User talk:Geoffrey Groesbeck
Welcome
[edit]Hi Geoff, Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm curious to read from you. Good luck! Spartanbu (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos
[edit]Hi! Thank you for the additions to Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. I only had a cursory glance over them, but will reread later. Just a quick question, I noticed that you removed the article from "Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos". Why? I notice that UNESCO has it with the article. bamse (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, bamse:
The correct phrase is simply "Jesuit of Missions of Chiquitos". The definite article "the" is not part of the phrase. In the original Spanish, the phrase is always "Misiones jesuíticas de Chiquitos" (with no article between "de" and "Chiquitos". See, for example, the original Spanish entry (not the incorrectly translated English version) in the UNESCO's World Heritage Site page: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/529
The confusion often arises in English because of a similar phrase "Jesuit missions of the Chiquitania", which is correct. However, "Chiquitania" and "Chiquitos" are not the same (as is pointed out in the Wikipedia entry). In English it is always "...of the Chiquitania", but also always "...of Chiquitos".
Additionally, the correct spelling of "Chiquitania" is always exactly as it is spelled here. It is never spelled with an accent on the third "i".
These changes also should be reflected in any categories or other article titles that carry the words "Chiquitos" and "Chiquitania".
Cheers,
Geoffrey Groesbeck (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. I don't have a preference for either name, however my understanding is that for the WHS infobox, the official UNESCO name should be used (even if incorrect). Apparently UNESCO uses different versions in English/Spanish, so not sure which to pick. Will ask the Wikiproject World Heritage Sites for additional input. bamse (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bizarre idea that translations from Spanish to English should only have articles where the Spanish does! The rules governing the use of articles in the two languages are considerably different. However I wouldn't trust UNESCO translations all that much, but better evidence is needed here. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW, at least ICOMOS got the name right in English. Also reliable sources seem to prefer the version without article (based on a google books search). I moved the article to Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos. bamse (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- Bizarre idea that translations from Spanish to English should only have articles where the Spanish does! The rules governing the use of articles in the two languages are considerably different. However I wouldn't trust UNESCO translations all that much, but better evidence is needed here. Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Another question on edits
[edit]In the sentence "Four other former Jesuit missions..." why did you change "Three" to "Four"? There are only three towns mentioned in that sentence, no? bamse (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Featured article?
[edit]BTW, do you have any interest in bringing the article up to featured status? It previously failed a candadicy, as far as I can see mostly because of issues with the history of the Jesuits in South America and their expulsion. To be honest, I don't have any sources to improve that part of the article and not a whole lot of time to spend on wikipedia either at the moment. For an expert like you, it would probably be easy to improve the article. Please let me know if I can be of any help. bamse (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC) +
Featured article?
[edit]+ BTW, do you have any interest in bringing the article up to featured status? It previously failed a candadicy, as far as I can see mostly because of issues with the history of the Jesuits in South America and their expulsion. To be honest, I don't have any sources to improve that part of the article and not a whole lot of time to spend on wikipedia either at the moment. For an expert like you, it would probably be easy to improve the article. Please let me know if I can be of any help. bamse (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC) − Hi, Bamse (and Johnbod):
I am happy to help in any way that I can, but first let me clarify a point that I am certain both of you will understand.
If an incorrect name is to be used, it presents professional problems for me and also seems to negate the value of any contribution I could make to an article. As a researcher on these missions, I can't afford mistakes, especially ones that all of my colleagues would recognise immediately.
The background to these edits is that I was asked by a Wikipedia editor to correct, write new articles for, and add photographs to (if appropriate) these ex-missions as a whole, and also for the towns they are located in. This was not to be done exclusively in the context of whether they are World Heritage Sites (only six of them are), but rather as individual and collective historical and cultural patrimonies. I know Barbara and her colleagues at UNESCO, and supply data and photographs of these and other Jesuit missions to them from time to time, and also understand that UNESCO from time to time makes mistakes. Regardless, UNESCO is not the arbiter of correct spellings for these missions and would never claim to be. − Perhaps another article should be written on these missions specifically as World Heritage Sites. In that article, I suppose the writer could use whatever spellings - correct or otherwise - he/she wishes to employ. But when referring to these towns as stand-alone entities, and as a collective whole, I believe proper spellings, in any language, must always be maintained. If there are variants (e.g., San Xavier > San Javier), that's fine, but I cannot in good conscience condone known errors. − Consequently, I cannot condone incorrect spellings in my work, especially obvious ones like these. To do so would be both unethical and unprofessional. That's why I have to be so dogmatic about seemingly-inconsequential things like accents and definite articles. I realise someone unfamiliar with these missions wouldn't know (or care), but in my tiny world, all of us researchers know that a glance at any reputable publication will show the correct spellings always have been "...missions of Chiquitos" and "Chiquitania". Likewise in Spanish, "...misiones jesuíticas de Chiquitos" and again "Chiquitania". − BTW, yes, you are correct: There is a typo in the sentence which you mention. It should indeed be three, not four, ex-missions that remain east of San José de Chiquitos. − Thanks again for your messages. And if you will, give me a few days to get up to speed with Wikipedia. I do have the assistance of a good friend in Switzerland (Erich Loser) who has been very helpful (and patient). But I still have a long way to go before mastering it, and my teaching duties I cannot put aside until this weekend!
- Fully agree with you about using the correct name. I moved the article to the correct name (see above). Also changed "Four" to "Three". And take any time you need. I am very happy that you decided to improve this article. bamse (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)