User talk:Alalch E.

This user has created a global account. Alalch E.'s main account is on Meta.

This user has changed the username of this account. It used to be Twsabin.

This user previously used another account: Alalch Emis.

This user has new page reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user contributes using Notepad++.

Welcome to my talk page!

I like to keep things compact, and don't have any great ideas for my user page yet, so my signature directs here.

I was a long-time reader and lurker (since 2003). I appreciate the Five pillars and the idea of open knowledge, and want to give something back; this is why I began editing in 2021. I'd like to receive your feedback on anything I've done. Expect a reply! :)

By the way:

• I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you start a new talk topic here, I will respond on this same page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there, using the ping template like this: {{ping|Alalch E.}}. If you want to initiate a conversation with me anywhere else, simply ping me there—no need to notify me here.
• If a discussion here is about a specific article, I may move the discussion to that article's talk page. Were one to disagree I would tell them to treat it as my removing comments on my talk page and my quoting them on the target page. The Moved discussion to/from templates are useful here.

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NPP Awards for 2023

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Nakba denial

On 12 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nakba denial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nakba denial is a form of historical negationism pertaining to the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nakba denial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nakba denial), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

New message!

Hello, Alalch E.. You have new messages at IAmChaos's talk page.
Message added 16:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi! Just letting you know about a message on my talk page from a BLAR you did recently. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 16:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Spaces

I don't understand the point behind this change. Do you believe that the spaces change the meaning, so that "one/two" and "one / two" are different things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Also MOS:SLASH —Alalch E. 18:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I don't think that's true in English.
2. MOS:SLASH doesn't say that it changes the meaning of the words. (It does say that you may (i.e., optionally) add spaces around a slash if the items being linked are multi-word noun phrases.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's true, "myalgic encephalomyelitis fatigue syndrome" is nonsense and "myalgic chronic fatigue syndrome" is nonsense, and "myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome" denotes those two nosnense alternatives. The intended meaning is myalgic encephalomyelitis a.k.a. chronic fatigue syndrome. The spaces are mandatory when the slash is used to connect syntagms at least one of which includes a space. —Alalch E. 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: Hello, pinging you to share any thoughts on this ("myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome" or "myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome"). /edit: perhaps better respond at the newly started more central thread: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Spaced slashes/ —Alalch E. 19:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction Alalch

Hey I saw you reviewed page Defiant Records I didn't realize I was using puffery, as I was quoting the news sources. I appreciate you for guiding me on my Wiki journey. Opnionatedone (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for using only the good sources such as Variety and Billboard, when creating this article, and not adding any low-quality references and superfluous links, which is so often the case when new articles of this sort are created. —Alalch E. 20:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate that! And yes I see that with a lot of new articles as well. without quality sources everything becomes spam. Stay well Alalch. Opnionatedone (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You too. —Alalch E. 20:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Also Alalch there was another page that I created, would you mind reviewing it to see if I did good? Steve Carless

Thanks again. Opnionatedone (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm reviewing it. I've made some remarks at Talk:Steve Carless, please respond there.—Alalch E. 09:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I also responded there at Talk:Steve Carless Opnionatedone (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

hello sir Alalch E.

You recently added the speedy deletion tag on my draft:Mafatlal industries , please sir looks on the issue as the promotion of any organization has not been done . the draft has been created on real references and facts. Whatif222 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I added the tag, and the administrator acted on the tag and deleted the page. The reasons for this are stated on your talk page. I do not have anything to add, and don't have any response to your assertion that the "the draft has been created on real references and facts". If you carefully read the message on your talk page, you will understand that the page which you had created had to be deleted, and if a similar page is created again, it will be deleted again. To create a page about this subject that does not get deleted, it must be done in accordance with the policies which are linked in the same message to you on your talk page. Sincerely —Alalch E. 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Bdóte

On 9 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bdóte, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bdóte, an area of sacred significance to the Dakota people, centered on the confluence of the Minnesota and Mississippi rivers, was also the site of their forced exile from Minnesota? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bdóte. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Bdóte), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

@Alalch E.: Respected, now the latest, it has been published on Macedonian portals a full critical look at Macedonian poets about Trajkovski's poetry, his life is also being talked about. Are you polite to insert it into the draft? Take the lead https://ekran.mk/kritichki-osvrti-za-poezijata-na-aleksandar-s-trajkovski/?fbclid=IwAR3XK03yAu4WEDzKcgSsRubfTk5TQhCPM1pKJlPqSV8ITVFQbGOHUn8b28g

https://novvavilon.medium.com/%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B5-%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%82-%D0%BA%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B0-%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%83-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0-%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE-%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BA%D1%83-%D1%85%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8-%D0%BE%D0%B4-%D0%B4-%D1%80-%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80-%D1%81-%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%98%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8-c7923bf4a052 Shviki (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Hello, sorry for the delayed reply. I have added my comment to the Draft:Aleksandar Saša Trajkovski in my capacity as a reviewer.—Alalch E. 16:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Categories for Swindon Victorian Turkish Baths

Thank you for adding the category 'Public baths in the United Kingdom' to this stub. It at least brings the subject of the page into a generalised context. I am a newbie at this, so please forgive any idiocies in my understanding of categories.The reasons for adding this quite totally inadequte page as a temporary measure is explained on its talk page. It's a really important Victorian Turkish bath historically and only shortage of time has prevented a fuller treatment so far.

Please can you help me to understand why such peripheral catageories as 'Buildings and structures in Swindon', '1868 establishments in England', and 'Victorian architecture in England' have been added when the (in my personal view) more specific categories 'Victorian Turkish baths' 'Hot-air baths' 'bathing' and 'Swindon' (in that order of importance) have not been added. Or do I just add them myself as an edit? I would wish, at the very least, to include 'Victorian Turkish baths' as the first category. It then fits in clearly with the 'Victorian Turkish bath' page which is currently under major revision (see its talk page again).

Also, although I originally suggested the title of the 'Victorian Turkish bath' page when it was split from Hammam a couple of years ago, work on its revision has convinced be that the title should be in the plural, again, as explained on its talk page. If there are no serious objections to this change, how should I set about it?

I'm sure these are all simply solved issues but I can't seem to find my way about the jungle of guidance pages. Any help would be very much appreciated.Ishpoloni (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for this new article on a topic that certainly seems valid. Don't worry about it being unfinished, because Wikipedia is a work in progress. The real or perceived categorization issues you mention are indeed simply solved, it's great that it's something you'd like to discuss, and perhaps we will solve them right here, by talking about them. But, while this matter is "cognitively" simple, dealing with it isn't fun, and this will take a bit of typing. You're absolutely right that categories have to be defining. When you say "peripheral categories" it seems as if you would say that "Buildings and structures in Swindon" is not a defining category. But it is defining. A building exists as a building of a certain type, in a certain place, and exists from a certain time.

"Public baths in the United Kingdom" answers what kind of a building it is, "Buildings and structures in Swindon" answers where it's at. Just "Swindon" doesn't say that it's something physically in Swindon. Lacks the preposition. Going only by "Swindon" it could be something only associated with Swindon, such as the history of Swindon. Please see how the Eiffel Tower is categorized as one of the Category:Buildings and structures in the 7th arrondissement of Paris for evidence of how this categorization is common.

"1868 establishments in England" doesn't quite answer when it was built, but it's the second best thing, it answers when the building began serving its purpose. If we see the article's subject also as an establishment as opposed to merely a physical object (which we must), the "1868 establishments in England" category is especially defining, as the year of establishment is certainly a defining characteristic of any establishment.

"Victorian architecture in England" answers at least during which historical era the building was built. See Smedley Hydro for a pre-existing example of a similar topic categorized in this way.

While writing this, I remembered that there are two buildings, the former and the current one, and that's something to keep thinking about.

To continue, Category:Victorian Turkish baths doesn't exist. We shouldn't add non-existent categories unless we intend to immediately create them. I agree that this would be a reasonable category, and if added it could maybe replace "Victorian architecture in England"; but it probably should not replace it because "Victorian Turkish baths" would cover not only baths that are literally Victorian but also thoose that are are Victorian-style and date from a later period, while the "Victorian architecture" category is probably only for the literally Victorian-era architectural objects. We don't have a Category:Hot-air baths either. We have Category:Sauna but no Category:Turkish bath; The Carlisle Turkish baths is categorized as a sauna among other things, as it supposedly also had a sauna in addition to a hammam (the article doesn't go into detail; I presume that "sauna" as used in that article is not a misnomer). If we create the hot-air baths category, we should quickly come up with more articles to fill it with, and figure out how that category would fit in the hierarchical categorization scheme.

Now... "bathing" would be a rather bad category here. Because it's too general. Per the Wikipedia guideline on categorization, an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible. Category:Public baths in the United Kingdom is that more specific category, it already incorporates the notion of bathing, through "public baths".

Hope that helps, and I'm looking forward to your reply. My preliminary conclusion is that the only change that is needed is creating the Victorian Turkish baths category (and filling it with all of the Victorian Turkish baths).

P.S. There's something very important that you should know. Categories, as a category, are of questionable utility, and you should not worry too much about them. There are editors who seriously question if we should even have them. The "rules" of Wikipedia categorization have their logic, but this logic is not immediately transparent, and an article is supposed to be immediately transparent to a reader. The law of triviality strongly applies to categories. My recommendation to you as a new editor would be to completely forget about this non-essential feature, and to concentrate on developing prose for the time being, as that is what really counts.

—Alalch E. 23:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello. At the moment I just want to say thank you for taking the time to write such a really helpful reply to my plea for assistance. And to say that of course Swindon, on its own, is quite wrong—a result, I think, of working too late at night. I really found what you had to say helpful (and interesting too, which does not always follow) and I'll reply more fully later when I've had time to consider what you write more carefully than I've had time to do till now.Ishpoloni (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been trying to gather my thoughts together before answering your kind posting. It seems to me there are two parts: a. how do I achieve the correct renaming (moving), revising, categorising the page, and discovering whether I can already upload images I've already uploaded onto Commons but on which no decision has been reached about my wish to categorise them as 'Victorian Turkish baths'; and b. rather more interesting perhaps is the seeming confusion between classifying a subject and categorising its uses, directly paralleling the 1970s discussions between professional school librarians (in the late lamented ILEA, where I worked till 1985) and the teachers who saw the way to help their students differently. If it is of interest to you, I can come back to this, but I will not feel offended if you feel this is not the place. So, to the current VTb situation.

As indicated on the VTb talk page I propose replacing the entire text with a new version, structured, and more comprehensive than the existing page, but which covers all the points made in the existing page and adds around 24 images. For reasons explained, also on the VTb talk page, I want to change the page title to the plural form so it clearly represents both the bath as a process and (in the plural) specific establishments. At present there appear to be only 29 links to the current page plus the disambiguation page, so it seems more sensible to change it before the revised version inspires many more links. Can I just do it according to the rules, or does someone have to do it for me after much more consultation? The whole of this first phase of the revision is written and waiting for me to upload it. If all goes well, and there are not too many corrections to be made, I will then write the additional sections to go between the history section and the concluding part about the bath today.

Finally, on just a few of your points made about categorisation, though I thoroughly agree with your last paragraph.

1. Peripheral was the wrong word for me to use. All I meant was that the subject of the page (as disambiguated and separated from the page on Hammam) was about the main subject of Victorian Turkish baths. All the others were subjects which might be found in a subordinate role within the article. For example, there is nothing on the page about public baths (as generally interpreted today as swimming pools), neither is there anything (other than a see reference) to Hammam, Sauna, Banya, or any other type of hot-air bath—or for that matter baths in any other media, eg, mud, milk, etc.

2. Of course Swindon on its own is wrong, and I can certainly agree that though the main subject of the page is the Swindon Turkish baths, when it is filled out a bit, it would be of interest to someone wanting info on 'Buildings and structures in Swindon' but if I wanted to know what was oldest established Turkish bath I would go to the VTb page, where there might be a link. '1868 establishments in England' was a complete surprise to me, and I can certainly see that it could be interesting, but there are problems. I know the established dates of more than 400 out of 900 Turkish baths; should each of them have a page on Wikipedia? The problem is always, surely, consistency of approach? And care is needed: the Swindon building was opened in 1891 (I think) but the Turkish baths only moved there in c.1904 (I'm away from my data!). I agree that VTb should not replace 'Victorian architecture in England'; they are quite different, though not mutually exclusive. Nowhere in the Carlisle Turkish baths was there a Hammam, though there was a sauna which complemented the Turkish baths.

Classification is a fascinating subject, though not as harsh as cataloguing where in national cataloguing committees I've seen (in the 70s) revered professional librarians almost coming to blows over whether a "corporate author" such as a company or a local council should be preceded by a / or a ;. All now dealt with by computers.

Sorry about the length of this reply; your own post was so thought-provoking. Ishpoloni (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. dear, I will give you all the necessary information you will ask me to successfully modify the draft for our poet . Take a new independent source that I used to make the Macedonian version of the poet (Биографија - Д-р Александар Саша Трајковски (archive.org), and I will give you another source for the critical look at his poetry from other writers, not From Elija and not by Sonja. Мкдвики (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)