User talk:Hroberth Dunbar

Welcome!

Hello, Hroberth Dunbar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hroberth Dunbar! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Translation of existing article from German into English, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source citations in Draft:Handschriftencensus

Several of the source citations in Draft:Handschriftencensus exhibit the same error. When using citation templates, only one of |page= and |pages= should be used. Use "page" for a single page, and "pages" for a range or set of pages. However, I notice that several of the citations are to different pages of the same source. in that case repetition can be avoided by using a "named reference" with no page or pages specified. Then individual citations can use {{RP}} to indicate the page number(s) for that citation. This is described in Help:Footnotes#Footnotes: page numbers and Help:References and page numbers.

If I can be of further help in this matter, you can ping me here, ir leave a note on User talk:DESiegel (my user talk page). DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references....

I hope you do not mind, but I thought I would help with the problem noted above. You cited the same book, four times, so there is a way to consolidate this to only one mention of the book, but still be able to indicate the specific page or pages, each time, as needed.

So, I have edited your article. I have started you off by "naming" the reference, and indicating the page numbers. Now, you have an example to follow...you can look at the source code to see how I did it, so you can do the next two entries yourself, for practice. Just follow the second example, etc. For a range of pages, just put a dash between the numbers. Please excuse my garbled explanation.

If you want, I will do the other Gamper refs for you, and the Klein ones also. just let me know. Nice article! Regards, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tribe of the Tiger! I was going to get to figuring out how to merge the footnotes into one reference but it was getting late in Germany by the time I fixed the numerous other glitches, dates and urls ect... I will look at the source code to see how you did it. I learn better that way than anyways, by imitating. I am used to doing bibliographies for academic papers, so this takes some adjusting to.

Short description for Draft:Handschriftencensus

Hi, thanks for your work on the article about Handschriftencensus. I came across it on Giraffer's talk page and we've both been trying to help improving the article. I'm messaging you because the current short description ("Research effort to gather info on Old and Middle High German texts") is a bit long - the applicable guideline suggests that short descriptions should be only about 40 characters long. I've been thinking about changing it to "Philological research project"; do you think that would be a fitting description? Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not my TP (got the ping tho) but I think that is certainly a fitting description. Giraffer (munch) 11:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for the message. I wouldn't characterize it as a research project. It is more thought of as a resource to be used by philologic researchers. Research implies something more in depth and probing for new insights. HSC simply provides researchers with basic information, its a catalogue or register. My original short description was: codicological, paleographical, linguistic and literary descriptions of medieval manuscripts including the locations of the archiving institutions.

The mentions of Old and Middle High German languages was in the first paragraph.

40 characters is really just a few words,

"catalogue of German language medieval manuscripts" is 44 characters without spaces and fairly succinctly captures the essence. The find the word "language" important as not to confuse with anything national; there were no nations, as we think of them in the Middle Ages.

What do you think of that short description?

Thanks, Hroberth Dunbar

Yes, that's a good idea. We could probably drop the "language" there, since that would be implied. I had added "ongoing research effort" to the lead to make it more clear that the project was academic in nature (previous versions just said "effort", if I recall correctly). It might be a good idea to rewrite the lead sentence as well. Would "Handschriftencensus is an online database of medieval German manuscripts, curated by a working group at the University of Marburg. [...]" be an apt characterisation? PS: Just as a quick tip: It's often a good idea to ping other users when replying to messages on your talk page and you can have your messages automatically signed and timestamped by typing four tildes (~~~~). Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call it a research effort, the idea is not to research the manuscripts but to catalogue basic information about the manuscripts for researchers to use in one central location. Its a tool for research. 'Research tool' would be much more accurate. I wouldn't characterize compiling information in catalogue form as 'research'. Its really much more like what a librarian does with new books, they catalogue them and provide library users basic information about them. The word 'academic' certainly applies but I find 'research' misleading. HSC is also not a database of manuscripts, but a database of information about manuscripts. There are often (but not always) links to digitalized images of the manuscripts, but these are posted by the institutions which archive the manuscripts, its not a function of Handschriftencensus to directly provide images and there are none to be found there (just links to them). When someone goes to HSC they are not going to find manuscripts or their images there, but instead catalogued information about them and descriptions of them, as well as bibliographies of secondary literature about them.

I find the word 'language' fairly crucial because "German" implies a country or national identity, or at least some people will understand it as such. Some manuscripts emerged from Switzerland und even in what today is France or in Prague. There was no 'Germany' in the Middle Ages.

Thanks for your input. I'm still not sure about how pinging works. I've tried typing the 4 tildes ˜˜˜˜ Hroberth Dunbar˜˜˜˜

@Hroberth Dunbar: and @Blablubbs:The above conversation and characterization, reminds me of WorldCat. Perhaps a look at the lede of this article would be helpful? The term "bibliographic database" seems to apply here. Hope this helps. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tribe of Tiger: bibliographic database would not apply to HSC as a whole because the manuscripts catalogued are not published, but instead each is an individual und unique creation of a scribe, usually a monk. A bibliographic database of editions and secondary literature is a component part of HSC. Publishing as we know it, did not exist in the Middle Ages. I linked to 'biographical database' where this component database is described. Thanks for the idea. Hroberth Dunbar

@Hroberth Dunbar: Thanks for the explanation. I must admit that these distinctions had not occurred to me as this is all quite a bit over my head! I am so pleased that I could help you in some small way, though. Now, despite the fact that you typed out the "ping" properly, unless you actually sign the note with the four tildes ~~~~, the computer system, evidently, does not "know" to send the notification to the person you have "pinged". I happened to find your note because I had seen the addition to the Draft, and wandered over to your talk page out of curiousity.

I must tell you that your article seems to have struck a nerve, here on WP, in a very good way! In my experience, it is unusual to have so many people interested in a Draft, working on refs and giving advice. I know that many things are confusing, re navigating WP, but you have a supportive group of followers, ready to assist the good work that you are doing. Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 01:34, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick sidenote (I'll reply to the rest of your message as soon as I have more time): The tildes you inserted there are small tildes, which is likely why the software doesn't parse them. Depending on your keyboard layout, you may have to use a special key combination to get regular tildes. Another option would be to copy paste them or use the Charinsert extension which you can find at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets - it gives you the possibility to directly insert your signature. Pinging might be easiest to explain with an example: Typing {{re|Blablubbs}} renders as @Blablubbs: and notifies me that someone mentioned me. Best, — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hroberth Dunbar! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Citations and deleting/ replacing another's work, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Hroberth Dunbar! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, First article - formatting question, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Handschriftencensus has been accepted

Handschriftencensus, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with citations, etc

H:CHEAT is a marvelous quick reference guide. It will save you much frustration and despair!

It is not a usual thing for one editor to place items on someone's personal userpage, but I hope you won't be offended if I post some helpful info on your userpage, so it is easily available. Trying to find things later on your talkpage is messy, as you can imagine.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 21:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]