Jump to content

User talk:ZH8000: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
river answer
Einemnet (talk | contribs)
Line 24: Line 24:


:Hi, Eric. Thanks for your commemts. Yes, I am aware of these linguistical aspects. During my changes I tried to make sure the context about rivers are given. I will never change a river's naming where ''River'' is part of its original language. – Nevertheless, as you probably know, even though in some European languages that despite for lakes is true, that their kind is part of their names, such as in "Genfer<u>see</u>", "<u>Lac</u> Léman", "<u>lago</u> di Ginvera", and so on, this, however, is not true for rivers: "Rohne"<s>fluss</s> (ge), "Le <s>fleuve du</s> Rhône" (fr), <s>il fiume di</s> "Rodano" (it) etc. In French, the article is even part of the name! I will always keep speaking about the ''River Thames'', the ''Colorado River'', ''Lake Tahoe'', and ''Lake Zurich'', but I very much prefer to speak about ''the Rhine'', or if necessary at all, ''the river Charante'', while always following the very same motivation: acknowledging their <u>original</u> meaning/usage. -- [[User:ZH8000|ZH8000]] ([[User talk:ZH8000#top|talk]]) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
:Hi, Eric. Thanks for your commemts. Yes, I am aware of these linguistical aspects. During my changes I tried to make sure the context about rivers are given. I will never change a river's naming where ''River'' is part of its original language. – Nevertheless, as you probably know, even though in some European languages that despite for lakes is true, that their kind is part of their names, such as in "Genfer<u>see</u>", "<u>Lac</u> Léman", "<u>lago</u> di Ginvera", and so on, this, however, is not true for rivers: "Rohne"<s>fluss</s> (ge), "Le <s>fleuve du</s> Rhône" (fr), <s>il fiume di</s> "Rodano" (it) etc. In French, the article is even part of the name! I will always keep speaking about the ''River Thames'', the ''Colorado River'', ''Lake Tahoe'', and ''Lake Zurich'', but I very much prefer to speak about ''the Rhine'', or if necessary at all, ''the river Charante'', while always following the very same motivation: acknowledging their <u>original</u> meaning/usage. -- [[User:ZH8000|ZH8000]] ([[User talk:ZH8000#top|talk]]) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

== Twin cities of [[Munich]] ==

You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munich&diff=prev&oldid=634596574 deleted] "Harare" in the "International relations" section with the comment "WP:VER is failing". Actually Harare is pictured on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munich&diff=prev&oldid=634596574#/media/File:M%C3%BCnchens_Partnerst%C3%A4dte.jpg official plaque] and it's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Munich&diff=prev&oldid=634596574#cite_note-39 well documented] in the article as a reference. So do you have a personal problem with Harare? --[[User:Einemnet|Einemnet]] ([[User talk:Einemnet|talk]]) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:33, 15 November 2015

Rhône

Hi, what makes you think that the description of a river is upstream? Normally, the description is from the source to the gulf [1]. I don't get it. Obvousisly you followed the description in the paragraph, but it is awkward to make a river description upstream. Anyway have a nice day. Tschüss --Gabriel HM (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. To describe a river upstream is somehow awkward, counter-intuitive (however, in earlier days, the sources of streams have been discovered exactely that way!).
But as far as I understand the original author, (s)he just wanted to describe a south-northern dividing line between the Alps and the French Plateau by the major line of the Rhône. The remaining part between Lyon and Geneva then became a kind of a collateral, (s)he then only could add writing upstream-wards, so to speak.
And I was just too lazy to rewrite the whole sentance. ;-) -- ZH8000 (talk)

Ya, it was the same for me, i don't really have the energy to rewrite the whole paragraph. Furthermore I didn't see that the contributor was making an upside down description, so I assumed that it was a mistake. Anyhow, the subject is closed. Merci--Gabriel HM (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rail usage

Hi ZH, Thanks for your contribution, it was not me that i added the stat for Chineese passenger-km, the data was registered by a chineese user with a chineese link so i could not verify it. However it seems to me that his source is more relevant than the stat given by UIC. Perhaps one should open an item in the talk of the Rail usage statistics by country page to make sure, however what i could find i english is the passenger traffic for 2013 it was 1,059.5 Billion passenger-km source here.

Anyway if you corect something and if you still find the UIC more relevant than the oficial Chineese stats' office at least please do it corectly you still left China in the top of the ranking ;)

P.S. i consider i wrote nothing of novelist i liked only to add a brief introduction about the historical evolution of rail traffic (freight & passengers) as a backbroung to that page, your subjective judgment found it novelist it was your point of view.

Rgrds Rami75013 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

River names

Hello- I saw your edits to river-related articles in France. I realize that many of the edits fixed links to point to the correct article name. But I wanted to let you know that in English, river names are often expressed including the word River (capitalized) as part of the name. It is neither incorrect nor bad style. For example, many anglophone readers will not necessarily know that the Charente is a river unless this has already been established in the context. You might read or hear Rhine or Rhine River interchangeably, the former more in situations where the context is already established. You will also sometimes encounter names with River first, as in River Thames. Eric talk 19:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eric. Thanks for your commemts. Yes, I am aware of these linguistical aspects. During my changes I tried to make sure the context about rivers are given. I will never change a river's naming where River is part of its original language. – Nevertheless, as you probably know, even though in some European languages that despite for lakes is true, that their kind is part of their names, such as in "Genfersee", "Lac Léman", "lago di Ginvera", and so on, this, however, is not true for rivers: "Rohne"fluss (ge), "Le fleuve du Rhône" (fr), il fiume di "Rodano" (it) etc. In French, the article is even part of the name! I will always keep speaking about the River Thames, the Colorado River, Lake Tahoe, and Lake Zurich, but I very much prefer to speak about the Rhine, or if necessary at all, the river Charante, while always following the very same motivation: acknowledging their original meaning/usage. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin cities of Munich

You deleted "Harare" in the "International relations" section with the comment "WP:VER is failing". Actually Harare is pictured on the official plaque and it's well documented in the article as a reference. So do you have a personal problem with Harare? --Einemnet (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]