User talk:Cobblet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shantar Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smelt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Vital articles FAQ[edit]

The FAQ is hideously out-of-date and if today's VA participants gave it serious consideration, they'd probably disagree with large chunks of it. I have proposed eliminating the 25-person cap on political leaders; I hope you can agree with me on that. pbp 16:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Maybe, but I support the thinking behind having a quota – the question is what we think that quota should be. Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be 25, that's for sure. It should be at least 30. I would also support lowering the quota for musicians, if there is one. I am open to you proposing an alternate proposal, provided it gives us more flexibility among leaders. pbp 21:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

East-West Schism[edit]

Hi. I don't follow the vital article pages, and just returned from being without Internet for a while also. So I was surprised to find that the schism's article had been demoted to level 4 (not sure precisely what that means - is it regarded as a measure of its level of importance to history?). On the vital article talk page I discovered interesting comments. User @Malerisch and user @Gizza question its significance, and claim a coverage in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox articles that is not there. Those articles call on East-West Schism to cover that material.

As to historical significance, I find your comment "the immediate political consequences of the Protestant Reformation were much more severe". Um, really? How about the fourth crusade, the nail in the coffin to all subsequent notions of reconciliation, and the cement of the schism. Why do you think Pope Innocent III favored a route to Jerusalem that went through Constantinople? There were other wars too. The history of Russia is replete with the overtones of east-west conflicts, political and religious, at least from the time of Peter the Great (but also before). In World War II, Greece fought Italy to a standstill, forcing Germany to send its armies to complete its conquest. That and the subsequent resistance were fueled by memory of the immediate after-effects of the schism and its wars. The Reformation was confined primarily to the west, but the schism was considerably wider.

Not to nit-pick any ill-considered comments, I simply wonder about the basis upon which this rating of the schism was made. To my mind, it seems that a great deal of real history (as well as religion) could be wrongly marginalized in that decision. What I have not seen is any real discussion. The vital article talk page section was a gloss, and I am not seeing evidence that any comment reflected much awareness. I was offline at the time, but I would not have seen the discussion anyway. Perhaps someone would like to respond about my comments on it. I wouldn't mind a bit of enlightening also about what these ratings contribute to WP. They've always seemed peripheral to me. Evensteven (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

How to go about[edit]

Looking for your advice. I'd like to change article names for a bunch of chess variant articles to their proper representations (proper nouns). (E.g. Alice chessAlice Chess. On the basis that the latter is the proper noun and proper name.) The thing is, I know we have talked about this before, and if I remember, your position was no change at MOS (or at WP:Article titles) is necessary, since proper noun is capitalized, period. But the thing is, there are a massive number of articles with incorrectly uncapped names, so that means the "grain" on WP practice is the wrong way (and if I attempt massive changes, I'll run into contention). I don't want to run into contention, or have discussion of the same principle on each & every article Talk page (e.g. the issue is the exact same re Grand chessGrand Chess). It seems to me the only way around that is to open up the issue somewhere, get a consensus, and add clarification to policy where/how appropriate. (Otherwise, again, I'll be repeating the same entire debate again & again on the numerous article Talks, which seems unreasonable and illogical. [For example, if debate article by article is the way, then Alice Chess might end up Alice Chess OK, but Grand Chess might end up Grand chess, by corresponding consensuses. There would be nothing left for me to do but quit the effort as an absurd waste of time, and I don't want to proceed down a path that ends up that result.])

Now, the examples I named so far are simple and straightforward, but I'm not saying they all are or would be. (For example, makruk is an historical chess variant, so are chaturanga, and we can add regionals too e.g. shogi & xiangqi etc. An expert liguistic editor asserted thru his actions all those s/b lower-case. OK. [Why exactly? I honestly do not know. But I can accept it.] But the question is, where does that rule fade, and the all caps on games like Alice Chess begin? [Is there a gray area of constituent game names that fall in the middle? I don't know. Maybe. But then, how would that debate/consensus ever get reached, without some guiding principles/rules that are laid out & understood so can be discussed & used/worked with?])

My issue & desire is not to solve *all* those problems. Just the clear ones. (Alice. Grand.) (But I realize at same time of course, it is opening up the logical box that the other stuff mentioned s/b understood too at same time, to know where the line is, if there is one.)

OK I've explained my genuine need for guidance here, please help with your thoughtful advice or recommendation. Thanks. (No hurry. I'm lazy!) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

p.s. One thing that's really funny to me is what was decided (consensus) at Talk:Go (game) for the game of go. (They decided to cap. But not based on the definitivie "is it a proper noun or isn't it" [both cap & lowercase were shown to exist in different RSs], but based on they felt if it were lower-case [IMO the right answer of course, if "chess" and "xiangqi" and "shogi" are lower-case], the word might cause confusion by being misinterpreted as a verb ["to go"]!! [Haha! Funny. As if context wouldn't clarify that, duh!]) :) Ihardlythinkso (talk)

I don't think a straightforward answer exists. I'm not even sure chess variant names should be regarded as proper names, unless they're trademarks. Why are you so certain that both words in "Alice chess" and "Grand chess" should be capitalized? Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Is "Milky Way Galaxy" trademarked? It's a proper name, and not "Milky Way galaxy". (The word "galaxy" is analogous to word "chess". "Milky Way" is not a modifier. "Galaxy" is part of the proper name. Ditto "Andromeda Galaxy" is not "Andromeda galaxy".)

Some game authors preempted the problem stemming from separation with inseparable compound names, e.g. Dragonchess, Quatrochess. Those that didn't like Alice & Grand (e.g. Wildebeest Chess, Wolf Chess) s/n be relegated to malaligned lowercasing of "chess" to sentence case when it is not a modified word but part & parcel of the game name (like "Andromeda Galaxy" is not "Andromeda galaxy").

The problem on WP goes beyond CVs. For example the game name is "Chinese Checkers" (not "Chinese checkers") -- "Chinese" is not a modifier of word "checkers", the word is part & parcel of the proper name (same again as "Andromeda Galaxy" not "Andromeda galaxy"). Do you see the repetition of problem going on?

"Chess960" isn't trademarked and it is always capitalized. The better sources do the same with each of the examples I've mentioned. The examples of sources that have it sentence case like on WP don't make sentence case right it is just careless publishers/publishing (same as if published "Andromeda galaxy" -- I'm sure some do!). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure Alice can't be used a modifier the same way Andromeda can't be used as a modifier? I see "Alice Fool's Mate" and "Alice Scholar's Mate" used in the article. My point is that I'm not sure the situation is as cut-and-dried in the case of chess variants as it is in other contexts: I thought phrases where the first word of a chess variant name is used as a modifier were commonplace, e.g. "Berolina pawns". Cobblet (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this is taking us off point. (I'm fine with "mate" being lowercase. Or whatever. Is "Fool's Mate" a proper name? I don't know [I'm the editor responsible for "Alice Fool's Mate" and "Alice Scholar's Mate" -- those are my edits -- but they were just and only guesses or trys] but I'm not really concerned about it because it isn't a CV game name which I'm interested to correct on the WP. In those examples "Alice" may be short name/abbreviated name/informal name. Just like "Milky Way" is short/abbreviated/informal for "Milky Way Galaxy".) I'm not sure what you're getting at. ("Berolina pawns" is fine. "Berolina Chess" is a CV proper name. "Alice Chess" and "Chinese Checkers" are proper names. If you used "Andromeda" as a modifier in whatever example, it would be like "Berolina pawns" which is fine. But "Andromeda Galaxy" is proper name. If one is identifying or describing a pawn, then "Berolina pawns" is fine. But if there happened to be a CV game name with those same words, then "Berolina Pawns" would be the game proper name [where "Pawns" isn't being modified but is part & parcel of the game name], not "Berolina pawns" [confused sentence case as has been typically done on WP].) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
My point is that I didn't think such constructions are standard with typical proper names, e.g. Andromeda _____ (rather than Andromeda Galaxy ____ ) to refer to something related to the galaxy. So it's not clear to me that these chess variant names should be treated as such. It isn't standard to use "Berolina" as an abbreviation (even informally) for Berolina Chess, yet it is also not standard to say "Berolina Chess pawns". I sense something happening here at the syntactic level that's beyond my ability to explain: you're better off asking an actual linguistic expert. Cobblet (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I read your above several times, am not sure but think you're saying: there's a difference between "Berolina Chess" and "Andromeda Galaxy", in that "Berolina" can't be used w/o "Chess" to mean the game, but can be used w/o "Chess" to implicate the game when it's a modifier ("Berolina pawns"), whereas "Andromeda" can be used w/o "Galaxy" both to mean the galaxy and to implicate the galaxy when it's a modifier. (Is that right? And if so, then the analogy I've drawn shows a difference? So by that difference you question whether "Berolina Chess" is the proper noun for the game over "Berolina chess"?) Just trying to understand your thought.

For the case of "Chinese Checkers" vs "Chinese checkers", it's interesting difference that "Chinese Checkers marble" cannot be shortened to "Chinese marble" (like "Berolina Chess pawn" can be shortened to "Berolina pawn"). But I'm not sure the significance of any of these observations re my contention that "Chinese Checkers" is proper name (not "Chinese checkers"), just like "Andromeda Galaxy" is proper name (not "Andromeda galaxy"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Chinese Checkers "feels" more like a proper noun to me. But there seems to be a difference between Chinese Checkers and Berolina Chess/chess (and most other chess variant names). I'm honestly not sure if that's true or not; sorry I can't give you a straight answer. Cobblet (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't mean to ask beyond your capacity or patience. My simple contention is, to pick an example case, "Grand Chess" is no different from "Chinese Checkers" re proper name. (And, no different from "Andromeda Galaxy". It's not "Grand chess" or "Chinese checkers" sentence case as WP uses, any more than "Andromeda galaxy" sentence case is correct for proper name. And, I'd like to change those article names -- correct them really.) You're not sure, but can't specify why. OK. But I presume you think "Grand chess" is the proper name for that game. My logical follow up would be why you think that? (The articles are generally like that today, but again I'm asserting that was incorrect use of sentence case, probably by people unfamiliar with CV literature less than me. [They didn't know what to do, so ended up using sentence case by mistake. So it became normalized and presumed correct. But on what basis? You originally asked why I thought "Grand Chess" s/b proper form. I've answered expansively. But really I think more appropriate for shoe to be on other foot, i.e. on what basis s/ proper name be "Grand chess"? I think clearly that would be harder to defend, but it seems to be the position you take. I don't get that.])

Let me add a new thought here (one that just came to me). It might explain the "feeling" you have re "Chinese Checkers" is OK but "Grand Chess" is not. I just noticed this: if one speaks the name "Grand Chess" (orally out loud, please do it!), there will be emphasis on "Grand" and deemphasis on "Chess". Ditto "Capablanca Chess". Ditto "Fischerandom Chess". And "Wolf Chess" and "Wildebeest Chess". But! But when one speaks out loud orally "Milky Way Galaxy", the tone is flat (no emphasis, or if there is emphasis, probably on "Galaxy"). Ditto "Andromeda Galaxy". Ditto "Chinese Checkers". (So what does this mean? I don't know. But I think it explains perhaps, why as earlier mentioned some CV authors use compound name forms for their game names, e.g. "Dragonchess", "Quatrochess" ... simply because those forms or spellings are instantly compatible with the deemphasis on word "chess" due to pronunciation inherent in syllablization. And perhaps importantly, because of the deemphasis when speaking the non-compound game names like "Grand Chess", it sounds like syllablization, even when it isn't, so the tendency is to want to "see" it that way in print, even when it's not or shouldn't be!)

Do you think I'm on to anything here? I'm wondering if it explains the feeling of discomfort you mentioned re "Grand Chess". If you think so, I guess my own conclusion from there, would be that it is an orally spoken phenomenon (that "Chinese Checkers" et al are spoken flatly, or with emphasis coming last, whereas "Grand Chess" et al are spoken with emphasis on first part followed by deemphasis), but that pheomenon exists in the oral world, and really doesn't (and shouldn't) have translation into the print world when choosing to capitalize or not these proper names. (So, "Fischerandom Chess" is still spelled with caps, but pronounced as though syllablized with deemphasis: "Fisherandomchess", but "Fischerandom chess" is just a confused attempt to "put right" the oral expectations from hearing it out loud, but is incorrect to do that by forcing lowercase when going to print.) The opposing conclusion I suppose is that the oral phenomenon I've noticed does have implications when going to print -- resulting in "Grand chess" -- but I really don't know why it could or should or would. Anyway that is a new thought and how my head processes it. (Do you think has merit to explain anything here?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stravinsky, Debussy, Verdi etc[edit]

I see you have made your support for adding Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong to the Level-3 vital articles conditional to the removal of Verdi and Tchaikovsky. I'm not sure that Wikipedia allows the attchment of conditions when voting for or against a nomination. However even if it is allowed, I think it unnecessarily puts the first nomination in jeopardy and may result in "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Maybe nominations involving these particular musicians and composers have failed in the past because of too much horse-trading and attachment of conditions by some participants as they have tried to achieve multiple personal goals simultaneously at the expense of the larger process. I share your belief that Verdi and Tchaikovsky should be demoted to Level 4 and have I nominated them for exactly that; but I also think a step-by-step approach may be necessary to achieve long term success. I don't think other participants can be coerced into supporting both nominations at the same time if they're not yet ready to do that. If you really think horse-trading is the only way to do this, then I'll offer you one "deal" of my own, but only one. I'll formally nominate Debussy for inclusion in the Level-3 vital list if you make your support for Stravinsky and Louis Armstrong unconditional. Apparently there's room on the list for the inclusion of Debussy and I think I can make a strong argument for his elevation to Level 3. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

My support is conditional because I believe there are probably too many musicians as it is, and IMO we absolutely should not be including more. It's a bit rich to argue that Stravinsky or Debussy are absolute necessities when Lenin has been removed from the list and the addition of FDR has consistently failed to garner enough support. And the latter two are personalities that matter much more to the average person. The issue of balance is more important to me than nitpicking exactly who we should include. I also know from experience that while it's very easy to convince people that something is important, it's very hard to convince people that something else isn't important. If you prefer that I change my !vote to an oppose, I can do that. Cobblet (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


Hey, if Dhaka municipal corporation has been dissolved, than there there is no Dhaka City. Dhaka District - which is 565.1 square miles - is not a local government and certainly not a "city proper." Actually, looking at its city page, it appears that Dhaka City has been split into two municipal corporations/local governments. I'd suggset, then, that we use these two "cities" as the city proper since it seems to be identical to the area of the former united municipal corporation. But, listing the entire district is a city proper does not respect the spirit of the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of the fact that the definition of a "city proper" is a controversial issue and has been discussed ad nauseam for as long as this article has been around. However, I count 41 cities currently listed (i.e. almost half the list) with a larger area than Dhaka District. Even Greater London is bigger – good luck convincing anyone that Greater London is not a "city proper". And the density of Dhaka District is over 8000 people per square kilometer – there is no question that this is a heavily urbanized area under the jurisdiction of a single local government. As such, I think giving the figure for Dhaka District is fully within the "spirit" of the list, as you say. To include only the area corresponding to the former municipal corporation would be rather akin to claiming that the city proper of London should be limited to Inner London, which is no longer an administrative entity and merely a collection of London boroughs. I forgot to change the area statistic for Dhaka and I'll fix that. Cobblet (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor form[edit]

It is deemed poor form to revert an edit without responding to the talk page comments. The talk page discussion can be found here Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles#Changes. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That was quick. I was about to reply but you reverted me first. I'll revert back once I've replied. Cobblet (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
As you wish. Visual loss and hard of hearing are two of the most important health issues globally. Allergies are typically little more than a nuisance and smallpox no longer exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
All valid points. But we receive too many drive-by changes to this list and we've put a formal discussion process in place as a result. Cobblet (talk) 08:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
You have still not replied on the talk page? Procedural reverts are not in line with Wikipedia norms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah there you go. We can now discuss. 08:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
Can you please give me more than 10 seconds before reverting me? Your subsequent additions to the talk page caused an edit conflict which meant I couldn't save my reply. Cobblet (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

List of North American cities by population[edit]

What estimates are used for this list? It appears that Chicago has recently surpassed Toronto in population in 2014. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's true we need to update the US cities for 2014, but this is the latest population estimate for Chicago. Cobblet (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That link sent me to a list of state populations. Is the 2013 estimate for Chicago the latest available? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That's odd. I'm actually updating the table right now – will have to find a link that actually works. Check the Wikipedia page for Chicago – it has the 2014 estimate and the number remains lower than Toronto's. Cobblet (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok. That makes sense. Thanks for responding so quickly. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

China barnstar.png The PRC Barnstar
My heartfelt thanks for all the work you've put in to reviewing and improving Hu Zhengyan. The article's in a much better state thanks to your contributions; I'm deeply obliged to you. Yunshui  12:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Cobblet by Yunshui  on 12:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yunshui:Thank you for introducing me to a part of Chinese culture I knew nothing about. I know the difficulty of writing an article on a subject whose primary sources are in a language I don't speak – kudos to you for persisting anyway and succeeding admirably. Cobblet (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The support vote is also very much appreciated! Yunshui  10:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Largest cities in the Americas[edit]

The population of Bogotá (city proper) has increased because there are more than 3 million people that has been displaced from the rural areas by the ilegal armed groups (FARC), (ELN). Displacement JuandisCV (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@JuandisCV: Then you need to find a reliable source for the statistic you've given. And it needs to be a statistic to refers specifically to the city proper of Bogotá, not the Metropolitan Area of Bogotá nor even the entirety of the Distrito Capital. Cobblet (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cs california, I have previously suggested a compromise solution and have nothing new to add. While your concerns are legitimate, there are also legitimate concerns to your currently chosen method of addressing them. By making large-scale changes despite a clear lack of consensus that they constitute improvements (you can't claim WP:WIP, which isn't official policy anyway, if your edits aren't "better than nothing") you have frustrated the various US editors to such an extent that I highly doubt they'll be able to assume good faith from you, and as long as that remains the case there is little chance a consensus can be built and you are unlikely to achieve anything productive in this area. Is it really worth your time to pursue a lost cause? Surely you realize there are other articles on Wikipedia in more dire need for improvement. Cobblet (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
I'm delighted to say that Hu Zhengyan finally made it to FA status over the weekend. Thank you so much for all your help with the article - I couldn't have done it without you. Yunshui  07:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Remove Job[edit]

Sorry about the delay in responding. I've been away with limited internet capability. I've marked support as nom on the page. Thank you for pointing this out to me. RJFJR (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: WC Pairings[edit]

FIDE published pairings. It is different from previous WCs, because it doesn't use newest elo (september). Én bạc (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Norytsin, Gerzhoy[edit]

Hello, thanks for adding info to Nikolay Noritsyn's entry. As to Leonid Gerzhoy, when I added the tag it wasn't written in the biography (thus I didn't know) that he finished equal 1st in this year's Canadian Championship. Now I added it in the bio. Sophia91 (talk) 19:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries – as you might be aware, the general consensus on WP:CHESS is that national champions should be automatically considered notable. I appreciate your efforts to improve our chess articles – keep up the good work! Cobblet (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)