User talk:Jo Weber

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page!

Don Ross[edit]

Hi there, nice work on the Don Ross article. I determined who was on the Candyrat roster by checking the reference you had and seeing which artists were indicated to be exclusive to Candyrat, then I cross-referenced with the Candyrat MySpace page. As for improving the article, the German version seems to have more in the discography/publications section which could be added, other than that I'm not sure what is needed, though I think a picture and a sound sample would be great to include. I took a look in the Creative Commons for a photo, but didn't find one, and all my CDs are in storage as I'm moving to a new city soon, so I can't upload a sound sample right now; I might get around to it sometime in the future. Cheers Strobilus (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Guitarists newsletter[edit]

Driftless Area[edit]

Hold your tongue. Wisconsinian glaciation is the local term for what happened in North America during the last five-hundred-million years (three phases of ice, and others of tropical heat). This was an ignoramus move.Ace Telephone (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

@Ace: I did support your point (see Talk:Last glacial period), and you treat me like an idiot here. I know what the Wisconsinian glaciation is, and I didn't move the Wisconsinian article. Please be more careful and calm down.--Jo (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC) | Jo (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi. Actually I'm English. I'm seriously considering reverting the rock bit again—the mountains are made of rock (not rocks), i.e. they are all one lump. And, even if the "lump" consists of several layers of different types, it is still rock (singular). So one could even have rocks lying on the rock! Rocks are things cavemen bang together ;-) I completely missed the Hemer link being in an image link, though. Glad you got rid of the commercial links - the only reason this is on my watchlist is because I removed commercial links at some stage. Happy editing TINYMARK 22:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TM, I already thought of leaving a comment on your talk page about my somewhat rude edit summary, I'm glad you didn't take it too seriously. I tried to change the previous, very German text to something resembling English, and as I'm no native speaker you sort of hit a nerve. It's always a tricky thing with translations, and as a geologist I tend to emphasize the difference between rock types, so I thought you misunderstood my intention. Feel free to revert that bit. As for the commercial links, I already tried to find more suitable ones, as the German article uses the same, but so far I had no luck. Perhaps you know that the Sauerland people are famous for their stubborness (that's sort of an affectionate remark), so I'd better find a real good one fast, even though WP policy disencourages links to webcams and commercial sites.--Jo (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it did strike as a little rude—luckily I'm pretty thick-skinned! What you changed and why you changed it was okay, though misguided. Someone will always change it again. And perhaps the wisecrack about being a German is still better than having no edit summary—I hate that. I'd rather refer to myself as a "World Citizen". As for translating articles from the German WP, I'm in two minds as to whether it should be done at all. The German WP is seriously lacking in cited sources in general. I once came across an article that had been translated and its only source was to cite the German Wikipedia article! Keep up the good work and change your Babel rating for English to "advanced". To say your English is intermediate does you an injustice. Grüße TINYMARK 00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Blush... thanks for your nice comment. Where did you find the intermediate level? I am already so immodest to assess my English as 'advanced' (which doesn't keep me from falling for 'false friends' and the like).
The translation from German (or any other non-English language) is only a problem if it's poorly made. There can't be enough knowledge on WP!
Concerning sources, I think the situation isn't really different in all WPs. Especially common knowledge-articles severly lack sources. The problem in translations is that normally there are only sources in the native language of the original article. That's better than nothing, but it'd be better to find appropriate ones, and that's quite a lot of additional work.
Another subject (perhaps you already dreaded this): I'm trying to find a valid translation for Rheinisches Schiefergebirge. I not really convinced with Rhenish slate mountains, as I wasn't yet able to find this term in a native English text, so I suspect it is a German translation. Do you have any idea?--Jo (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well apparently, I fell foul of my usual problem of not reading properly. The only things I read properly are articles. I sa the "EN-3" and, for some reason, thought is meant intermediate!
Personally, I don't like "translated names", i. e. "Rhenish Slate Mountains". I would leave it in German and add the translation in German. I found a few names in English: Rhenish Massif, Central German Uplands, Middle Rhein Highlands, Rhenish Uplands and, of course, Rhenish Slate Mountains—I don't like any of them to be frank. "Mountains" as a translation for Gebirge definitely does not seem convincing. I did find a small paper from an American university where the name was retained in German. Over time English (British English at least) tends to take on the foreign names—"Danzig" became "Gdansk" after the news reporting of Lech Wałęsa and Solidarność in the early 80s, "Peking" became "Beijing" after the shooting of the protesting students in Tiananmen Square in the late 80s. So, for that reason as well, I would stick with the German name. TINYMARK 00:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts. You found more names for it than me, although Rhenish Massif is already familiar. I started the English Rheinisches Schiefergebirge some weeks ago, following the same chain of reasoning. But the possibility I missed the proper word for it was nagging me since...--Jo (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference - the Driftless Area[edit]

I have a question- if someone wrote a book about the Driftless Area and got the book published should the book be referenced in the article even though the individual murdered 3 people and was committed as a result. It is a question involving possile ethical questions, prudence and discretion.As of right now, there is no references to the book in the article.Thank you-RFD (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi RFD, first of all I wonder why you ask me? I am not really familiar with the Driftless area. From a general Wikipedia viewpoint I could only answer your question if I knew the book. If it is relevant to the article, e.g. describing additional facts about the area, it should be cited as a reference after adding the info. If it has a more general relevance (like being widely known or sold in considerable numbers), Driftless Area#In popular culture would be a section to add information about the book. HTH, Jo (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks I knew you were working on the Driftless Area and I lived in La Crosse. It was a question I needed to ask someone. Thank you- RFD (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I put the information on the talk page of the Driftless Area article. Some discussion is needed before any changes are put in the article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi Jo, I notice you recently edited this article. Wikipedia also has an article Diamicton which I have linked to Diamictite. I am not entirely clear about the distinction - is it simply that a diamicton has not been lithified, or do different authors use them interchangeably? Pterre (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the difference, diamicton is not lithified, diamictite is .
Look into the first reference of diamictite (Hallsworth & Knox): in section 2.1.1 (Siliciclastic rudaceous sediments) it says ... sediments ...can be given a specific root name - diamicton., and in section 2.1.2 (Siliciclastic rudaceous sedimentary rocks): ... sedimentary rocks ...can be given a specific root name - diamictite. Jo (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks, that ref makes it very clear. I don't think these non-genetic terms were in widespread use when I was studying geology and geography 30-odd years ago - just till, boulder clay, tillite etc. Pterre (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, they became sort of common ten years later, when I studied geology. They're still much overlooked today. See Snowball Earth...Jo (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Flag of Germany.svg

Hello, Jo Weber! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, added both pages to my watchlist. --Jo (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ice age[edit]

Thanks for the note, I have had entire sections of my text and technical illustrations disappear for months due to incorrect vandalism correction and assumed the same in my reversion. Best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing Liedu scale[edit]

I've been scratching my head for those terms. Sillyvalley (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, Sillyvalley. I've been scratching my head, too, when I translated your text to de:Liedu-Skala. Did you use a babelfish translation of the Chinese table (like I did)? It's always thinking around the bend ... --Jo (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

European geodynamics & geology[edit]

Hi Jo, how are you? I saw you translated a whole series of articles I wrote here to the German Wikipedia. Just as well, since although I understand German fine, I am not fluent enough yet to really contribute on the German version. I wanted to draw your attention and opinion on some work I have been doing lately on articels about the geological make-up of Europe. I rewrote Caledonian orogeny and Iapetus Ocean and I started Rhenohercynian basin. When I am finished with the Caledonian stuff I want to continue into the Hercynian/Variscan orogeny. Drawing maps is tricky, because often the authors differ on reconstructions and deep tectonic structures. From the discussion at de:Böhmische Masse I gather that you must know more about the subject and therefore I would really appreciate your comments/help on the figures I am drawing. Perhaps we can work together, although on different projects, to get better content in the articles? Up until now I created these figures:

I use SVG-format, because it can be translated (click on the {{translationpossible}}-template to translate). I translated the second image above to German, there are also English and Dutch versions. I am especially uncertain about the last image (Hercynian structures) and if you see any blatant mistakes, please tell me. I saw you want to rewrite the German article on the Bohemian Massif, but I will translate it now to the Dutch Wikipedia. The map at the article is great! I will try to translate that (English/Dutch) too later on. Best regards, Woodwalker (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) [[]]:Hi Woodwalker, it's great you devote so much work! I noticed your maps earlier this weekend when I was looking for a decent cross section of orogenes (re-writing the german article, didn't find any, so I'll have to draw my own) but didn't yet look close. I think they're good, well made, and your sources are included ... apart from Hercynian structures, where you didn't give any. I compared it with Walter's Geologie von Mitteleuropa (if don't have that book, please have a look at Provenienzanalyse an paläozoischen Metasedimenten der Ostalpen mit Schwerpunkt in der Nördlichen Grauwackenzone: Petrographie, Glimmerchemie, 40Ar/39Ar-Datierungen, Chapter 2, Abb. 2-2) and didn't find any gross mistake. There are some additional features in Spain, and the eastern end is more complicated, perhaps you should consider redrawing that end.

The Bohemian Massif, yes, I wanted to rewrite it, but forgot about it, good you remind me. And sure I'm interested in cooperation, and I will have a look at your work. I'm familiar (better: ten years ago I was) with that subject, though in some parts I'll really have to dig deep to remember the facts. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask. I'll give a notice to the geology nerds at WP:DE, there are some guys familiar with that subject too.
Iapetus Ocean: You neally doubled the article! The section on the ocean and the geology of the British Isles is still a stub. Do you plan to expand it?
Caledonian orogeny: Great discussion you had! It quite sums up the confusion regarding the various microplates involved in Caledonian and Hercynian terrane mixing, and I didn't miss any important statement. Still don't really understand it, though ... :(
Rhenohercynian basin: Why not change this to Rhenohercynian Zone? The basinal nature of this part of the Variscan orogen is not really straightforward: first it was a passive continental margin and only the northern half of a basin with a varied internal structure open to the Lizard-Giessen Ocean (Lizard-Giessen-Harz nappe). Then out of this ocean it was overriden by an accretionary prism with coeval development of several small piggy-back flysch basins, blending into the evolution of the coal basin open to the north. So in my eyes Rhenohercynian Zone would be a better name for the article. --Jo (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, gives me some things to think about. Up until now, I concentrated on the geodynamics and left the geology for later. That may explain some of my choices, but doesn't mean they were right of course.
The Caledonian orogeny: I plan to write another section that includes a summary of the local geology for: 1 Scandinavian Caledonides; 2 Greenland Caledonides; 3 Taconic/Acadian structures of N. America; 4 Caledonides of the British Isles; 5 North German-Polish Caledonides; and 6 Mid-European Caledonides (last two are mostly subsurface structures/rocks). This would ideally include maps or/and cross-sections for all regions, so a lot of work. :( The article Iapetus Ocean included these two paragraphs on the British Isles and North America before I started working on it. Because I prefer local geology to be discussed in articles about structures, units and orogenies rather than in articles on paleogeographic features, I plan to move most of those paragraphs to Caledonian orogeny and the two corresponding orogenies in N. America.
The map of the Hercynian structures: I will add my sources later (Franke 1992, Ziegler 1990 and Matte 2001 are the most important ones). You point out exactly my own uncertainties. About Iberia: I think for an overview, this image will probably do. Ideally we should have a geologic map of Spain+Portugal to show greater details (in due time). About the eastern end: it is not very well-done and I am uncertain. My sources contradict each other... Thanks for the link to Walter (great!), I will try to adjust my map soon. :)
I will watch the article de:Böhmische Masse and translate your changes when you're done. If you need to have access to literature: send me an email with the reference, I have an online subscription to most geologic magazines at the moment. (Woudloper AT wikipedia DOT be)
Rhenohercynian basin: you are perhaps right. My main source, Ziegler (1990), says the internal structure of the basin is unclear. He does give three post-Caledonian back-arc basins at Laurussia's southern edge: Rhenohercynian, Saxothuringian and Armorican. The last two were probably connected or continuous. Since the Saxothuringian basin seemed to be smaller than the Saxothuringian zone, I thought this could also be the case for the Rhenohercynian. I then planned two articles, one about the basin (paleogeography and stratigraphy) and one about the zone (geology). I do not feel certain at all about this choice and I think you can be right about just having Rhenohercynian zone. I have the same problem with other paleogeographic names (for example: what to do with things like "Ligero-Vosgan cordillera"?). Do you feel we shouldn't have separate articles on the Armorican and Saxothuringian basins either?
I think at least geological units and structures like the Giessen nappe and the Lizard complex deserve their own articles in time, when the bigger structures are done. Whenever I find a geologic structure or stratigraphic unit that could eventually have its own article (but has no priority), I put it here - please feel free to add as many names as you like. - Woodwalker (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The problem with these variscan basins is the still remaining uncertainty about their original configurations, and the heterogenous knowledge about them. I'm not sure if the division between basin and zone is worth the pain of writing two articles without redundancies.
I think there's still a lot of uncertainty about the relations of the different zones, so it might be a good idea to write separate articles for e.g. the Amorican and Saxothuringian zones.
That's a nice list you have, and work for a year or two, don't you think? I have a similar, if somewhat shorter list here. The Giessen nappe was on it too, I wrote it earlier this year.
I'll have to do some thinking about all you wrote, and now I'm tired. I'll be back tomorrow.--Jo (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jo, me again. I updated the map (see right map in the gallery above) and added the sources at commons. It is difficult to decide weather to have the Permian reconstruction (I used Matte (2001) for central Europe) or the present geologic structure. Rotating Iberia back still seems a good idea at least, but I think it makes little sense to have present outcrops highlighted, but Permian positions of sutures/shear zones. Especially the Permian paleogeography of the Hercynian massifs in the Alps is highly speculative (nevertheless, Matte did a try).
I found an article on the Lizard complex, it had a strange title and its content is (currently) of the category "blatant POV". But still. There is an article. :) Am I right to assume this ophiolite complex, as well as the Giessen nappe (nice article, I'll try to translate it later) and probably some other non-sedimentary units are considered part of the Rhenohercynian zone? In that case there is a difference between the zone and the basin, however that does not mean we should have two articles: I am still undecided.
Some maps suggest there is a difference between the Moldanubian zone and the Moldanubicum, is this true? I find a lot of "sensu latto/stricto" in the literature, so I guess the exact definition of many units is unclear.
Of course I don't plan to write all those articles in my list. To summarize: the main article, Hercynian orogeny, needs a major revision. I think there should at least be subarticles on the main structures, for central Europe:
Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my late response, I'm quite busy at work and don't have too much spare energy left for WP at the moment. As I don't want to give you unreliable answers I have to read a bit, and just now haven' got the time for appropriate studies. But I have the following remarks:
  • I think the subdivision you gave is quite state of the art.
  • I would stick to the use of the english terms, not the anglicised versions of the latin denominations (Moldanubian instead of Moldanubicum, which is the same, btw).
  • The basins are paleogeographic features, their remains are now contained in the zones.
  • Saxothuringian includes the MGCH, and according to the map is unclear if it is to be correlated with the Amorican zone (= continuation of Tepla-Barrandian zone / Ossa Morena zone). Regardless of tectonic and paleogeographic relationships: it is in my eyes a seperate encyclopedic entity, because this name has been quite present in geologic literature. This leads me to the conclusion, that terms like Tepla-Barrandian or Ossa Morena zone perhaps should be described seperately.
  • The correlations of the zones might be better placed in Hercynian orogeny.
Nice work now, the map. I think it should be based on the present geologic structure, else the reader has to make an extra effort to understand it, so no Permian configurations, and no backrotation. In my opinion it would be a good idea to trace the Alpine/Carpathian front with a thin dashed line. Btw, you forgot to translate Centraal massief.
Lizard complex, that's a funny article. Someone was very proud of it, don't you think? But there is quite a lot of good material to be used in a neutral and more factual article, which should include a "where-and-what-section" before plunging into details. The controversy regarding the ophiolithic nature of the Lizard complex should be incorporated. Lizard and Gießen nappe are regarded as remnants of an ocean between Rhenohercynian and Saxothuringian (Lizard-Gießen ocean), so strictly speaking they were not part of the Rhenohercynian basin, but today they are part of the zone. --Jo (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Slight correction: At least the Lizard complex is regarded as part of the Saxothuringian zone. Additionally the southernmost part of the Rheinisches Schiefergebirge is seen by some authors as part of the Saxothuringian (Phyllitzone), e.g. by Eisbacher (Eisbacher, Gerhard H. (1991), Einführung in die Tektonik (1. ed.), Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag, ISBN 3-432-99251-3 ). As a consequence the Gießen Nappe could be regarded as Saxothuringian too. A good description of the complicated situation in the southern Rheinisches Schiefergebirge and the Harz is given by Huckriede et al. 2004 (Huckriede H, Wemmer K, Ahrendt H (2004) Palaeogeography and tectonic structure of allochthonous units in the German part of the Rheno-Hercynian Belt (Central European Variscides). Int J Earth Sci 93:414–431) --Jo (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that sure is useful information. The article by Huckriede et al. looks interesting. I will study it and when I have time I will start writing. I think there is also a Sudetic zone, or is that a subdivision of the Moravo-Silesian? Don't feel uncomfortable not to reply directly, Wikipedia won't be written in one day and I don't mind at all. :) I'll be back later. Woodwalker (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a Sudetic Zone, it's the area of the Sudetes and seems to be the same as the „Lugikum“. It is not the Moravo-Silesian, which is further south. It's funny you ask this, as I've been doing some websearch on this area today: for an up-to-date review see Kryza et al. (2004): The Sudetic geological mosaic: Insights into the root of the Variscan orogen.
There are some interesting papers dealing with the continuation of the Rhenohercynian to the east, have a look at Kalvoda et al. (2002): Late Proterozoic-Paleozoic tectonostratigraphic development and paleogeography of Brunovistulian Terrane and comparision with other terranes at the SE margins of Baltica-Laurussia. --Jo (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jo! If you have time, can you perhaps look at the two small articles I wrote/edited so far: Saxothuringian Zone and Armorican Massif. I also translated the first bit of Giessen nappe. How to proceed now? I think I'll include structural/tectonic information in the article on the Rhenohercynian Basin and then move it to Rhenohercynian Zone; and try to write articles on the Moldanubian Zone and translate Bohemian Massif.
The main article, Hercynian orogeny, tells in the current version that the Hercynian orogeny also occured in East Asia and large parts of America. I saw you were in favour of this concept. At university I was taught that Hercynian/Variscan only applies to Europe and parts of North Africa, but there are certainly sources too that speak of a worldwide "Variscan era" of mountain building. However, "Hercynian/Variscan" seems not generally in use in this sense, in North America -for example- the name Alleghenian is used. The IP-user you answered about a year ago on the TP is right too, I found some literature that considers "Variscan" to be only a phase of the Hercynian. But most books I have tell the two names are synonyms. Riddles and mysteries... Woodwalker (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Your articles seem to be ok, I fixed some links, that's all. Good work. Your plan to proceed seems to be good, first the description of the Variscan units, and then (perhaps) the synthesis.
The Hercynian/Variscan question is tricky, I tried to give an overview of it in the introduction of Variscan article. I think these terms really are European terms, and not widely used outside Europe. And you're right, there are some uses of Variscan implying it's only a phase of Hercynian. This is not the case in Germany, though, and I think the meanings shift when you cross the borders ... I think you know that it gets more and more difficult to find a good name for an orogeny, because all the terms existing have evolved historically and are fixed to the region where they have been developed in a way.
And no, I'm not in favour of the concept of a worldwide "Variscan era", I only don't know a better name for this orogenic cycle. Perhaps the article should stick to Europe and Northern Africa as Variscan/Hercynian orogeny, and give an additional overview of related penecontemporanous mountain building (Variscan/Hercynian era). --Jo (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hercynian and Alleghenian orogenic belts in the Carboniferous
Part of the naming problem seems to be that in the course of the last century, man invented plate tectonic theory. There are now new ways to define an orogeny, for example by plate configurations of the past. So the definitions of the 19th century are not the same as the current ones. Variscan/Hercynian in a geodynamic sense seems to apply to the closing of the Rheic Ocean (including Rhenohercynian Ocean and other smaller Devonian-Carboniferous oceanic basins) between Gondwana and Laurussia. If that same ocean extended to the east, there should be Hercynian orogenic belts in Asia too. The North American Alleghenian orogeny seems to be the geodynamically the same thing, just further west. I made a small map for oversight (to the right, at the eastern end it was impossible to continue the sutures since the Carpathians have overridden the Hercynian structures of the Balkan).
I will change the main article later. Some parts of the German article can be incorporated for example, the Dutch version is pretty long too now (but incomplete) since I use that for trying things out.
Thanks for reviewing my articles, I would appreciate it if you can now and then look at my work as there are many uncertainties. Woodwalker (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you summed it up nicely, and it's a nice map. I tried to decipher the eastern continuation for my Map of the distribution of varisican orogenies, too. It's difficult because I don't know too much about the geology there. But I think the article by Kalvoda et al. cited above gives some clues how to proceed. In the west there's the Ouachita orogen and a possible continuation to northern South America.
As I'm not too active here these days you should give me a heads-up on my German page when you need my help. But I'll check your contributions here from time to time. --Jo (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Duluth Complex[edit]

Danke für die Übersetzung. If you have any suggestions for further improvement please let me know. Grüße. Kablammo (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It was obvious that like that area. You're a lopolithan from Minnesota :)? My 'improvements' as a geologist would be too technical... it's a nice article. Thanks for feedback! --Jo (talk)
I am, but the archetype of a lopolith no longer is one! Alles gute, Kablammo (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

List of nature parks in Germany[edit]

Thanks enormously for your help on the translation. I've taken the liberty of some minor edits downstream of yours.

Interestingly, there was one place in the process where I must have failed to save a set of edits; many of the translations you made in the last round were verbatim to what I had for the same phrases. On the other hand, you appear to have successfully translated at least 20 short passages that I couldn't understand. (My only formal study of German was what I needed to get a Mathematics degree about 35 years ago.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It was fun and as both geologist and German I had no real difficulties with the subject - except maybe with my English. As Akerbeltz said, the translation resulted in a very German type of English, but at least it's coherent now and understandable. Strange that you lost your edits, good I didn't do worse than you. --Jo (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Cambridge, Massachusetts[edit]

Hi, [1] - just to let you know that Cambridge points to the city in England, use Cambridge, Massachusetts for the American city. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Sorry, I forgot to re-check, was disturbed by my daughter after copying this item from my German translation ... --Jo (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, cool. DuncanHill (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)