User talk:Rob984

Archive

This is Rob's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Rob. Alternatively, you can email Rob.

European maps

Hi Rob, I noticed you updated the map of the UK, the map of Germany and the map of Ireland. I was just wondering if you could also update the maps of other European countries as your versions are a lot more accurate. I also wanted to ask if you could add the South Sudan borders to the small icon of the world map on the top left corner of each of the maps of European countries. Thank you! --KronosLine (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi KronosLine. Sure. I also noticed I partly obscured Iceland by accident. I will update them all as soon as I can. Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much! :) --KronosLine (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for file clean up

Hi Rob, thank you for your great work on maps of Europe! I wanted to ask you to fix up two files as you seem to very good at it. I have stressed for these two files to be fixed for quite some time now, however no one took the time to actually fix them. The first file is Time zones of Europe.svg, it depicts the time zones of Europe. For some reason it cuts off half of European Russia and the entire Caucasus, can you please extend the file to show all of Europe. Can you also update Crimea as it switched to Moscow Time back in March. The second file is Greater Middle East.svg. There are a lot of problems with this file and no one ever fixed it. There are a lot of articles which use this file, including Wikipedia in other languages. It would be great if you helped! --KronosLine (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. As soon as I have time. Thanks, Rob (talk | contribs) 19:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw the changes you made to the map of Greater Middle East and it looks great, the only thing is can you fix Crimea on that map as it is over-exaggeratedly connected to Ukraine. Can you please do the same for the new map of Jordan that you made. Other than that I just want to say thank you for all your hard work! --KronosLine (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say no because I have priorities and orthographic projections are inevitably going to be updated with more accurate ones eventually. There are many maps that could do with having Syvash added for neutrality. Simply drawing a border wouldn't be NPOV. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding the Syvash is what I meant. Many people mistaken Crimea to be entirely connected to Ukraine as if the Syvash didn't exist which is not the case. --KronosLine (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree but I don't have the time and it will inevitably be done. The widespread location map scheme project is currently creating high quality orthographic projection for countries. I derive my maps from these if they are available. See United Kingdom (orthographic projection).svg, for example. I assume they will do all countries eventually. Rob (talk | contribs) 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

London edit war

We need to settle this because this is just annoying. We need a vote or something to see which picture should be used. Wackslas - Holler at me (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wackslas, the current collage has consensus. If you would like to suggest changes, then please contribute to the ongoing discussion. Rob (talk | contribs) 19:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Coloured maps

I notice you have been replacing some multi-coloured maps, where different areas are different colours. by maps where all the areas are the same colour. (E.g. this and this). Why do you think this is an improvement? -- Dr Greg  talk  23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Consistency (most locator maps use that colour scheme). I don't see how having them multicoloured really helps either. Rob (talk | contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, the map you put in Regions of England is designed as a "location map" (not "locator map") over which pushpins can be displayed. The "locator maps" are derived from the location map by colouring one of the regions red. But the map in that article is functioning neither as a locator map nor as a location map, so I don't see the need to use that style. It seems to me that multi-coloured maps can be digested more quickly than uncoloured maps (especially for more complicated maps than this one). There are lots of multi-coloured maps around on Wikipedia, e.g. in France#Metropolitan regions, fr:France#Découpage territorial et décentralisation, Germany (infobox), de:Deutschland (infobox), to choose a few high-profile articles. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Area maps (multiple areas) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions#Historical maps (which, despite the name, can apply to modern maps). -- Dr Greg  talk  20:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a locator map, sorry. I should stop going on Wikipedia at 5am...

There's a lot of non-multicoloured maps used too (obviously). See Regions of France for example.

I don't think having this map multicoloured helps. The regions are clear without being different colours. On more complicated maps, I agree it helps with clarity.

You can revert my edits if you disagree.

Regards,Rob (talk | contribs) 22:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, it doesn't cause any problems being multicoloured, so I don't have much problem with that. Rob (talk | contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)#

Thanks. I've decided to "split the difference"; I've reverted the template but not the infobox (which means, for a bit of variety, we get to see both versions within Regions of England). -- Dr Greg  talk  21:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re:United Kingdom article

When I changed the infobox parameters relating to languages I hadn't realised Brendandh had attempted the same edit a few days prior, and had been reverted with good reason. Just want to let you know that I wasn't being deliberately confrontational, I hadn't checked the page history! - Hazhk ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Royal Standard of Scotland

Hi Rob. Re. you comment on the talk page of the above article, I agree it should be changed to reflect the terminology at the Royal website. If I could remember my log-on I'd do it myself. Sadly.... No Objection from me if you wish to proceed with the change. Regards. Endrick S. 86.131.90.237 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC) PS. Can you include a re-direct from the current article name to the new. Cheers.

86.131.90.237, I don't know what the most common name is for the banner but I have modified the page to show the official term. Rob (talk | contribs) 05:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Android Phone

Sorry but in playing with a new phone, think I may have messed with one of our edits unintentionally. I hope I fixed it but feel free to revert me if I didn't. ----

Maps

Hi, I noticed you are a good expert in updating maps. I wanted to ask you to please fix the map of Serbia, the map of Kosovo and the map of Europe whenever you have the time. --Leftcry (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, can you also fix commons:File:Europe polar stereographic Caucasus Urals boundary.svg. Please don't feel overwhelmed by all these requests, you can fix them whenever you have the time. --Leftcry (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Andorra

Hi Rob, thank you for the edits you made to my requested maps! I was just wondering why the circle for Andorra is missing from the small map on the top left? --Leftcry (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry Do you mean Kosovo? If so, because it's pointless. The small map illustrates what the map is showing in relation to the rest of the world. Rob (talk | contribs) 15:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I mean Andorra. It is a very small state and requires a small circle just like Vatican City, San Marino and Luxembourg, but it's missing. All other small states have a circle to represent it but Andorra doesn't. --Leftcry (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The small map on the top left is also missing Nagorno-Karabakh. --Leftcry (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry I'm confused. It does have a small circle :S Rob (talk | contribs) 14:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? I'm talking about the small map of the world located on the top left of all the European countries maps you have made. When you zoom in on that map you will notice that Andorra, a small state located between the borders of Spain and France, is missing a representation circle, Nagorno-Karabakh is also missing from that map. Another thing I wanted to say about that map is that I don't think Montenegro needs a circle to represent it as it is actually larger than Kosovo and Kosovo does not have a circle to represent it. --Leftcry (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I also have an urgent request. The main map of the European Union has been replaced on the article so if you could fix the accuracy as soon as possible that would be great! commons:File:Europe EU laea location map.svg --Leftcry (talk) 03:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Leftcry I uploaded a new map and added it to the article with labels. I could probably modify the existing one but I would have to keep the alignment and crop identical. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And I see what you mean. I will add the circle for Andorra on future maps. Kosovo probably doesn't have a circle because it's treated as a disputed territory rather then a state. Rob (talk | contribs) 11:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay thank you for everything! :) --Leftcry (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

EU growth GIF

This will probably be my biggest request to you so far, I wanted to ask you to fix the GIF of the enlargement of the European Union. This is a very major file and it is used on over 100 articles all over Wikipedia. I would like this to be fixed as fast as possible, however I understand that this is a big file and will probably take a long time to fix so take your time. --Leftcry (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That would involve creating new historical maps of Europe. I don't know how to do that. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Baltic States

Please fix: commons:File:Baltic states.svg, commons:File:EU-Latvia.svg, commons:File:EU-Estonia.svg, commons:File:EU-Lithuania.svg --Latvianhero (talk) 02:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why you're creating sockpuppets... I will do all European states eventually. But unless there's an issue relevant to the state being located, I will probably wait until the next EU accession. I will do non-EU states soon. Rob (talk | contribs) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine maps

Can you update this map File:Europe-Ukraine (with Crimea).svg and make another map where Ukraine is shown without Crimea. They will work as alternative maps (just like there are maps of Russia with and without Crimea). --Leftcry (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I've looked over your changes, again & am now in agreement with them. My apologies for reverting them, yesterday. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom disambiguation re: United Kingdom of Great Britain/England

Refer you to recent edit of Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin, with my correction of erroneous reference to United Kingdom of Great Britain. If mistakes of this kind are being made elsewhere on Wikipedia, the disambiguation pages should be where they are clarified and not muddied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.224.239 (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Coats of arms as national identifiers

FYI Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Coats of arms as national identifiers -- PBS (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

European Russia map

Please fix commons:File:Europe-Russia.svg, the template is off and Crimea should be a disputed territory. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

BrE infobox

Why are you trying to sneak the infobox back in? One look at the history of the article and there's obviously no consensus for having it there. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not. Maybe you should ask the editor who added it to the article? Rob984 (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Pardon, I thought it was you. 31.153.94.183 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Countries of the United Kingdom

Rob, I've reverted you again on that page.

In general, if the title of the article doesn't appear naturally in the lead, we don't bold anything. So, in this case, if the exact phrase "countries of the United Kingdom" doesn't appear than don't bold "countries" or "of" or "the United Kingdom" just to have something in bold.

The relevent example is the The Beatles in the United States example at MOS:BOLDTITLE. --Tóraí (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Tóraí 'Countries' is an alternative name for 'countries of the United Kingdom'. See U.S. state and Regions of France. Rob984 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough given that Country (United Kingdom) redirects here. But I wouldn't object if someone else reverted you again. --Tóraí (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion might interest you

Rob, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Maps on major city infoboxes looks like a discussion that might interest you - but maybe you've spotted it already. NebY (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't. Thank you. Rob984 (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking below, I guess that's the last time you'll take a tip from me! NebY (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

XD I'm not having a great week... Rob984 (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Your maps

I have an couple issues with your uploaded maps - they are incorrectly licensed. They (mostly?) are not your "own work", and need to attribute their source correctly - whether that's another map on Commons or the external sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do. All of them are sourced from commons so there's no legal issues. Rob984 (talk) 14:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

All of them sourced from Commons means all available to use under a free license. That is not the same thing as saying they available to use under any free license, ignoring any attribution requirements. Ignoring attribution requirements is technically in violation of license, regardless of source. It can have downstream consequences for further reuse, as the correct attribution can be lost entirely in a few steps of false 'own work'.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Rob984 (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I notice you still don't appear to have dealt with this yet. May I suggest this is quite urgent. Until you do this, I believe your uploads are technically illegal, i.e. not just against Wikipedia rules, but in violation of copyright law, if my understanding is correct. As User:Nilfanion pointed out, other users could innocently copy your maps without being aware of the correct attribution. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dr Greg Can I mark redundant files for deletion per lack of attribution or something? Rob984 (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

12 October 2014

you are on 3RR by GhostlyLegend, but somehow, he didnt! Murry1975 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Rob984 (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

NI anthem

Please can you discuss changes with me before making them. The info box has a list of what the offical things are within UK. For example, why is the national anthem of the UK irrelevant in 'Northern Ireland' page but not the Prime Minister of the UK. David cameron is not the PM of Northern Ireland but of the UK which the NI is in, therefore the same applies to things such as the anthem, both apply to the UK as a whole. I agree with the argument you made about what could be consider the predominate anthem in NI, however what there is no dispute about is the international recognized anthem of the UK. No one disagrees that NI is in UK, furthermore that 'God save the Queen' is the UK national Anthem. Do you not think that it is appropriate to keep the anthem included? Cbowsie (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

SPAG

It looks like there used to be an article on SPAG, but it was removed as a copyright violation. I was thinking about kicking one off, as there is a reasonable amount of coverage, albeit media. I think it's a fairly short article, as there's not a lot to say about them.

Any thoughts?

GhostlyLegend (talk) 09:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've raised the article at Submarine Parachute Assistance Group, so if you want to weigh in on it then that would be helpful.

GhostlyLegend (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Military of England

I do not think that anything should be moved from the English Army article into Military of England. For a start the English Army is not just the Reformation army it also encompass the New Model Army (and in many ways the precursor of the professional British Army).

I think that the Military of Scotland is a similar article in concept, but the difference is that the Royal Navy has history of the Royal Navy before the act of union (which was the history of the English Navy), and a similar history of the British Army is in the English Army article which with the name change became the British Army.

I think that the only choice to be made is if the Military of the English Military should remain a short stubby/summary article (rather as it is now) or if it should be turned into a dab page. If you want to change its in any significant way I suggest that we continue the discussion at Talk:Military of England, and invite others to the discussion. -- PBS (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@PBS I think it can be expanded with summaries of various military encounters involving the English state, but looking at English Army again, most of the content is within the scope of that article. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Irkutsk Oblast

Rob, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but with Irkutsk Oblast, the applicable portion of WP:NC:CITY#Russia is "when the name of the locality is unique, but conflicts with the name of a different concept..." The "locality" here is an inhabited locality (a populated place); not any other type of division. Please let me know if you have further questions, or comment at Talk:Administrative divisions of Irkutsk Oblast. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 14:30 (UTC)

@Ëzhiki WP:NC:CITY#Russia states: "This naming convention covers all types of inhabited localities in Russia: cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and all kinds of rural localities, as well as administrative divisions"? Rob984 (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure how you are defining "locality in a different country". "inhabited localities in Russia" refers to Russian "cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and all kinds of rural localities, as well as administrative divisions". But "locality in a different country" does not refer to administrative divisions? Rob984 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Rob, the "administrative division" portion is there to clarify that when two different administrative divisions (of the same type) share the same name, the methods of disambiguation are the same as when different inhabited localities share the same name. This is why, for example, city disambiguators are used for all entries on the Promyshlenny City District page. But when two different concepts share the same name (as is the case with Chunsky), that's where the last bullet kicks in. Having an article titled "Chunsky, Chunsky District, Irkutsk Oblast" means, in WP:NC:CITY#Russia's parlance, that there is at least one other locality in Irkutsk Oblast (in a district other than Chunsky), which is not true at all. The "urban-type settlement" disambiguator here pairs up with the "District" disambiguator of "Chunsky District" (which is not parenthesized as "Chunsky (district)" because Wikipedia does not typically parenthesize the administrative divisions' types but includes them as a part of the main title instead; a convention Russian divisions follow). Consider also that if there were, say, a company by this name in existence, we'd link to it as "Chunsky (company)"—that would also be an established disambiguation practice and one that the "(urban-type settlement)" convention follows. Makes sense?

With different countries, it's the same principle. We pair up localities in Russia with localities in other countries, and administrative divisions in Russia with the administrative divisions of the same name in other countries. If there is a district called "XXX District" in Russia and a district of the same name in, say, Ukraine, then the Russian district would be at "XXX District, Russia" and the Ukrainian one would be whatever title the Ukraine-specific naming conventions are calling for (I sure hope it would be "XXX District, Ukraine").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 15:37 (UTC)

P.S. I do see how the current wording of the guideline can be confusing. But since it was me who added the "administrative divisions" bit last year (with the intent to clarify that the titles of the articles about the administrative divisions follow the same principles), I've just copyedited it a bit in hopes it makes the intent and guidance more clear. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 15:56 (UTC)

Oh, I probably should have figured that anyway. Thanks for explaining. Apologies, Rob984 (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Thanks to you, we found and fixed something that needed to be clarified! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2014; 17:14 (UTC)

Republic of Ireland

Hi Rob. Thank you for your message about edits and your interest. I am happy to accept your last edit on the disambiguation note. Is clarifying the difference between the Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland unimportant? I don't know. Unlike your last edit at least it now says what the article is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlwynJPie (talk • contribs) 21:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello AlwynJPie. I doubt a significant number of readers find the link helpful. Readers may have ended up at Republic of Ireland from piped "Ireland" links, or searching "Irish state". I think they are significantly more likely to be looking for Ireland or Irish Free State than a short lived revolutionary state. I haven't seen any evidence the revolutionary state was referred to as the "Republic of Ireland". In fact, I think "Irish Republic" should be redirected to Republic of Ireland and the article moved to Irish Republic (1919–1922) per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. Rob984 (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

My talk page

Rob984,

I responded on my talk page to notes you left there.

Thank you for your words.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No bother :) Regards, Rob984 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Royal Navy

Thanks for editing the part on the second carrier.Phd8511 (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Aviation - Style guide - Table entries

Hi Rob. Just to clarify on country of origin, all RAF Typhoons are built at BAE Systems Warton, RAF Tornados were also manufactured in Britain. That's how WikiProject Aviation defines the country of origin, regardless of it being an multinational project.

Also under role we tend to only mention its primary or most notable role rather than list its many secondary functions. So we might want to trim that down a bit as well. As an example with F-35: Fighter & attack aircraft → Multirole fighter. For Typhoon it would be Multirole fighter too, as its reconnaissance capabilities are neither its primary or notable role. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, And I agree Multirole fighter is more appropriate. Rob984 (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Royal Army

I didn't understand the explanation for your edit. Mesoso2 (talk) 09:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rob984&action=edit&section=30

@Mesoso2 "term" should not redirect to "term (disambiguation)". So you need to request Royal Army (disambiguation) be moved to Royal Army at Talk:Royal Army (disambiguation). However, you need to demonstrate "Royal Army" has other uses. As far as I know, the Royal Army of Oman is the only entry referred to in English as "Royal Army". I think Royal Army (disambiguation) should be deleted considering the other entries are only referred to as "Royal Army" in other languages. Rob984 (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely the existence of a disambiguation page demonstrates other uses, and someone would have to offer some evidence that Royal Army normally refers to the Royal Army of Oman. The redirect of "Royal Army" to Oman's, when the disambiguation page shows many other possibilities, is not discussed on its talk page. Mesoso2 (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's two sources for the Royal Army of Oman:

• The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars, by Spencer C. Tucker
• Guide to Oman, by Peter J. Ochs

Editors assume partial title match = alternative use. It doesn't. It has to be demonstrated that the entry is referred to by that term in English.

Rob984 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain

Hi Rob. You changed 2 of my recent edits. Here is my reason for editing in case you misunderstood: Great Britain is the more accepted term just for the island as the term Britain is often used to mean the whole of the United Kingdom not just the island. The political meaning of Great Britain is extended to include all the offshore islands that come under England, Scotland and Wales not just the mainland (e.g. the Shetland Islands and the Hebrides) i.e. all of the UK except Northern Island. AlwynJPie (talk) 06:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@AlwynJPie Politically, you're absolutely correct. But conventionally, "Britain" refers to either. When talking about the history of Great Britain especially, eg "Roman Britain". Rob984 (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your examples Rob984. That won't go down well with some of our Irish cousins who regard themselves as being born in Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Britain can mean a number of different things and therefore should not be described in the lead as another name for Great Britain. AlwynJPie (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Rockall

Why did you remove Category:Territorial disputes of Denmark from Rockall? They still claim it and the UK claims it, or have I missed something? ClemMacGána (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)