User talk:SilentResident

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


Greek Dimos infobox[edit]

Hello! I stumbled across the article Pasas, Oinousses and was a bit confused about the presentation. It presents the area of the island, but also of the municipality, and then states that the population of the municipality is 0! The page history shows that you have used the "Infobox Greek Dimos" template, but that template is not really suitable here. It is made for use in articles about Greek municipalities and municipal units and can with careful adaptation be used for smaller units (for example by using the parameter set "Community" instead of "Area" and "Population". But for a small island, especially an island without any population, it does not really fit very well. There is no "Community" on Pasas. (Also the time zone seems a little out of context on an uninhabited island!) Don't you think it would be better to use the "Infobox islands", which is made for just islands!? --T*U (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the problem is that the island is inhabited, not by a local population but by a permanent personell which is garrisoned. Hence the number zero. Do you think the term Community, or the Island infobox even though the island is inhabited, could better in such a case? I don't know other examples in Wikipedia which could help me on understanding on how to handle this. It is first time I stumple upon an island that has permanent personell but no locals. --SILENTRESIDENT 07:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for spotting the Municipality = 0 mistake. I changed it to Community as suggested, which is more accurate, but still this makes it show as a pop of zero.
Edit 1: I changed the infobox back to Island. It displays zero pop, just for the island itself. --SILENTRESIDENT 07:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Edit 2: TU-nor, now I remember why I did replace the Island infobox to Demos back then. The locator parameters in the Island infobox were not working properly and were causing errors and the reason for switching to Demos. But now that I reverted it back to Island Infobox, it still caused these old errors to me. I checked now the Template:Infobox_islands and I found it wasn't the Island infobox's fault, just wrong parameters in it. Now this has been fixed. Enjoy! --SILENTRESIDENT 09:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Great! Much better. --T*U (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong place?[edit]

I suggest you move today's comment at Talk:Western Europe to the section "Selective picking of countries in WE list - Greece out, but Malta, Germany and Finland in?" so as to keep the two threads separate. --T*U (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we merge the threads. They are about the same problem: the criteria for inclusion or non-inclusion of countries into the pop list plus for the other points you mentioned. --SILENTRESIDENT 07:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Not really. The thread you started is about which countries (and languagea) to include/exclude. The thread I started is about abolishing the whole thing. That is not quite the same thing. --T*U (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
They are the two sides of the same problem - in my thread, I am pointing out to what problems this article has with certain countries being in and out of the list based on personal perceptions of editors. And in your thread, you are pointing out to what are the most ideal solutions for avoiding such problems: to abolish the article sections or base them on geographical and not on personal perceptions. I am afraid it is quite the same problem we are having here, and a drastic solution is needed. --SILENTRESIDENT 07:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
You really seem to have a knack at interpreting my comments differently from how they are meant. I have re-read my posting, and I cannot find that I have said that the sections should be "based on geographical criteria". All I have said that inclusion criteria should be specified, or else the sections should be removed. And as far as I can see, there are no geographical criteria specified anywhere in the article, either. Regards! --T*U (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, and it seems you really seem to have a knack at wanting the others interpreting differently your comments. You said "One solution is to specify inclusion criteria for each and all of those four articles" which, pointless to remind you, are geographical articles. If you do not meant geographical criteria for these geographical articles, then what else could work best? Am I missing something or are you just testing my patience? Just letting you know: if you imply that each of these articles could mean different criteria, i.e. non-geographical, then I don't think I will support your suggestions as this isn't resolving the problem at its root. --SILENTRESIDENT 13:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for late answer; I am a bit busy in real life for the moment. What I meant (and said) is criteria, nothing less, nothing more. I would be willing to discuss whatever kind of criteria that might be suggested: pure geographical, cultural, historical, geopolitical, any combination of those, possibly other. I have not concluded on what kind of criteria I would prefer for any of the sections, and I am not even certain that the same criteria need to be used for the four sections. The only thing I am certain about so far, is that each of those four sections needs explicit criteria for what is meant by "Western Europe" before we can give the section any meaningful content. For example, I find it hard to understand why Finland should be included in the "Population" section, and not Greece. On the other hand, there might be reasons to include Slovenia and exclude Greece. It all depends on the criteria, and as long as there are not any criteria given, we are stuck with POVs. Please also note that the current article has no defined geographical criteria. Even if we should agree to use purely geographical criteria, we would need to agree on where the "border line" is. Include Germany or not? Include Denmark and Norway, but not Sweden and Finland? Include Spain and Portugal? You included Greece in the "Population" section, presumably according to some criteria. You removed German from the "Language" table, but kept Italian, presumably according to some criteria. I do not agree, and I do not disagree. As long as there are no criteria given, those four sections are useless POV, and the discussion about which countries/languages to include is valueless. If you or anyone else are willing to and able to suggest inclusion criteria for those sections, I will give my opinion in that discussion. I have, however, not much hope for such a discussion to end up in anything useful, in which case I will suggest that those sections are removed. Finally: Please accept this posting as a confirmation that I have not said or meant that the sections should be "based on geographical criteria" (like you have stated in the talk page). --T*U (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, no need for confirmation that you haven't said this or that. But when discussing about reasonable *criteria* for a geographical article like Western Europe, we can not assume or expect the criteria to be non-geographical, since the article itself is a geographical one. No matter what, but WE, SE, NE, CE and EE are geographical definitions despite their varying geopolitical and cultural meanings through the ages, and there can be only be one kind of criteria for which countries shall be listed in them: geographical. (And to cast aside any possible concerns about non-geographical definitions of WE, it is pointless to remind that the history section already tackles with all possible non-geographical meanings for that term. Your thorough explanation here, however, made me realize that even geographical criteria may be very difficult to ever be decided - or *agreed*. In that case, I will come to the talk and change my position from applying geographical criteria to abolishing the four sections.--SILENTRESIDENT 04:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
You say that Western Europe is a geographical article. I disagree. In my opinion, it is (and should be) an article about the term "Western Europe". As far as I can see, the article does not even try to make a purely geographical definition of the term. As the lead says, the term has different geographic, geopolitical and cultural definitions, which are discussed in the article. This is also the reason why people have added for example Finland and Greece to the Population table, countries that could not by any stretch of imagination be seen as Western European in a purely geographical sense. --T*U (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Like it or not, Western, Northern, Southern, Central, are all geographical definitions foremost. Different types of these definitions, and different perceptions, also do exist and the article makes that clear. But there is no doubt that through the ages, the definition that stands out, was and still is the geographical one. No matter how we see it. We can spend tons of hours arguing about that, but nothing can change the fact that the terms are geographical in principle, even if they get geopolitical and other definitions at various time periods. It is true that the other definitions got more prominence during certain historical periods, but it could be false to argue about the term's geographical definition (or whether its meaning became less significant or lost). --SILENTRESIDENT 06:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"But there is no doubt that through the ages, the definition that stands out, was and still is the geographical one." If that is correct, it should absolutely be mentioned in the article. That would, of course, have to be sourced to a reliable source. Problem is, I am not sure it can be sourced. I am not even sure it is true. --T*U (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
True about sourcing geographical definitions. It is difficult to find sources for supporting geographic definitions directly, and thats not only the case about Europe, but also about countries, peninsulas, etc. Even noticed geographical places in Wikipedia that do not have exact definite borders, are unsourced or have conflicting sources but are still widely referred by certain geographical divisions. Even though I think this is a natural problem, I tried myself looking on internet specifically about WE and I couldnt find any good sources supporting it directly. However, in the case where it is verified, but sources are difficult to cite, I wonder if it can rather be considered too obvious and fall under WP:BLUESKY? --SILENTRESIDENT 07:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I have to assume that you actually mean that... Wow! Goodbye for now. --T*U (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Do you really don't understand? OK, you see the article Northern Greece? There are no sources definition of what constitutes geographical Northern Greece, yet the article mentions of all the possible northern areas of the country. I assumed this to be a WP:BLUESKY case. While there are sources on internet, none of them is strong about it, yet you don't need sources to cite that these regions really are the northernmost in the country. It is just too obvious. What I am saying, is that perhaps the same can be done more or less for WE. In the talk, you have asked rhetorically if Spain has to be included in the climate section of WE, while Germany on the economy section but don't you think you know the answers for both countries already? --SILENTRESIDENT 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
TU-nor, you mentioned about me "keeping" the Italian language in the WE Languages section. I shall note that I didn't keep it, just I didn't finish the checking of all WE languages on the Ethnologue, hence why the cleanup of that list in the first place wasn't complete. So far I checked Ethnologue only for Catalan, Bacque, Greek, English, German and Dutch languages, if they exceed the 5.000.000 benchmark. The fact that I didn't finish the cleanup of the list (and the removal of Italian from it), doesn't mean I am endorsing the list, or that I am endorsing the Italian language's inclusion in that list. I am sorry if I wasn't that quick in finishing my edits on the article, but I prefer to be safe than sorry about the removal of content. Still, no matter what effords are made to clean the article, without definitive WE geographical criteria, I somehow have the impression that even my efforts are just a hole in the ocean and nothing more. --SILENTRESIDENT 05:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Can I just ask you what geographical "borders" of Western Europe you used as (geographical) criteria when you checked Ethnologue? --T*U (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Τried το keep only all the westernmost countries that are present in both of the definitions (CIA & Western European and Others Group). Still not quite happy with this workaround as I prefer the community to discuss for the actual geographical criteria, because only this way we can defend the article from editorial bias like this one witnessed the last couple days where Germany is present but Greece isn't. But I prefer it over other editor's selective removal of countries from the list.
Even so, I am still very unhappy with this temporary solution because I have a feeling that due to a lack of clear WE definition, not much can be done to keep POV edits away from these lists. We should remove these lists altogether, at least until after (and if) any discussion and consensus on geographic definitions is made.--SILENTRESIDENT 06:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Congrats for your work on reviewing articles![edit]

@PericlesofAthens:, @Iazyges:, I am personally impressed with the promotion of Macedonia (ancient kingdom) from Good Article to Featured Article, a feat seemed impossible just a few years ago. Congratulations to both of you! --SILENTRESIDENT 12:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@SilentResident: thanks for the words of encouragement! If you have time, you should certainly look over my new GA article Mosaics of Delos, for some of the most stunning works of Hellenistic Greek art ever produced, if not my new GA article Ethiopian historiography, which contains tons of information about the ancient Greeks and Byzantine Greeks in relation to the Kingdom of Aksum in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa (I even threw in a bit about the medieval Chinese of the Tang Dynasty, hehe). Regards --Pericles of AthensTalk 12:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Impressive, I didn't even knew about this. I definitely will look at them! --SILENTRESIDENT 17:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Greece at the crossroads[edit]

Hi SR. Thanks for reinstating my edit. By the way, the reason for the revert of my edit was pure OR. In fact, I had provided the three crossroads references in 2013: Here is my first edit supplying two sources and here is my subsequent edit supplying one more source; so yes, that was a revert of my edit despite having hauled three top-notch RS to support the "crossroads" descriptor. And do you know what's funny? There will be some guys coming in telling me that I do cite overkill. Here, with three references supporting "crossroads" and I get reverted. There can never be a safe number of references with POV like that. Is that funny or what? Dr. K. 02:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: I didn't knew you have provided sources for that. Can you please restore them? Or can I do that? Removal of sources by the editors for not suiting their POVs, goes blatantly against Wikipedia's policies and their edits will simply be reverted. Period. Feel free to restore the sources back. I will be watching the page more closely to make sure such a thing doesn't happen again. --SILENTRESIDENT 06:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
They are still at the Geography and climate section. Per WP:LEAD there is no need to repeat them at the lead. Tragically, given the OR and POV involved, this rule about the lead is ineffective for this article. Dr. K. 13:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

About translation of peripheries[edit]

Hi! I remember that back in 2011/2012 there were quite a lot of discussions on different talk pages about the translation of the Greek "περιφέρεια". The result at that time was not to use the English word "periphery" as a translation, since that word has a rather different meaning in English, but instead use the word "region". I have managed to find a couple of the discussions here and here. There were more, but the conclusions were the same. By the same token, "περιφερειακή ενότητα" was translated with "regional unit". It will need a discussion to change the consensus, and some of your edits today may have to be reverted in order to start the discussion from the current consensus version. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I will correct it asap. Thanks for pointing it out, T*U! --SILENTRESIDENT 14:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)