Jump to content

User talk:Rrius/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

The Signpost: 02 January 2012


Senate image update

It's not clear the appointments have been officially made (just announced), so I'm holding off for now. -Rrius (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Comma after i.e.

Hello, per your edit to Murder of Stephen Lawrence, i.e. does not have a comma after it in British English. Therefore, I've removed the comma that you added. Graham87 04:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okey doke. FYI, an edit summary is sufficient for a minor point. -Rrius (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I know ... just didn't know if you were still watching the page. :-) Graham87 16:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
In any event, thanks for the info. It's in my American usage book, so I should have known. -Rrius (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Your edit to article on J. Sumption

Hello,

I am sure your cutting of this article's explanation of how the Supreme Court replaced the Appellate Committee was well-intended -- you noted that this was not relevant as JS was not joining the Appellate Committee but the Supreme Court. However, if you continue in the article, you will see that later on there is a comparative discussion of the tiny handful of lawyers who went directly from the Bar to the Appellate Committee (as JS has to the committee's successor). For lay readers (like Yours truly), the relevance of a discussion of direct elevation to the Appellate Committee will not be obvious unless they are told that the Supreme Court is its successor.

Best wishes with your future edits. Nandt1 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Then it belongs there, not where it makes no sense. -Rrius (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No sense

Do you know what a Single Member Electorate is? Do you know what FPP is? Ever heard of Adolf Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.61.161 (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what "democratic" means? It doesn't mean liberal and fuzzy. A person elected by first past the post in a single member constituency is democratically elected because he or she was elected by the people. I presume you support proportional representation. Supporters of PR argue it is more democratic, but even if that is so, it doesn't mean FPTP isn't democratic. Your edit were inappropriate and poorly informed, so I reverted them. -Rrius (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

Sorry

I just wanted to let you know that I commented at WP:CANADA, and I see what happened and why you thoguht I was lying. Sorry again, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've responded, and sorry I was too quick to judge. The more I think about, the more I believe I should have pointed out the discrepancy and asked you to clarify. -Rrius (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited List of current members of the British Privy Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of the Environment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeremy Hunt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maryland

True. can you add methodology details for the other 4 polls? 76.27.41.184 (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the methodology. I just noticed from the way that bit was written that it was likely supported by the preceding ref, so I checked it. I have never actually read that section aside from that paragraph. -Rrius (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:216.137.214.10

I have just reverted User:216.137.214.10's most recent unconstructive edits to the Mark Begich article, which he re-added after you reverted his previous edits. Any further assistance in dealing with this matter would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've upped the warning and provided a link to United States Senate election in Alaska, 2008. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Christian Wulff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States

Hello, I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so please excuse any breaches of etiquette. The original sentence in the article was not a run-on, but I did count nine prepositions, which is excessive and leads to reader confusion. And of course, there was the snafu at the end that I already mentioned. --Gremlint (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First, the etiquette breach was your impolite edit summary beginning with "Excuse me?" Second, the sentence had problems, but you didn't actually identify or fix any of them. Basically, the sentence was flabby, and needed to be trimmed. Simply lopping off part of it did nothing to help and only created a distractingly artificial break. Finally, there was no snafu at the end of it. Despite your edit summary, the antecedent was clearly "Republican state senators". I'm not sure if you don't know what "antecedent" means, but it is the noun to which a pronoun refers, not the noun immediately preceding the pronoun. Only an idiot would have read that sentence and understood "they" to have referred to gay couples. You really need to give people more credit. While changing the way that read wasn't wrong, and was actually an improvement, it wasn't the thing that sentence most needed and certainly didn't justify the rest of the edit.
Incidentally, the correct course is not to restore your edit when someone reverts it with a rationale explanation and then demand they let it stand and discuss the issue. The correct course if for you to let the revert stand and begin the discussion yourself because the status quo stands until you manage to change consensus with fellow editors. See WP:BRD. The best option would have been to find a better way to address what you saw as wrong with it while addressing what I thought was wrong with your edit. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Here I was ready to write about how our teamwork created an improved result, but I see insults from you. Idiot? Hmm ...
Yes, I know exactly what an antecedent is, but you seem to be confused about proper sentence structure. It is very poor grammar to construct a sentence with an additional noun between a pronoun and its antecedent — because the reader is forced to infer meaning that is not plainly stated. The reasonable inclination of the reader is to identify the noun immediately preceding the pronoun as the antecedent. And, in fact, that is the way proper sentences are usually constructed. But our original sentence (in the article we edited) had the same-sex couples running for reelection. --Gremlint (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry you read it that way, but I didn't call you an idiot. Go back and read it again, and please pay special attention this time to the sentence that comes after it. Done yet? Do you see how I was saying you were assuming other readers would be idiots? Now, to "grammar". Putting a noun between a pronoun and its antecedent is a question of usage, not grammar. It is poor usage, though how poor depends on whether a person could reasonably get confused. Since only an idiot would think that "should they seek re-election" referred to gay couples rather than Republican state senators, it was merely poor, even forgivable, and not "very poor". If you actually experienced that miscue, you instantly realized the truth. Were it truly a "very poor" usage error, it would have been impossible to determine the actual antecedent of "they"; in fact, that is what I was saying only an idiot would be unable to do in this case. -Rrius (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I hope you are done taking insult where none is intended. If not, please don't reply.
Well, since you've been so condescending from the get-go, I'll just report your insults to Wikipedia and let them decide.  And I'll refrain from calling you names you deserve.  --Gremlint (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If you go back and look at your edit summary reverting me, your tone has been far from neutral from the beginning. Go ahead and report me to whomever you wish, but I should tell you what they will say: grow a thicker skin. I haven't insulted you once, yet you seem to want to believe you are being insulted and to insult me. I'm not sure how you think that is beneficial, but best of luck to you. In any event, I did warn you not to reply if you weren't done taking insult where none was intended, but you did so anyway. So please don't bother to reply here. Your further responses will be deleted unread. -Rrius (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2012‎ (UTC)

Full stops

Hi. Re this edit: do you really want there to be no full stop between the end of the list and the start of the next sentence?

Really?

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, really, and I have style guides on my side. The items are not technically part of the preceding sentence, and the last item is not a sentence. If the list were part of the sentence, the bit before it would have to be "The Manager of Opposition Business in the House" with no punctuation or a dash, and the first two items would end in semicolons. Since the introductory sentence is a complete sentence ending in a colon, no punctuation is needed. -Rrius (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the list and the elements are short enough that there isn't a very good reason for it to be vertical instead of in-line. -Rrius (talk) 04:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
(scratches head vigorously) I'm not sure I'm following you at all, I'm afraid.
Are you saying that the words "including the following:" are the last 3 words of a sentence?
Can you explain how that can possibly be so, when those very words introduce the list of bulleted items. If they are not in some sense part of the overall sentence, how can we get away with 3 isolated bullet points in the midst of otherwise properly constructed sentences? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 05:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Grammatically, if you take the colon and make it a full stop, you have a complete sentence. There is an implied subject, a transitive verb ("including"), and an object of that verb ("the following"). If you replace "the following" with "awesome stuff", you'll see that it is indeed a complete sentence. While it is grammatically complete, it is not logically complete, which is why a colon is used instead of a full stop. Printers and other stylists over the years could have decided that a vertical list items have to take punctuation as though included in the preceding sentence. Indeed, when what precedes the list is a fragment, it does need punctuation: a semicolon (or possibly a comma if the items are all very short) for all but the last, which receives a full stop. But they didn't. They may have had a logical reason, or they may have been trying to save on printing costs. Or, I suppose, they could have just thought it looked nicer.
I can certainly sympathise with your head scratching. For years I used semicolons or commas with a terminal full stop (period, to us Yanks) because it felt right. It just seems weird to end a sentence with something other than a full stop, exclamation mark, or question mark. But later I just let go and went with what the mass of opinion says. Being legally trained, I can tell you that, at least in America, lawyers are the about only ones who do use semicolons and full stops after a main clause terminated with a colon. And, having read thousand upon thousands of pages of legal writing, lawyers are the last people you want to emulate.
Is that because of the thousands and thousands of pages of legal writing they've all been reading? I'm sure it would do anyone's head in.  :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It's worth noting that punctuation should be used in another circumstance. Where a list item is a sentence, it should take the appropriate terminal punctuation (full stop or question mark). Also, while it would be stylistically sub-optimal, one could use a full stop at the end of each item in a vertical list even if none is a sentence. However, it is never correct to have a final non-sentence list item end in a full stop when the rest of the list items are bare (i.e., no comma, semicolon, or full stop).
I hope this didn't come across with too much of a lecturing tone. It is hard to avoid it altogether, and the combination of the late hour (it's after midnight here) and the fumes from reseasoning my cast-iron skillet has left my brain too addled to minimise it. -Rrius (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No, not at all. I understand all your arguments. But I still hate the outcome ... the outcome at this stage, that is. I have some more thinking to about this. I shall return. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, good catch here; it's cool that a little punctuation mark can make a huge difference in meaning. -Rrius (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

The Signpost: 05 March 2012

Conservative Party of Canada: Abortion

Thank you for your welcome to Wikipedia. However, I have been anonymously editing articles on Wikipedia since 2005, and am not in need of instructions as to how to create an account, or what Wikipedia's policies are. I choose to post anonymously.

In regard to the single sentence added by myself to the Conservative Party of Canada: Abortion section, please note that it is both pertinent to the section and cited from a reputable source, and therefore meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability and relevance.

Thank you for your concern. Please do not merely revise any contribution you do not personally feel belongs on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.37.146 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't learned much in those years. You don't even know that talk page posts belong at the bottom. Your source is not unreliable per se, but it does an inadequate job of describing the situation, and your paraphrasing of it is inaccurate. The source says "a committee of MPs"; you said "a committee of Conservative MPs". That's not true at all. In fact, the Conservatives don't even have a majority on that committee. See Standing Order 91.1. What's more, they didn't "give him time". All they did was determine that the bill didn't meet the Procedure Committee's criteria for a nonvotable motion. It was a non-event that you are trumping up into the Conservative Party somehow thrusting the abortion issue front and center instead of one member putting forward a bill. You are just plain wrong. -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and if you are so experienced, how is it you don't know how to either sign or prevent SineBot from signing for you? One would have thought that in the seven years you claim to have been participating you would have picked that up. -Rrius (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Bligh Ministry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Fraser (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

New Qld MPs

Hi. It's great that you're creating these articles (we'll have to wait until they're sworn in for really useful info from the Qld Parliament website, of course), but don't forget to add some basic references, otherwise there's every chance they'll be pinged by the BLP patrol. I've just added Antony Green as a reference to the two you've already done. Frickeg (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I was just going to wait a couple of days and use the Qld Elections Commission, but I see your point. -Rrius (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It is kind of a pain, I agree, but I have seen pages like this get prodded or tagged before and it just saves all that bother. I generally include the ref in the copy-paste of all the stuff at the bottom and then just fix it up for each one when I'm doing pages like this. Frickeg (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I might just copy-and-paste the whole article, then change the details. In reality, there aren't many differences. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I say go for it (changing the template, that is). They're all members from yesterday anyway; just leave out Bulimba, Mackay and Yeerongpilly (and maybe Thuringowa - Katter seems pretty sure he's won that one, so I'm not sure what's going on ... I haven't considered it in doubt in the stuff I've done so far) with maybe a note about there being seats still in doubt. I don't think anyone will get worked up about it; we've been through it previously for federal elections and things. Frickeg (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the deal with Bulimba anyway? ABC have it as "in doubt", but they also have it as "ALP retain" instead of "ALP ahead". Even on the list of in-doubt seats. -Rrius (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit induced me to settle for removing the old names for the time being. -Rrius (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to the members table are taking it well out of sync with the couple of thousand similar pages. I've restored the "Hon" titles (they're retained for life in Qld) and Douglas's previous service. Content to leave the rest for the time being but try to keep it at least moderately close. The sortname thing is an excellent thing though. Frickeg (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that is not necessarily true. They are retain for minister who serve more than three years if they (1) request to retain it and (2) are approved by the Premier. Not all of them request to retain it, so we need more than just the fact they were ministers. Besides, having it means updating every time there is a reshuffle, being careful to remove it for short-termers. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
According to our page on the title, that's only the case in NSW, SA and Tas; in the rest of the states, as federally, it is automatically retained for life. Unfortunately I can't find a source for this right now, although I'm going to keep looking because that section really needs it! In the meantime, I've left the Hon thing out anyway because it appears to mess up the sortname thing. Any way around that? Frickeg (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is wrong; I just looked it up a few days ago. -Rrius (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here's the source: [1] (MS Word document). -Rrius (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
You're quite right; mea culpa. I'll change the page in question. Frickeg (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the problem with the Douglas issue, though. What was wrong with the previous arrangement of "DATE-present"? It removes the issue, and they have to be changed back to that anyway when the parliament's term ends. Frickeg (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense. First, it is a list of current MPs, therefore they are all going to have a term of service of some date to the present. Saying "–present" is simply redundant. Second, the heading says "first elected"; in context, this clearly is supposed to refer to consecutive service. Even if it weren't, providing two answers to "first elected" is illogical. Marking the situation and explaining the prior service does more for the reader than listing two years. Presumably the other articles, though I haven't looked yet, provide a range for the prior service, which is completely non-responsive to column entitled "first elected". In fact, it is unintentionally deceptive: If I wrote the sentence "He was first elected 2001–2006," it would create the impression that his election took place somewhere in that range.
I actually want to turn the question around though: what is the problem with actually giving a fuller explanation of the situation in a footnote? -Rrius (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've actually changed my mind. It is a list of all members, so that if a member resigns, that person and their replacement will be listed. However, the heading needs to change to "Term" or something like that. "First elected" does not do the job.
No problems with the new version. Incidentally, I've been considering a complete overhaul of the structure of these lists for a while now; the US versions are able to present far, far more information. It would be a gigantic job, though, and I just don't have the time at the moment. Frickeg (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

Bizarre, unsupported, false accusation from Collingwood26

I have seen on several Australian pages where YOU have said some pretty awful and offensive things about my country. If you hate Australia thats fine, but I would like you to keep it to yourself. If you want to reply do so on my talk page.--Collingwood26 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I have responded there, but what the fuck? -Rrius (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fiona Simpson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Opposition (Queensland) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Andrew Fraser

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing

-;) Dkriegls (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

40th Quebec general election

Hello. I was stalking your user page, as you know I follow elections. I noticed you have the 40th Quebec general election being held before January 7, 2013. Do you know something that I, or the other article editors, don't? As far as I know an election could be called any time in 2013. 117Avenue (talk) 05:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. January actually refers to 2014, but it's at the top of that particular list to remind me to find the writ return date so I can establish the correct date. January 7 is based on the current parliament expiring on December 8, 2013, which is obviously not correct. In short, it is in the wrong place to remind me to find exactly the right place. -Rrius (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Ha! Found it![2] Assuming the writ comes with expiration, and not later, polling day would be 20 January 2014 (which I determined with an actual calendar this time rather than trying to do the math in my head). -Rrius (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice job, I guess I couldn't find it because I was using English search terms. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
When looking for dates writs were actually returned, I like going to the relevant Gazette first, but Quebec's is impenetrable. No matter how many times you tell it you want the site to be in English, it doesn't care. At least the National Assembly's site will actually let you navigate in English, even if they aren't too bothered about giving you content in English. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Shane Knuth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Christine Smith
William Hemmant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Electoral district of East Moreton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

re: Mark Kirk#Personal Life, Hi Rrius, thanks for the note on my talk page. I took another look at the section and I agree with both your points. drs (talk) 11:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Hi. When you recently edited Mark Robinson (Australian politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gibson (politician) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

The Signpost: 30 April 2012

Capitalisation question

Hi Rrius. I recall that, some time ago, you explained some rules about capitalisation to me. There's a bit of a dispute going on right now at Talk:Royal standards of Canada over whether or not "standards" in that phrase should be capitalised. I'm of the mind that it shouldn't be (my reasoning given at the talk page). But, would you mind having a quick look and giving your opinion? Cheers. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox in Next German federal election

Hi :D This is about you reverting my changes in the infobox on Next German federal election.
Whether you like naming things like that or not, the official name of the election is "Election for the 18th German Federal Diet" and neither "Next German federal election" or "German Federal Election, <year>". If by Wikipedia guidelines the articles are named like that to be easily accessable for everyone, that's fine. But writing down how the election is called, rather than describing it (which is done by the introduction of an article), is what the name part in an infobox is for. For the name. :) --Saftorangen (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To the extent that there is any such thing as "an official name" for an election, it is irrelevant. The way infoboxes are titled is the way it was and is named. Even Canadian elections, which are __th federal general election or some such, have infoboxes titled "Canadian federal election, [year]". It's nice and all for you to try to tell me what the name parameter in infoboxes are for, but you really should have taken the effort to find out whether what you wanted to true actually is. Unfortunately for you, it is not. -Rrius (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find any guideline that says you should name infoboxes this way or supports what you are generally describing. Just because this has been handled this way until now doesn't mean it's better, right? Are there any good arguments for not putting down the actual name of the election in the infobox? (Not the actual article name!) Also, sorry, it seems I had a bit of a harsh tone there.. Didn't mean to make it sound like that. Wikipedia should be fun to edit in, after all. :) --Saftorangen (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Consistency for one. The fact that elections don't have official names for another. You may think that a government website using one set of terminology imbues it with some sort of official status, but you have no actual evidence to support that belief. Yet another is that we generally call it the Bundestag, not the Federal Diet. Finally, it is wrong to assert that one translation or other of a term into English from the official language is official without a very specific assertion that it is so. When Germany or France or any other country whose official language isn't English provides an English version of its website, it is merely a convenience for English-speakers and not truly official; only the native language site(s) are. I hope that sets it out clearly. Oh, one more thing; when a particular practice is used at hundreds, perhaps thousands of articles, it is best to seek change at a central location rather than an individual article. Oops, one more thing: infoboxes generally use article title. In some cases there is variation for humans, but by and large the name parameter in an infobox mimics the name (leaving off or refactoring disambiguators); this is probably because infoboxes are meant to be a summary of the article, making the article title the most logical choice. I hope that helps, and sorry if my tone seemed harsh too. -Rrius (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the extensive reply. "Federal Diet": I saw this on here (the English Wikipedia) some weeks ago and looked it up, never heard it before that moment.. But I'm always trying to not mix languages, so I used it instead of Bundestag from that moment on. I've been adding infoboxes to earlier German federal elections, which I will edit and change to the title that you desire. It's alright to include it in the introduction of an article though, right? Something like.. "The German federal elections held in 2009 (also referred to "xth election for the German Bundestag")" or something similar? Or should I just completely drop the xth thing? Also, thanks for clearing all this up for me.. See, as a German, I like to have everything in order, and I thought that would be a more precise name and all. :) Thanks again! --Saftorangen (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the parenthetical version makes sense. I can certainly sympathize with trying not to mix languages. I edit at US, Canadian, British, Australian, and New Zealand articles, and I find it hard enough not to mix variations of languages one language. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rrius/Archive_15&oldid=1143275315"