Jump to content

User talk:Bermicourt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 79.44.235.28 (talk) at 07:51, 27 May 2019 (→‎German to English). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skat

I appreciate all you're doing for articles on Skat, Doppelkopf, etc. But there's one of your recent edits that I disagree with. To Skat (card game) you added "Players must agree at the outset how many rounds/deals they will play for." In my experience of playing Skat in England, Germany, and Denmark, this is never true. In a tournament, the players don't agree how many rounds to play for, the tournament organiser tells them. And in an informal setting, a pub or a player's home, they don't agree in advance, they just play until the pub shuts or someone want to go home or got to bed etc. and then (usually) arrange to stop after playing a whole number of rounds. I don't think I've ever know someone say "let's play six rounds of Skat". Maproom (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom: I think sourced it from a skat rule site on the internet. How about if the "must" was changed to a "may" which leaves it open? Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would at least be true, so I wouldn't object to it. Maproom (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally – I see you wrote, signed and saved your reply above, and then edited it to add a ping to me. If you do it like that, the person doesn't get pinged; the ping must be present when you save the signed version for the ping to work. No harm done, I just thought I'd warn you of this rather surprising way ping works. Maproom (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maproom: Ooops! Thanks for the tip. Bermicourt (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Edition of Talon_(cards)

Why did you revert my edit in the Talon (cards) page? I simply changed the "French: ferse" information, which is meaningless as ferse is a german word and it came from the german version of the page. The correct information is obviously "French: heel" as 'talon' is the french word for 'heel'. It can also be used in a french card game with the same meaning as in english. I don't understand why you're discarding this improvement. Simpleplankton (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simpleplankton:. Simple misunderstanding. I assumed the German original was quoting a French word ferse, following English wiki practice (English name (French: French name)). Clearly they meant (French for "heel"). I'll change it to make it clear. Bermicourt (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to improve project

I have been referred to your advice as to improvement of the Mountains of the Alps project - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mountains_of_the_Alps - I would like to upgrade and improve the quality tagging - and also the basic items required to make it a more assessable project - would you be able to help or point direction where to go to get help? JarrahTree 11:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at project talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Just a friendly reminder.

Please do not change Czech Republic to Czechia as you did on Zwiesel. This goes against WP:COMMONNAME. For more, see the numerous discussions on Talk:Czech Republic. Thank you! R9tgokunks ⯃ 03:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, no it doesn't. WP:COMMONNAME is about article titles. Even the main article Czech Republic says the short name is Czechia; it is the official short name of the country and recognised by the UN, UK and USA in recent times. Bermicourt (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Illustrated Tarock

On 10 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Illustrated Tarock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Austrian tarot card game of Illustrated Tarock was thought to be extinct until 2009, when callers from Vienna to an ORF radio programme confirmed they still played it? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Illustrated Tarock. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Illustrated Tarock), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Königrufen

On 30 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Königrufen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sigmund Freud regularly played the popular Austrian tarot card game, Königrufen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Königrufen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Königrufen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kent School

1. Hi! I request your support in moving the Kent School article back to its original name until a discussion can be completed on the issue. The appropriate place for the discussion once the article is moved back to it's original name is on the Talk:Kent School, Connecticut. That is the appropriate way to handle disputed moves such as this one. That’s the right way to handle this situation.

2. IMHO, the Kent School in Germany seems non-notable as a standalone article. This school appears to have had about a 23 year history under the name Kent School, and then was combined with another school to become Windsor School, Germany. It would seem more appropriate to merge the history of this school with Windsor School.

Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw your comment on my Talkpage - thanks for getting back to me. As per item 2 above, this school does not seem notable as an independent article. As a head's up, I think the best approach is to get community consensus by using an AfD, so the community can comment. I will be watching this Talkpage for further comments. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Here's the AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent School, Hostert. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An over-the-top response with no attempt to research the facts, caused by irritation that another article had to be dabbed! Bermicourt (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My experience is discussion always provides different points of view and results in better articles. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's my experience of 10 years as an editor on Wikipedia. So why go straight to an AfD instead of discussing it on the relevant talk page? Bermicourt (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish comment

"I know of no other Wikipedia topic where one source (in this case Fishbase) is considered as the sole arbiter of whether something exists or not, and the only source of article names." I'm glad you made that point, I see a lot of prevarication and tripping over policy to do just that on several projects. The stated aim is 'standardise' articles in the scope of those sub-projects, leading to one situation I am aware of where wikipedia and a nomenclator's list were referencing each other. I work around this in articles on organisms by discussing the names in the content, and take heart when someone else flags what is obvious to editors outside of sub-projects. Cheers, — cygnis insignis 03:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of a scanned document

I noticed your name on Wikipedia:Translators available#German-to-English and was hoping you might translate the text on the image to the right for me please. I know a little German, but the (not especially neat) cursive script is difficult for me to decipher. Would you be willing to translate it for me? Please color code each section as you translate it. Thank you!! SharkD  ☎  01:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bermicourt. You have new messages at Bermicourt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:De728631 has added a translation to the image page. Could you look it over to see if you concur, please? Thanks! ➧datumizer  ☎  16:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the instructions at the top of this Talk page are confusing since "Talk" is almost never used by itself as a noun. What do you want me to do? SharkD  ☎  01:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The translation by De728631 is pretty close. The only change I would make is to prefer "Now I don't have to stroll over the surface." to "Now I [can] not take a walk on the surface." but the difference is marginal. Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! ➧datumizer  ☎  19:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Commander of the Austro-Hungarian Armed Forces

You're welcome. Do you think we should move the article back? Damvile (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is now back to its original title bar the "s" after "Commander", having been moved 4 times by the editor in question, so I'm happy it's close enough as long as the text matches. However, by the looks of things we need to revert a lot of arbitrary name changes on other Austro-Hungarian articles. Frankly it's a mess. If it carries on, we'll have to involve an admin, as it's probably classed as disruptive editing. Bermicourt (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has done quite some damage above and beyond bad page moves. Some of it is obvious (e.g. hostile content and template forks) but some of it is subtle (e.g. factual errors that editors unread in Austrian law would not easily notice). I've started trying to repair things earlier today but it's going to take me a while.
Would you mind doing a few of the Austro-Hungarian rename revert proposals? I'd do them myself, except you are more familiar with the proper English terminology than I am – me being Austrian, my history books tend to be in German; making sure I have the correct translation in each case would be a lot of work. I'd hate to screw this up and become part of the problem. I also don't want to be the only person on the entire site filing merge, delete, and rename requests against his disimprovements. Damvile (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Translation for the German Wikipedia - Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra

Hello Bermicourt: Perhaps when you have time you might translate or create a new article from the English Wikipedia for the German Wikipedia - Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra. The orchestra was created by the celebrated German/American composer Samuel Adler (composer) in 1952 in Stutgartt, Germany. It performed throughout Germany and Europe after World War II in an attempt to improve cultural understanding between the peoples of Germany and America and to foster peace. It also helped to improve diplomatic relations between Germany and America after the war for over a decade. The Orchestra gave concerts in Europe from 1952 until 1962 in an attempt to foster and create peaceful cultural exchanges through cultural diplomacy initiatives. I hope that you find it to be interesting and can arrange for a translation into German for the German Wikipedia, or possibly create a new article based upon the English version. Many thanks for your kind consideration and interest along with my best wishes. Respectfully, 72.69.152.90 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)JJ[reply]


Hallo Bermicourt: Vielleicht kannst du, wenn du Zeit hast, einen neuen Artikel aus der englischen Wikipedia erstellen - Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra. Das Orchester wurde 1952 vom deutsch-amerikanischen Komponisten Samuel Adler (composer) in Stuttgart gegründet. Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg trat es in ganz Deutschland und Europa auf, um das kulturelle Verständnis zwischen den Menschen in Deutschland und Amerika zu verbessern. Es trug auch dazu bei, die diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Amerika nach dem Krieg zu verbessern. Das Orchester gab von 1952 bis 1962 Konzerte in Europa (Sehen cultural diplomacy). Ich finde es interessant, kann eine Übersetzung ins Deutsche arrangieren oder einen neuen Artikel auf der Basis der englischen Version erstellen. Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit und Ihr Interesse. Respektvoll, 72.69.152.90 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)JJ[reply]

DYK for Grasobern

On 29 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Grasobern, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the game of Grasobern (card deck pictured) is easy to play, without the mental or psychological demands of other Bavarian card games like Schafkopf and Watten? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Grasobern. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Grasobern), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Quodlibet (card game)

On 3 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Quodlibet (card game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Quodlibet is a card game played by student fraternities with William Tell cards, where the dealer is known as the "beer king"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Quodlibet (card game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Quodlibet (card game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Großtarock

Regarding Großtarock, the source you use as reference is cited as Dummett's The Game of Tarot, but I think you are using his 12 Tarot Games as the pages don't match. I am assuming Dummett used the 1820 German rules as his example of Großtarock which is the youngest form of that game in Germany before it went extinct locally. The 1820 rules are atypical, it is the only Großtarock rule set that is clockwise as opposed to being anti-clockwise and contains a lot more declarations. It is also an evolutionary dead end, the Dutch and Danish games are descended from earlier Großtarock rules. I propose using rules from 1783 which are simpler and are ancestral to a living tradition.

In Tarot card games (which I will have to rewrite one day), you included "Großtarock, Viennese style (modern): 54 cards, 3 players, Austria/Vienna" in a list of tarock games and linked it to the Großtarock page. This game is unrelated to Großtarock, the 1950s Viennese players who created it were unaware of the long extinct game. This game is one of the dozens of variations of Tapp Tarock.--Countakeshi (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Countakeshi. I've cited both as you'll see from the Lit section. The first ref is to The Game of Tarot; the rest are to Twelve Tarot Games. Unfortunately the publication dates are the same, so it is perhaps confusing. I'll rework them to sort that out. I've also delinked Viennese Grosstarock at Tarot card games.
In Twelve Tarot Games, Dummett does not mention any date for the rules, but notes that Grosstarock originated in Germany in about 1760. He says he is describing the game "as formerly played in Germany... as part of a continuous tradition" and that the name Grosstarock is used "for that form of three-handed game which originated in Germany and spread to the Netherlands and Scandinavia". Because it "was especially subject to variations in the rules... the account given... is an eclectic one designed to present the game in as interesting and playable form as possible, without listing variants".
It would be a shame to lose Dummett's playable version of Grosstarock, but perhaps we should make some of the above clearer in the text and then, for historical completeness, add a section or sections on the rule variants you mention. Dummett also covers the Danish Tarok rules which could be a separate article down the line. Bermicourt (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the forms of Großtarock he describes in GoT and A History of Games... have playable rules so there won't be any loss. From your article, it's clear that Dummett used the 1820 rules for 12TG which has the most deviation from the norm. Großtarock died out in Germany during the 1820s but there were several variations of the game coexisting. The 1820 rules are likely the least commonly played variant of the game; it's basically a small, withered branch.--Countakeshi (talk) 07:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we know how commonly played the variants of Grosstarock are today (except possibly the Danish one which I mentioned), so I'd be disappointed if Dummett's 'rare' variant were replaced by another uncommon variant unless we can find reliable sources that clearly show there is one significantly more popular than the others. But let's take another look at this once the DYK process is completed. Bermicourt (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit complicated to describe briefly the situation but I'll try. Most of this research was done by Ulf Martin a few years ago and published in The Playing-Card. Rule books containing the older rules vastly outnumbered the ones containing the newer rules. Apparently, the editor of a popular series of game books (which contained the older rules) was cheated by the printer who continued printing the books without him (or paying royalties to him). He sued and started his own series of rival books in 1820 which contained the newer set of Grosstarock rules. These rules have been around since at least 1800 but he ignored them until then. He probably avoided using the older rules as the lawsuit was ongoing at the time of publication. The main difference between the rules is that the newer ones have more declarations and a different rotation.--Countakeshi (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, that's helpful. You have access to sources I don't, and hopefully vice-versa. I know it's not about true tarock games, but I recently obtained a copy of Vom Alten zum Zwanzger, the Bavarian card games book, issued by the Bavarian Traditional Costume Society! Not easy, as you needed to understand German and then follow a rather tortuous two-stage payment mechanism! Back to Grosstarock - from what Dummett says, he hasn't followed one set of rules, but drawn on several in order to produce, in his view, the most interesting game for readers, and I think it's entirely legit to capture that. But equally I agree there's no reason why other 'leading' variants shouldn't be covered too, but of course I don't have the source material for those, apart from Danish Tarok which I feel should be kept separate. A possible solution might be to have one article with all the declarations, but note clearly to which variant each applies. I'm thinking of doing that with Quodlibet, where there are at least 3 versions of the 12 contracts, most of which overlap, but several that don't. Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Großtarock

On 12 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Großtarock, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Großtarock, a card game played with a 78-card Tarot pack that originated in Germany and spread to the Netherlands and Scandinavia, has survived only in the Danish variant known as Tarok? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Großtarock. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Großtarock), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brief German translation

Hello. I've been working in the article The King of Fighters '99 and found a German source I can't translate in Google because it is a PDF. If possible, could you translate it? It's this but page 89. Just a brief summary is enough. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patience

Hiya. Regarding the capitalization of card game names, a lot of the ones you mentioned are named after people, in which case upper-case is obviously correct. With regards to the rest, though, MOSCAPS does not favour unnecessary capping, which would include things like "ace" and "king". Primergrey (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Wallachen

On 17 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wallachen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wallachen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Wallachen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Randkluft vs Rimaye (reversion)

I understand you want more background for the inclusion of rimaye as an alternative name for randkluft.

Here are the entries for rimaye in a few solid dictionaries:

Note that the Oxford Living Dictionary gives 3 distinct definitions for the words bergschrund, randkluft and rimaye:

  • bergschrund: a crevasse at the junction of a glacier or snowfield with a steep upper slope.
  • randkluft: a crevasse between the head of a glacier and a surrounding rock wall.
  • rimaye: a crevasse or series of crevasses found near the head of a mountain glacier.

These are the most specific definitions I have been able to find, giving English an edge (in vocabulary richness) over both French and German, as it would mean that bergschrunds and randklufts are specific instances of rimayes. However, other references are vaguer.

The fact that both the French and the German words are present in English is not surprising: the British pretty much invented the concept of alpinism, and they picked the local words from Alpine populations (mainly French in France and Swiss Valais or German in Swiss Oberland or Wallis or Austria). You find the same phenomenon with rappel and abseiling.

In practice, I have always heard rimaye being used as the top crevasse between the rock and the ice by my English climbing colleagues, i.e. as a synonym for randkluft. Note that currently, I have made rimaye redirect to randkluft. This was to avoid creating a new entry pointing both at bergschrund and randkluft and reflect the usage I'm aware of. Whether a new entry for rimaye is needed is up for debate, but in any case, given the references above, I think it would be best to revert your reversion.

JR Bouvier (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. I've reverted my edit, but it would still be good to add the references above at both articles to underpin them. Bermicourt (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jaromar (bishop)

Hello, it was a long time ago but I'm wondering if you can help. The above article is tagged as unreferenced - by 'Literature' did you just mean 'Books on the subject / Further reading' or did you mean that those were the sources you used to write the article? Thanks for any help you can offer, Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Boleyn:. It was translated from German Wikipedia where they tend to put their sources in "Literature" rather than using lots of inline citations. One of the sources is linked to Wikisource and contains some of the information used in the article. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Solo 66

On 27 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Solo 66, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Solo 66 is a German trick-taking card game for five players in which a soloist always plays against the other four? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Solo 66. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Solo 66), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lampeln

On 30 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lampeln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that volunteer firemen from the fire station in Schäflohe claim to be the only people in the German state of Upper Palatinate to play the traditional Bavarian card game of Lampeln? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lampeln. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lampeln), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mistigri (card game)

On 2 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mistigri (card game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Mistigri is a German card game named after the French word for pussycat, a nickname given to its highest trump, the Jack of Clubs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mistigri (card game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mistigri (card game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ramsen

On 7 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ramsen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ramsen is a traditional Austrian and Bavarian card game with the unusual feature of four permanent trump cards (pictured) ranking just below the trump Sow? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ramsen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Binokel

On 22 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Binokel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Binokel, from which the American card game of Pinochle was developed in the 19th century, is still popular in its native Württemberg? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Binokel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Binokel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Bermicourt, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness this Christmas. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:28, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

DYK for Scharwenzel

On 2 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scharwenzel, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Scharwenzel is a card game, at least three centuries old, that is played today only on the German island of Fehmarn? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scharwenzel. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Scharwenzel), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Bierlachs

Hello! Your submission of Bierlachs at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ace-ten games: Pinochle

You edit summary stated: "article suggests 10s rank as normal", and that's why I reverted it because that summary is 100% wrong. 10s do not rank norma.... since it's A-10-K-Q-J-9. And while the marriage group category states specifically that "Card games in the Marriage group are Ace-Ten games", the King-Queen games category says nothing at the top of the page (which it should). Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fyunck(click): The edit summary was an error. When I add the summary, sometimes it picks up another comment from the drop-down list and inserts that instead. I'm not sure why, it may be that a small movement of the mouse makes it hover over the wrong comment and as I hit return the wrong one goes in. That's what happened this time. I agree that the categories in this area should all have explanations, not least, because different sources use slightly different terminology, but we need to be clear. I'm in the process of tidying up the categories and adding explanatory notes. Pinochle is unusual in that it has both King/Queen and Queen/Jack bonus combinations. Parlett groups it (along with Bezique, Binokel and Marjolet) as a Queen-Jack game because of the special 'pinochle' bonus, but at the moment I've put it under both categories, but I'm thinking of following Parlett and grouping all of these similar games under the Queen-Jack banner which is their special feature and gives the games their names. Bermicourt (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, As a follow up on article Macao (dice game), I added a navbox instead of the See also list. Thanks for the suggestion to use a Navbox instead. Before populating to the other Dice game articles, could you check Template:Dice games please? It's been a long time since I made a new Navbox so a second set of eyes would be great. Cheers! JoeHebda (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeHebda: That's great - I like the new navbox. A good outcome. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bester Bube

On 19 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bester Bube, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bester Bube is a card game characterised by the promotion of two jacks to topmost position, a feature paralleled in Euchre and other historical games such as Reunion and Kontraspiel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bester Bube. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bester Bube), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the games, and also for your help for Wilhelm Kempf, "open dialogue" on the Main page today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Falsche ISBN listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Falsche ISBN. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Falsche ISBN redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Norman McMahon

Done as qpq for Template:Did you know nominations/Magdeburg Ivories. Thanks for your patience! Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dreiertarock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Bierlachs

On 11 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bierlachs, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bierlachs, a variant of Germany's national card game, Skat, is predominantly played for beer in pubs and restaurants? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bierlachs. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bierlachs), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about Bierlachs

I've just read the Bierlachs article. Thank you for providing it. It looks interesting, and I'm hoping to play it soon. But I'd like to understand the rules first, and have some questions:

  • "A target score is set and only minus scores are reckoned." I think this means that all scores are reckoned, but as negative, against the player or players on the losing side.
  • "In other words, when a soloist wins a deal" – does this refer only to players in a solo contract, or to any declarer? If the latter, the word "declarer" would be clearer than "soloist".
  • It's not clear how many points are lost when a contract fails. If I am declarer, and go off in acorns with one matador, I assume I lose 48 points, as in regular Skat – but maybe it's only 24. If I am declarer and make in acorns with one matador, I assume each other player loses 24. What is correct? Some examples are needed here.
  • "As a player nears the target score, he is forced to try and win the auction in order not to collect any more minus points." I don't understand this. If my interpretation of the scoring is correct, a player who is near the target score risks more by declaring than by defending.

Maproom (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Maproom:, those are good questions. The answers are:

  • If a declarer loses, scoring is as per Skat i.e. they lose double the game value. If they win, the two opponents are each penalised by the basic game value. I've given an example now in the article.
  • In Skat (and Bierlachs), a soloist always plays against two defenders. I've changed the word to "declarer" to make that, hopefully, clearer.
  • Covered in bullet one.
  • According to both the main sources, the tendency is for a player who enters the 'danger zone' to risk a game with his hand, rather than let an opponent declare a game that suits his hand. I guess it's like other games where you're about to lose - you have nothing more to lose by risking a game, but you might pull it off.

I'm not a Skat player - I'm busy learning games like Schafkopf, Schnapsen and Binokel - so I'm going by what the experts say. But please let me know if anything's still unclear. Bermicourt (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #29, 13 Feb 2019 (eom)

DYK for Briscan

On 20 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Briscan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the historical card game of Briscan has been described as a "Gothic extravaganza", squeezing "a truly phenomenal range of scores and melds" from a 32-card pack? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Briscan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Briscan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mulatschak

On 22 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mulatschak, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Mulatschak has been called the card game of the state of Salzburg, its rules were almost certainly unpublished before 2004? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mulatschak. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mulatschak), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suit of Swords

Tarot reader to tarock player – would you like to work together on Suit of swords? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami. Yes, that would be helpful. I'm trying to separate the subjects of card playing and cartomancy, particularly because there is a lack of understanding English-speaking countries about the use of tarot/tarock cards for normal card playing, whereas their fortune-telling role is relatively well known. But I'm open to suggestions as to how best to do this. I did wonder whether suit of swords should be moved to e.g. Swords (cartomancy) since the article is mainly about the meaning of individual Sword cards in divination. Noting that I've created a separate stub, Swords (suit), about the playing cards to match all the others e.g. Clubs (suit) and Acorns (suit). What do you think? Bermicourt (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Separating them into "playing card" and "divinatory object" sounds like a good idea to me. There are also individual cards for each of the Swords cards and I question their notability. They refer to the tarot cards as of writing this. Deletion best option? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a natural separation between Batons (suit) and Suit of Wands; even the title of the latter suggests its divinatory nature. We could do the same by moving Suit of Cups to Suit of Goblets thus distinguishing it from Cups (suit). Whether "suit of X" is the best name for the articles I'm not sure; you'd probably be better placed to judge that. And I have no particular problem with deleting the individual card articles if their content is low and can be covered in the Suit of Swords article. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Hintersche

On 27 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hintersche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hintersche, a historical card game played by farmers, foresters and journeymen in the Principality of Fürstenberg, is still played in the Black Forest today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hintersche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hintersche), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, thanks, I give you thanks, for all you've done!--Symposiarch (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC) featuring Marshall Hall (singer)[reply]

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on Portal criteria?

Hi Bermicourt

Please will you work with me to draft an RFC on the criteria for creating/deleting/retaining portals?

I have written a very rough first draft at User:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria, just to kick things off.

At User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal I set out why I think it would be helpful if a small group of editors of differing views worked together to draft an RFC which could establish a broad community consensus on which portals should exist and which should not. This is one of 4 invites, through which I hope to establish group of 5 editors to collaborate on ths one task.

Please can you reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Draft RFC on Portal criteria#Can we draft a joint proposal, so that others can see your response?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And I've replied at the target as requested. Bermicourt (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #30, 17 Mar 2019 (eom)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lists of hills of English counties

Template:Lists of hills of English counties has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scarne

Scarne is an extremely unreliable source for the history of card games. Much of his research is either fictious or plagiarized. For example, Scarne doesn't prove how the bonus of "blackjack" appeared in the game of Twenty-One (card game). An article by Thierry Depaulis in The Playing-Card traces the name of "blackjack" to the Yukon Gold Rush in Canada. You can read it here: [1] --Countakeshi (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Countakeshi:. Thanks, that doesn't surprise me. I don't own Scarne and just took the details from the Blackjack article. In doing so, I did note that the history of Blackjack seemed suspect in places compared with my research which is naturally limited to my own library and the Internet. I haven't been going at this very long, but I've already discerned that card game books are not always reliable and even card historians sometimes get it wrong or miss pieces of the jigsaw. One hilarious error, which even Parlett has repeated, is that Bierspiel is a German variant of Rams. This is asserted in early 20th century Hoyles, but I have yet to find a single German reference to an actual game called Bierspiel. Not surprising because Bierspiel means "drinking game", so there are lots of sources which say "the drinking game of Foo", where Foo is Cerevis, Eilfern (Elfern) and, yes, even Rammes (Rams)! To be fair, more information has become available since some of the key books were researched.
You clearly have a head start on me in this area, so I wonder if we should work a bit more closely on this together? My primary focus is on German and Austrian games, but strays into other areas where there is related material. I'm keen to include the history and current situation and to record rules, based on reliable sources rather than randomly culled off the internet or written from scratch as some seem to be. Bermicourt (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jaggln

On 1 April 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jaggln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that you're onto a winner if you can catch four sows with the Jaggl, Zanggl, and Buggl? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jaggln. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jaggln), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tapp Tarock

In Tapp Tarock, the bids of "Unterer" and "Oberer" are described as requiring one to take the top or bottom 3 cards.

Both "The Game of Tarot" in the References, and "A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack" mention this only as a variant, documented only in a Piatnik leaflet:

From page 453 of the latter: "The Piatnik leaflet KRT eccentrically lays down that a declarer who bid Unterer exposes the whole of the talon, but must then take for himself the three bottom cards, and the one who bid Oberer must, having exposed the whole talon, take for himself the three top cards."[1]

The prior history described in both books, as well as the scoring, makes clear that all 3 bids should be treated the same except the score: Dreier being at the 3rd level, Unterer at the 4th, and Oberer at the 5th, taking the base levels of 1, 2, or 3, and raising them by exposing both halves and then freely choosing either.

I am unaware how often the distinction between the later bids as described in the Piatnik leaflet is observed in play; but perhaps there should at least be a note sourcing that and noting a diversity of opinion. I looked through "Die große Humboldt-Enzyklopädie der Kartenspiele" and didn't find any explanation at all (though my German is not strong, and I may have overlooked it); I could not find "Das große Tarock-Buch" online.

(This is my first comment on a Wikipedia article - please let me know if I should have included more or less information, or anything like that!)

  • Dummett, Michael; McLeod, John (2004b), A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 2, Edwin Mellen Press, ISBN 978-0-7734-6449-0

Nisterius (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've copied this good question to Talk:Tapp Tarock where I've also responded in detail. Please make any further comments there. Bermicourt (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Dummett, A History of Games Played with the Tarot Pack, Volume 2, pp. 453

MfD nomination of Portal:Rhön

Portal:Rhön, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhön and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Rhön during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:St. Gallen

Portal:St. Gallen, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:St. Gallen and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:St. Gallen during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Bermicourt, for your reponse[2] to the MFD.
I am not so sure about your comment that I think Austrian and Swiss states are portal-worthy. A few months ago, I'd have thought that they were a good case. As you know, I would prefer much fewer portals, but I would have thought that long-established geographical divisions of European countries would be reasonably high up the list. But now that I have examined pageviews on hundreds of portals, I am much less sure. Those 3 portals got a total of combined total 91 views in the month of February. That 1 per portal per day, which is barely above background noise.
I was so struck by what I had seen that I examined the set of English county portals, and began drafting an MFD. I eventually decided not to pursue the idea, because it is getting too far into territory which should be decided at RFC, but here's the draft as far as I took it.
Note that although I hadn't finished adding labels to all the pageview links in the table, the links do work and you can follow them to see the data.
The abysmally low portal viewing figures there really shocked me. The English counties are basically over 900 years old, remain significant markers of geographic identity. They have detailed coverage, often to a high standard, and since they are about the original English-speaking country, I'd have thought they had a great chance of grabbing readers. But even tho the head articles get high viewing figures, the portals consistently get 0.5%–2% of the article's views, and the views per day are overwhelmingly single-figures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl:. That's interesting, thank you. I guess I have 2 thoughts right now. First, portals are not in mainspace and do not appear in searches, nor are they linked except in a few cases from the main topic article. So no wonder they aren't being viewed much. By contrast, I happen to know from my DYK work that when an article appears on the main page as a DYK, of course its pageviews rocket from, say, 5 views/day to 3000 views in one day. That's not surprising, but what is interesting is that, on the same day, equally obscure articles with a link from the DYK see a significant peak in views. Sometimes even unlinked, but related articles see a peak, presumably because viewers get there via a double or triple hop or maybe the categories. Mainspace links are vital to pageviews and portals don't have those. So, like templates, they're currently not going to grab the attention of readers because they're not in mainspace and not well linked from mainspace. If they are intended to be signposts and that's what most editors seem to assume, they can only do that job well if we put some thought and effort into how to make that happen. I think you said it'd been tried; but I'd say it doesn't look as if anyone tried very hard. That's the first point: as signposts they don't currently work well, but that's not the fault of portals; it's the way we use them.
My second point is one you've seen me make before: portals have more than one purpose. One of the reasons I favour 'some' portals is that I've used them very practically to establish coverage of a topic - what's covered, what isn't, how many good articles there are and where there are gaps. My initial creation of the portal structures the topic area and immediately starts to show the red and blue links. I then use that as a basis to start creating articles in some sort of priority or sequence to extend the coverage. In addition, I'll often make sure the main topic article and it's major sub-articles are beefed up - they are usually the one's being showcased. All this progress is visible to other interested editors. I only do this as part of a WikiProject and I notify the project when they're up and running and make sure the project and related portals are linked. Sometimes other editors join me for a season and sometimes they don't. In a well-developed portal, the red links are restricted to their own section; only the major priorities are shown, but the section links to a sub-page with the full list of red links. Often there is scope for editors to request page creations or images. Frankly this is the main use to which I put portals. So my second point is that portals can be highly effective tools to enable committed editors (preferably working within a WikiProject) to extend the coverage, quality and balance of a topic. I'd say they're underused in that regard.
It's good to talk. Thank you. :) Bermicourt (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good talking with you too!
That point you make about portal promotion is interesting. Luckily, we have some data to test it: the 8 broad-topic portals linked from the top right of the front page.
Remember, that's the absolute prime spot for reader attention. If (God forbid!) Wikipedia ever took to selling space for banner ads, that slot would command the highest price. So links there should be getting a high hit rate.
But see right the daily average hit rate for those 8 portals for Jan–Mar 2019: 1,335
Compare that with a median range of 30,000 to 50,000 for recent TFAs. OK, TFA is a bigger, more eye-catching block. But still, that's about a 25:1 ratio. I looked at a recent TFA, Albert Pierrepoint: 83,227 hits on the TFA day (30 March 2019), but a Jan–Feb 2019 daily average of 847; that 63% of the bog-8 portal average without being anywhere near the front page.
The DYKs are below the fold, and each is individually less much prominent than the DYK. But your description of individual DYK hits (which matches my experience) is that they each got more way more daily hits than the avg portal, despite being there for only half the day. (Or is it 6 hours?)
Or compare those 8 portals with the much less prominent link to the Featured content near the top of the left-side menu: 6,591. (Yes, it's a portal, but it's not advertised as such)
So it seems to me to be fairly clear that when offered a clear choice of portals or other types of content on the front page, portals are a relatively slow seller.
We could do similar analysis of portals linked from navboxes vs articles linked from navboxes, and I'm pretty sure that we'd see similar results: the portals get v low hit rates.
In the discussion at MFD:15 automated portals built on a single list, I wrote two long posts about why this is so. Basically, it's because an ordinary en.wp head article is so very good for navigation that a portal has to be truly exceptional to do better. And most portals, even on broad topics high on the vital article list, are not exceptional.
For example, I just made my first ever visit to Portal:Europe. That's a level-2 VA, chock full of highly-developed nations, where en.wp does a pretty good job of documenting two millennia of history. It's a much better maintained and developed portal than most, but it's still kinda rubbish as a portal. About 5 over-long snippet of articles, but no navigational pathways to follow. Instead of being a gateway to explore the huge collection of articles non Europe, it's a slim single-issue glossy mag.
So little wonder that Portal:Europe averaged 61 pageviews/day in Jan–Mar 2019, while the head article Europe averaged 8,788. That a 144:1 ratio, just like much smaller topics.
I take your point about some portals being useful for editors (tho Portal:Europe doesn't look like much help there), but we don't need public-facing pages for that role. Those lists belong on WikiProjects.
So ... what concerns me now is that we are nearing the end of cleaning up TTH's spam, but have no further plan. When current MFDs are completed, we'll be down to ~1,300 portals (i.e. ~10% below the 1,500 total at the time of WP:ENDPORTALS), mostly way undermaintained and with pathetic levels of pageviews.
If we leave things like that, we'll be back to something even worse than the situation before ENDPORTALS. We'll still have no broad consensus around restrictions on scope, or on quality goals, or levels of required maintenance. We will have an MFD-derived consensus against wholly-automated single-page-derived portals and against mass creation, but that's about it. We will have a number of editors still keen to pick off portals one-by-one at MFD, and many portal editors will be left feeling very disillusioned after the drama and fearful than any further work may be deleted. That all seems to me to be no good to anyone.
So, we still need some sort of roadmap to a community consensus. For various reasons which I think you will be able to guess, the drafting process I began last month is dead, and I should mark it as such. I really valued your willingness to join in that attempt, and your continued commitment to dialogue ... so is there some other way now that we could work towards helping build a consensus? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: gosh, you're the expert on Wikiprocesses. I'm just an ordinary editor who's willing to compromise (as I hope I've shown) and who knows a little bit about portals. The difficulty we have is reining in the sort of behaviour we've already seen and which reflects the darker side of democracy: an acrimonious debate with polarised views; (some of) the winners of which went off on a victory march and created thousands of, frankly, pointless auto-portals which must have seriously annoyed the opposition who, having silenced him/them, have scented blood and are now going beyond reversing the mass creation of 'FAPs' to try and achieve their aim of destroying portal space. Meanwhile hapless editors like me, who have used portals to good advantage and aren't really in either camp, are left wondering where it's all going to end.
So I guess I'm totally willing to work with you to achieve consensus. Of course we can agree to differ over the final number of portals, but I think we recognise that doesn't prevent us working on more fundamental aspects like what portals are for, how they should be used and what standards they should attain. You never know, by the time we've done all that we may even converge on the number of portals anyway. But I don't know how we take the community with us on that journey; I'm just a humble editor who enjoys creating uncontroversial articles and has found portals a nice way of helping me do that. I'm not a politician - thank God! Bermicourt (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katja Wulff

... or rather, your nice message there, thank you, - too far away from the article to respond there. We sing Christ ist erstanden, and more, but first "Wenn ich einmal soll scheiden" (When I'll have to depart). Playlist here, and funeral right after Easter, - life and death are close these days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

German to English

Request translation: de:Henning von Thadden (Henning von Thadden). Thank you, if you can do it. --95.232.38.145 11:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you translate also this? --95.232.38.195 14:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #31, 01 May 2019 (eom)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Austrian Landesstraße

Template:Infobox Austrian Landesstraße has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Imzadi 1979 → 13:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Knüffeln

On 14 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knüffeln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the top trumps in Knüffeln, the centuries-old national card game of Frisia, are the five "Old Ones"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knüffeln. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Knüffeln), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Bermicourt,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Fipsen

On 27 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fipsen, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the traditional north German card game of Fipsen is played in the village of Thedinghausen for currant buns called Hedewigs (example pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fipsen. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fipsen), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bermicourt&oldid=899002573"