other name 2, see also other names) and the end result would look like the first sentence of Seville. What do you think? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, I wrote "don't be naive" to my wiki friend, not to my enemy ;) Zenanarh (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zen, please do not be naive, User:DIREKTOR is not our friend, he is a well-known fanatic. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, don't be naive, I'm fanatic too and you are nothing better than me. Zenanarh (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We should open a Fanatics' Bar where we can drink beer on warm afternoons like today :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And chips and chicks included. Zenanarh (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, now seriously. I think your proposal is acceptable. The question is only how to deal with historical names if there is no Name section. In small articles we can write Name sections and place it in the talk pages until articles get expanded, in the meantime just a sentence in the article with all those names included but without explanation.

Example Šolta: I can write a "Name" in the Talk:Šolta, with an explanation that it goes to the article when it gets expanded. In the meantime I can write only one sentence in the article which includes all those names like:

Šolta was first recorded as Olynthia or Nesos Olyntha in Ancient Greek language, later it was Latin: Soluta, Old Slavic: Sulent or Sulet and both Venetian and Croatian: Solta.

What do you think guys? Zenanarh (talk) 14:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCGN Pt. 2

Thanks, I actually had it in mind but I keep forgetting! Unfortunately, I've only used common sense so far. Alas, the Balkans is a nasty, nasty place when it comes to inserting "Their" name for "Our" place(s). 3rdAlcove (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your friend erased...

Your buddy is hiding the evidence: so I'm continuing here. This was my answer for you:

First: for your WP:NCGN have a look here and here, and here: this is wonderful, and your "It matters not one iota whether a place is, as you claim, bilingual or not" is only your traditional, nationalistic, extreme POV point of view. Second: regarding the Istrian names, you can learn something here:. The Istrian-Dalmatian articles in the en-Wiki are all in your hands: I'm surprised as you have transformed everything in a indistinguishable molasses of dull nationalism. I'm sure that I know Istria much better than you, my dear friends: a wonderful place, and I think that Istria absolutely doesn't come back to Italy. Kind regards to you, read more and please correct the most stupid mistakes of the various articles: under Italian irredentism - wich you dominated - is written that Italy after the First World War had the island of Korcula: you are so committed to diligently remove all Italian names, and leave enormity like these!--151.48.4.77 (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovenians in Croatia

Here's an interesting article about Slovenians in Croatia, as well as of persons of Slovenian origin in Croatia . Kubura (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing and mud throwing

See this message , sent by user Jr.. Using the expression of "La Banda Sloveno-croata" (Croat-Slovenian gang). Etiquetting.
Of course, you were mentioned too ("kid sloveno" AlasdairGreen27... ed inventarsi ogni possibile falsitá su utenze fantasma contro di noi.", translation: "inventing every possible falsification about ghost user against us").
The author of this message says that his blog is some Brunodam's blog (this might suggest that the author is Brunodam, but someone could pretend and write this kind of message in order to damage his reputation; however, this should draw our attention). Kubura (talk) 08:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Poreč

It's true that in western Istria, tables are bilingual. But officially Poreč is Poreč. No Parenzo. An Italian minority's suggestion about bilingual official names for a few of the towns was rejected in 2003 . Zenanarh (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Alas, I was wrong. This document rejects jurisdiction of Croatian constitution for officializing of the bilingual names for a few towns in Istria. Responsibility is on the local statute. I've missed that part. And the Statute of Istrian county did it in 2006, document given by IP in Talk:Poreč. I didn't read it well, my fault. Now many beers go to you. Zenanarh (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bale (grb).gif

Thank you for uploading Image:Bale (grb).gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no image copyright tag explaining the copyright status of the image. If you add one, you're welcome to remove the notice. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, no, but I apologise- I should have noticed that you had explained it. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea, I can't read the permission page you linked to. What license is it under? Public domain? Creative Commons? GFDL? J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not enough- images must be either public domain or free. If there is only permission for Misplaced Pages to use the media, then others are not able to use it, which is our aim- creating an encyclopedia that others can freely use for whatever purpose they wish. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the copyright page is quite clear that content can not be used for commercial purposes, which means that it is not 'free' by Misplaced Pages's definition. I will delete it now. Sorry about that- if I can be of any help in the future, feel free to contact me. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Filipović

Hi, Alasdair. Could you have a look at the discussion on Talk:Miroslav Filipović. I'd appreciate your input. --DIREKTOR 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

afd of Political society

Hi. As a contributor to the first afd of this article you might be interested in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) andy (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Generalmesse Return

Have a look at Bendiksen63, ITALONY and IP 24.20.169.90... Pretty obvious who it is... especially as the two registered users use Paolo Caccia Dominioni de Sillavengo book Alamein 1933-1962: An Italian Story as source, which by "chance" was a favourite source for Generalmesse. ITALONY and the IP are also pretty obviously the same person: ITALONY edit and the IP addition. BTW: the source he uses is a British Egyptian Philately and Edmund Hall the writer of the source material an collector of Egyptian stamps! not a historian qualified in any way to judge the WWII events of North Africa... My question is: what do we do??? --noclador (talk) 10:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have known...

Hi Alasdair. Our pal PIO is stirring up trouble again, this time in the Pula article. I believe he is now pushing to rename the article into Pola/Pula or something like that. Have a look. --DIREKTOR 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

PIO

Alasdair, could you give me a link to where PIO admits he's the annoying IP? If I remember correctly it was on your talkpage... I'll report the annoying POV-pusher and see if I can't get him blocked or at least the pages semi-protected from his nonsense. --DIREKTOR 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What? Of course he is. Its plain obvious. He keeps saying he's "not PIO" but says nothing about "Luigi". Its him, and he even said so. --DIREKTOR 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's Bruno :-)

I was wondering all the time if you were right from the beginning that Romaioi is Bruno is Generlamesse is Capitanocorelli is... well, what is a typical comment of Romaioi? it's long, it is full of wrong accusations and it's twisting a lot of facts... so what are typical Bruno comments: a classic Bruno comment... And what is typical about Romaiois comments... right - he revisits them and changes them multiple times; just like - guess who! :-) --noclador (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's IP is 100% definitely Bruno. So, these attacks on you by Bruno seem to possibly, perhaps tie Bruno to Generalmesse or Romaioi, but I'm not sure. Strange though, I agree... :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it's him. As I understood from reading some Bruno discussions he had a habit of registering socks wherever he went... so I believe that he registered the various socks on a business trip to Australia (which would also explain, why Romaiois favourite time to edit is 4pm to 3am Perth time - or 7am to 6pm Broomfield time) also: if Bruno is so incensed with me today, but I never before had anything to do with him... so, where does this anger come from? also: Romaioi is the name with which the Roman settlers in the Balcans described themselves after the partition of the Roman empire... so... who is so much interested in these people?? The more I think about it the surer I am: Romaioi = another sock of Bruno. --noclador (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)