User talk:Rua/Archives/2014/March

Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law

Hi, I see you've made a number of edits at Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law, so I thought I'd ask you before I make a change that I'm not 100% sure of. Somebody has added a lot of Icelandic examples. I don't know anything about North Germanic, but it seems to me these are irrelevant. If in fact the shift took place in Icelandic, then other corrections need to be made to the article, but if Icelandic just sometimes has similar forms for other reasons, then this only confuses the article. Then it would be best to delete these, and maybe add a sentence at the bottom saying that North Germanic forms can look similar, but for differerent reasons, and maybe cross-reference to a more appropriate discussion. What do you think? --Doric Loon (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The change happened Old Norse, not just in Icelandic; Swedish has plenty of examples too. But I don't think that's normally considered part of the Ingvaeonic change. It might be areal, or the changes might be independent, I don't know. CodeCat (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sevastopol

Hi, the rules of english wiki might be different, but don't you have something like a tag "source needed"? Viktor Š 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Виктор Ш. (talk • contribs)

Not necessarily. All information in articles needs to be sourced. Things can be tagged with "citation needed" if there is a reasonable assumption that sources will be provided, and if there is no immediate harm in leaving the statement unsourced in the meantime. In this case however it is a very controversial topic that is going to draw in many different sides trying to put in information they feel strongly about. There's certainly no rule that says unsourced/controversial statements must be left in an article and tagged with "citation needed"; it's also ok to just remove the statement if the situation is serious enough to warrant it. CodeCat (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"Clockwise" picture of Sevastopol

"Clockwise" doesn't make much sense when the point of reference is outer space (there is no "up", "down", "left", or "right" in space). =P

By the way, do you want me to setup automatic archiving on your talk page? It's quite large.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Clockwise is a rotation, so it doesn't depend on a reference point but a reference axis. Since the picture is two-dimensional like a clock, it makes sense to talk of clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. So if you start with assuming that north is up, and rotate it 45 degrees clockwise, then you get what it is now.
• And yes I would appreciate it if you could set that up for me. CodeCat (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • OK the bot will pick up the archiving either today or tomorrow night. After that happens I will tweak a few changes to the archive box on top. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Catalan language

• Són bojos, aquests catalans!? Are these Catalans crazy!? (English subtitles), on YouTube
  • I can't see how it's relevant to this article. What is the video even about, and why does it, in particular, belong here?
    • The video is about problems of Catalonian language speakers in Catalonia, especially those, who do not speak Spanish. I think it is a good link here. Jaceknow (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

All the other links in the "external links" section are resources for the Catalan language itself, and about learning it. If the video is about what you say, then it seems out of place there. CodeCat (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• could you watch the video? It is about the Catalan language and its dialects in daily use. Jaceknow (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I watched some of it, but that doesn't really change what I said. Compared to all the links that are already there, this seems very different and out of place. Almost like political advertising in a way. If you really want to include it, it might be good to ask on the talk page of the article what other editors think of it. CodeCat (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Jaceknow (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpreting NPOV

Hi. I am surprised you think that it's NPOV to say that cities in Crimea is "in Russia" too. It's the opposite as there is a consensus that the peninsula is occupied by Russia and a part of Ukraine. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

There is? Where? As far as I know, both countries claim Crimea as part of their territory. So to ignore one of those two points of view would violate WP:NPOV. There have been countless discussions about this on various talk pages scattered around. Try Talk:Crimea, Talk:Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Talk:Republic of Crimea to start off with? CodeCat (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In the international community, which should be clear for those who have followed the news.

I will take a look at this as I haven't looked much at the discussions here. I would be surprised if there is a consensus here at Wikipedia (which should follow the world's) to say that places in Crimea are in Russia. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The international community doesn't decide what Wikipedia includes. We follow the world, but only as long as the world all agrees. In this case there is a clear disagreement, so we must cover both sides of the dispute. Wikipedia can't take sides, not even the side of the international community. CodeCat (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the whole world has to agree. If there is a consensus that Crimea is occupied, that is what should be reflected. That doesn't mean that the other position shouldn't be mentioned. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

But who determines that such a consensus exists? Are there reliable sources that actually say there is a consensus? A majority is not the same as a consensus, mind. And I'm not even sure whether consensus is applicable for international politics. I really urge you to read the discussions on various talk pages. There's also a discussion at WP:VPI. If you think your point needs further consideration, you should also bring this up on one of the talk pages. I certainly can't represent the opinion of the many involved editors, but I'm not alone in holding the views about NPOV that I expressed here. Just ask around. CodeCat (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Village pump is a good step to reach consensus. I will join the discussion. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Linux Mint". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)