User talk:Clpda

This message is to notify you that I have responded to your comment on Talk:List of national libraries#The Standing Committee of IFLA.E2.80.99s National Libraries Section chooses Wikipedia as its directory of national libraries. -kotra (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on Talk:List of national libraries, you're right that a tag in the article space would be helpful. I forgot to mention templates, which are used as a notices in the article space for editors and readers alike. I think you're probably specifically wanting a cleanup tag. As for a to-do-list for that discussion page, I think probably {{Todo}} is what you have in mind? Hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes it does help. There is actually already an 'incompletetable' tag on the article and I think this could be sufficient. And about 'todo', I'm just studying the difference between 'todo' and 'to do', plus other variants. Clpda (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion on this page and on Talk:List of national libraries, I want to provide the code of an infobox for national libraries. Given the relative small number of potential occurrences (i.e. roughly one library per country) and the use of the existing {{Infobox Library}} on several pages describing a national library, I find it more sensible to extend the existing infobox than create a new one. I want to test that in my (already created) sandbox but, despite having spent days reading dozens of help pages, FAQs etc., I'm still unsure about a few things, especially since I don't want to damage anything!

1. Since fields are named in the infobox and its instances, I understood that inserting new fields in the template will not damage current uses of the infobox, such as shifting data to another label. The current instances will not change until new data is added into them with the new fields names. Correct?
2. Can the code of the template coexist on a page (i.e. my sandbox) with test/demo instances of the infobox it is defining or should I create another subpage of my user page or of my sandbox?
3. How do I refer to the tested template instead of the real thing when instancing an infobox?
4. Any other precaution I should take to avoid interference with encyclopedic pages during my tests? (added 09:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Thank you very much in advance for helping. Clpda (talk) 09:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to help:

1. Regarding field names, they won't shift if the template is fields are referred to by name. Any references to it that do not explicitly supply names would see fields shift. My recommendation would be to put new fields after existing ones to avoid this problem.
2. The code would have to be in a different page to be transcluded.
3. I believe you can refer to any page as a template simply by surrounding it with curly braces: {{ page name }}.

Hope this helps.  Frank  |  talk  11:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, thanks a lot. About your reply to #1, I suppose that, by 'the template is referred to by name', you meant the 'template fields', otherwise I didn't understand the reply. About where to put the new fields, it wouldn't make much sense to put them at the end because they are related to existing ones. What I'll do is check in all ca 140 uses of the template that the fields are always named, before implementing the changes - which will be open to discussion before, of course. Clpda (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're correct; I made the change above. If I were doing it, I would still put them at the end. Even if 140 pages are checked and are "clean", so to speak, that doesn't mean there aren't dozens...hundreds...of editors who expect it to behave the same way. It would offend my sense of the "right" way for things to be, but sometimes that can't be avoided. Perhaps you could create an entirely new template, and gradually migrate pages to the new one if it is an improvement. But that's just one editor's opinion...and I'm relatively new around here. Others may chime in...that's why I've left the helpme template. I'm as interested in hearing others' opinions as you are. :-) Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  12:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. Changes to, and use of, such a template are not that frequent. So, if I check the existing pages using the template (btw, maybe there's a routine for that?? - I mean, detecting the pages that don't use field names), update them where needed (i.e. adding field names) and then immediately switch the template code to the new version, I think we should be on the safe side. If someone uses later the template without field names, the new version would apply and the editor would base her/his input on the new field order. Problems would occur only when further changes are made to the template without checking. In addition, I would suspect that only old uses of a multi-field template omit field names. And about the help tag, I've seen, and looked at your page too: good luck! Clpda (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I started working according to your advice and it goes well. Therefore, I removed the 'helpme' tag. Thanks again. Clpda (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up #2: my proposal for a revision of the template is now posted on Template_talk:Infobox_Library. Clpda (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help!  Frank  |  talk  13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that I've responded to your comment on my talk page. I noticed you just mentioned outside librarians again on Template talk:Infobox Library, so I just wanted to make sure you had seen my response. -kotra (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on National Library of Albania requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit, stub templates go at the bottom of articles, not the top (see Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing_stubs). Just a minor style convention. -kotra (talk) 21:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry and thank you for pointing this out. How is it that many other stub-statements appear on top of articles ? People ignoring the convention or some parameter putting it up ? Clpda (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any other stub templates at the top of articles. Perhaps you're thinking of notification templates like Template:Expand? Those often go at the top of articles, but they're different from stub templates.

Maybe I'm wrong but I've the feeling I've seen stubs on top. I'll have a look tomorrow, see the code and report. Meanwhile, I've been busy cleaning the list of national libraries of their unused columns. Reached ~ the middle of the alphabet tonight, the rest will be done tomorrow. And thanks again for 'saving' my 'Albanian' page! Clpda (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen stub templates at the top before, then they must have been incorrectly placed there. I don't think there is a parameter that puts templates at the top of the page (other than those that go beside the article title), but I'm not that knowledgeable about the inner workings of templates.

Good job with the column removal, I knew it would take a long time so I never got around to continuing my work on that.

As for National Library of Albania, no problem, I was bored and it didn't take that long anyway. -kotra (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look yet about these 'stubs on the top' but managed to finish cleaning the list page, which is now homogeneous. Clpda (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, it looks much better now. -kotra (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. Clpda (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment in Talk:List of national libraries#Sections for currently unused letters W and Y regarding Palestine. Are you certain such a library exists? You will also see there that "Palestine" as a state does not currently exist, the only entity (barely) existing in the Palestinian Authority.

Yes, I've seen. For 'Palestine', I just reused what is in the List of countries, adding italics to recall that it is not a sovereign state. For the library itself, I found a few concording sources but, admittedly, a) few of them; b) some old ones when it was only a project; and c) given the circumstances in the area the project may have never succeed. Since I found also the e-mail address of someone supposed to work there, we'll see if I get a (substantiated) reply. Clpda (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not forgetting this issue, just awaiting confirmation of an information I've got, according to which there was indeed a project of a NL of Palestine but which never materialized. Clpda (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got confirmation and shall delete the entry. Clpda (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter, I removed the Oxford and Cambridge libraries as they are academic, not national, libraries. The Legal deposit issue is technically seperate issue from being a national library. 2 examples: You won't call Trinity College Library, Dublin a NL of the UK even if it is a legal deposit (it's not in the UK!) ; the US government has over 1250 Federal depository libraries and they cannot be considered all NL's. See Legal deposit for several more "oddities" of this sort. DGtal (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the British copyright libraries (including Trinity College that was in the UK until 1922) share the burden of conserving the material. That means that although all of them receive a copy, they do not all of them keep all of those and are therefore collectively a large national library. That would vote against removing oxbridge. I'll check that I'm accurate on this point and report. Clpda (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One copy of every book in sent the the BL. All 5 others get just what they want (I assume they want a lot, but it is discretional), so I don't believe oxbridge meets that criteria. The real point is that a "national library" can be defined either as "officially proclaimed" (like "National library of Medicine") or by the library actually performing many of the tasks normally considered "NL attributes" (owned and paid for by public, national bibliography and catalog, collecting almost everything related to the country, etc.). In this respect oxbridge is not national (it isn't even governmental property!), and this is also why LOC is only de facto National. I even remember reading about an African country where the "customary" national library tasks are devided between 6! libraries. DGtal (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you convinced me. Trinity College should be removed as well, then? Clpda (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an authority in the college library, but it seems only the National Library of Ireland is considered a NL in Eire. DGtal (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, its website is clear enough ([1]): there is no mention of a particular link to Ireland as a nation. So, TCL should be removed from the list, which I shall do. Clpda (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what kinds of "notability" that company operations would have in relative to the size of the city? I know regional headquarters should be listed, but I guess smaller sales offices should only be listed if the town is relatively small? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, companies should be listed on the page of a city according to their local importance more than their world notability. Berne being the federal city - a Washington in miniature - the federal administration is the main economic factor, with several thousands of jobs and a local turnover of hundreds of millions. There are also significant industries, with world presence as well, worth being listed ways before HP (against which I've nothing as I use several of their products and am happy with them). So, this is not to say that HP should not be mentioned, but it cannot be the only entry of an 'Economy' section. When someone tackles a serious 'Economy' section about Berne, starting with the big players, HP might reappear at the end of the list, who knows... Clpda (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I could do more research on the economy of Bern and tack HP on the end. Somewhere someone had to have created an article about the Bern economy. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be quite nice. I can provide a few clues, if you like. Clpda (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sometime this week I'll get started on it. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I drop you this message to ask you how things can move on to update the list. May I ask for a third party opinion. Well, I really have no idea of what can be done to move on. Thanks.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 12:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, jetez un coup d'oeil sur votre page en français, j'y avais mis un commentaire. Meilleures salutations, Clpda (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci pour votre message mais je vous avoue que j'ai du mal à trouver votre commentaire. Excusez ma jeunesse et ma maladresse sur Wikipedia :-) --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est sur votre page personnelle de discussion sur la wiki francophone - ou alors quelqu'un aurait-il pris votre nom dans cette wiki? Dans ce cas, vous pourriez vous plaindre et faire corriger cela. Clpda (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, je n'arrive pas à trouver ce que vous m'avez écrit. Pourrais-je savoir ce dont il s'agit. Merci.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, quand vous vous loguez à partir d'une page de la wiki francophone, vous avez une série de liens en haut à droite de l'écran. Cliquez alors sur "Page de discussion" et vous y êtes. Meilleures salutations, Clpda (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Est ce que le compte de la wiki anglophone est automatiquement valable pour la wiki francophone? Je n'en ai pas l'impression. Comment pourrais-je faire pour pallier à cette usurpation d'identité? J'aimerais SVP que vous m'aidiez à m'approprier les règles de Wikipedia. Je n'ai pas pu/su me défendre une fois et je me suis fait emprisonné pour une semaine. Et là, je ne sais pas quoi faire pour faire bouger les discussions dans la liste des pays ou l'éditeur que l'on connait est tout simplement en train de diffamer pour mettre en avant ses mensonges et sa propagande polisarienne. Merci d'avance. Meilleures salutations.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non, ce n'est pas automatique. Voyez cette page [2]; elle fournit non seulement les informations techniques pour unifier ses log-ins par langue, mais aussi les procédures à suivre si quelqu'un d'autre a "piqué" votre nom d'utilisateur. Meilleures salutations, Clpda (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bref, mon calvaire continue. Lorsque je clique sur votre lien, je tombe sur la meta wiki. Je n'arrive pas à connecter avec mon compte apparemment il n'est pas valable pour la meta wiki. Du coup, je ne peux pas signer ma requête pour usurpation. Désolé de bloquer !--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne suis pas sûr qu'il faille des droits spéciaux pour la meta wiki mais je n'ai pas eu à lutter pour mon nom d'utilisateur, ayant d'emblée choisi une séquence de lettres arbitraire et non significative. J'ai cependant constaté que vos noms supposés d'utilisateur dans les wikis anglophone et francophone diffèrent: le 's' est minuscule en anglais et majuscule en français, ce qui fait que l'utilisateur sur la wiki francophone ne peut pas être réellement considéré comme une usurpation de votre nom d'utilisateur en anglais. Je transfère donc mon message, maintenant vieux de plus d'un mois, sur cette page, ci-dessous. Clpda (talk) 14:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un petit message, presque en privé puisque la plupart des intervenants sur la longue discussion de l'entrée du Sahara occidental dans la 'List of countries' de la version anglaise ne connaissent pas le français, J. en premier lieu... Tout d'abord, j'aimerais saluer le chemin que vous (je sais que les Wikipédiens francophones tendent à se tutoyer mais je n'arrive pas vraiment, je suis un peu de la vieille école) avez fait depuis vos premières propositions de simplement supprimer l'entrée du SO/WS de la liste. Tout en ayant un indéniable point de vue pro-marocain, vous avez patiemment argumenté au lieu de tenter des modifications directes (qui auraient été rapidement annulées) et avez cherché à trouver une solution rassemblant un consensus. Vos dernières propositions montrent bien cette évolution et sont positives. Si je souscris sans problèmes aux points 1 à 3, j'ai quelque réserves pour le point 4, qui suggère que le Maroc administre l'entier du territoire alors que cela ne semble pas être le cas. Vous "gagneriez des points" en suggérant vous-même un changement de ce point 4 qui donnerait une petite place au F.P. ou à la R.A.S.D., qui finalement semble quand même contrôler une partie du territoire. Meilleures salutations Clpda (d) 27 septembre 2008 à 01:26 (CEST)

Merci d'avoir pris la peine de recopier ce commentaire. Vous imaginez bien que je vous aurais répondu aussitôt si je l'avais lu. Pour revenir à vos remarques, j'insiste à dire que je ne cherche nullement à enlever WS ou "SADR" de la liste. Je dis simplement que WS ne peut pas être considéré comme pays parce qu'il a un statut connu au niveau de l'ONU indépendamment de la présence marocaine dans la région. Sur la simple base de ce statut, nous ne pouvons pas affirmer que WS est un pays souverain. D'ailleurs, dans la wiki francophone (j'apprends moi aussi le langage :-) ), le Sahara Occidental n'apparaît pas comme pays souverain mais comme autre territoire contesté/disputé. C'est ce que j'ai essayé de dire dans mes commentaires. De plus, WS apparait à deux endroits de cette liste, en tant que pays souverain et en tant que pays disputé. Il y a donc un vrai problème de représentation de la liste. Ce qui m'énerve le plus c'est que la majorité des gens sur la Wiki anglophone ne connaissent pas le sujet et suivent aveuglément les commentaires pour le moins tordus et tendancieux de l'éditeur que l'on connait. Je n'ai jamais vu autant de mauvaise foi de ma vie. J'ai essayé de faire comprendre aux éditeurs la position de l'ONU mais il n'y a rien à faire, la mauvaise foi est d'une telle ardeur!! De plus, j'ai l'impression que l'on fait un amalgame entre la liste des pays et la liste des codifications ISO 3166-1, 2 et 3. Dans la liste officielle des pays, on ne parle pas de Sahara Occidental. Dans la liste des codifications liées aux pays et AUX TERRITOIRES, le Sahara Occidental y figure tout simplement parce que cette liste a été établie dans les années 70 lorsque le Sahara Occidental était espagnol et lorsque le Maroc a demandé de considérer cette région comme territoire non autonome. D'où le trait au milieu de la map du Maroc. Le fameux éditeur fait des amalgames incroyables et profite de la méconnaissance de la majorité des éditeurs. Pour avancer, je voudrais bien que vous m'aidiez à comprendre les mécanismes qui me permettrait de rectifier la liste des pays en anglais sur la base du statut de la région du Sahara Occidental à l'ONU. Je vous avoue que maintenant que les sahraouis unionistes sont sur le net, le Polisario et ses supporters sont devenus plus que fous. Je sais que vous n'avez pas envie de rentrer dans ces considérations mais j'aimerais beaucoup que vous m'aidiez. Je ne cache rien. J'ai tout dit dans mon profil. Je prends de mon temps pour venir (quand je le peux) sur wikipedia pour rectifier les abus et amalgames de cet éditeur. Je compte sur votre aide et n'hésitez pas à me contacter par email. Meilleures salutations. --Moroccansahraoui (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci de votre réponse. J'ai dû être hors-ligne toute la journée et il est maintenant un peu tard pour une réponse plus détaillée. Je reviendrai donc dès que possible. L'idée de passer au courriel n'est pas mauvaise. Meilleures salutations, Clpda (talk) 00:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah..., je ne peux pas vous envoyer de courriel car vous n'avez pas activé cette option dans votre profil. A part ça, désolé d'avoir attendu tant de temps pour reprendre contact. Il y a tellement de textes à relire pour se remettre au courant (pour un regard extérieur comme le mien) que ce n'est pas la chose qu'on entreprend normalement... à cette heure. La solution est de traiter les questions par étapes. Je ne parlerai cette fois que du drapeau (point 1). Si le drapeau actuel est effectivement celui de la RASD, alors oui, il n'a pas sa place dans la liste. Laisser un "trou", comme vous le proposez, est une option, mais n'y aurait-il pas un drapeau, probablement datant de l'occupation espagnole, qui représenterait l'entier du territoire (donc aujourd'hui: parties marocaine et RASD)? Ce serait mieux que rien et corresponderait au dernier état "stable", avant que le retrait espagnol n'amène quelques troubles... Je reviendrai plus tard sur les autres points, meilleures salutations, Clpda (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clpda (long time no see). I notice you've been communicating in French with a user here. I know French is easier for you, but could you use English? It's considered a good practice to use English when communicating with other users on the English Wikipedia, so that the community can know what you're discussing. I hope you don't mind. -kotra (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kotra, good to hear from you again. Yes, you're right, using another language than English on the English WP is not very polite and I apologize for this. That bit had however started on the French WP but I had to repatriate it here after discovering that the user I was writing to there was a different person with the same username. My choice of communicating with him in French wasn't so much for my own ease but for other reasons:

• I guessed that the addressee's French might be better than his English and I was right: although none of these languages is likely to be his mother tongue, his French is absolutely perfect (and I mean it: the spelling, grammar and syntax of many native French speakers on the French WP are a total disaster in comparison), whereas his English is sometimes dodgy. Using our best common language is natural, isn't it?
• The topic discussed having been rather hot, leading to excessive statements from both sides, I wanted to help towards a consensus, on one of the sides as a first step, without the usually vocal, noisy and aggressive interference from the other side, that would slow down the process if not freeze it, as it actually did for now. The intent was certainly not to silence off the whole community, at least at this stage, but earlier appeals to letting the "neutral" editors to discuss the matter calmly had been ignored. French was, again, the best option in this respect and we'd come back to English when reasonable proposals are available.
• Finally, on the other hand, this being my own discussion page, I feel I have a minimal freedom about it. I would never use another language than English on a discussion page of an encyclopaedic article (unless this is required by its very content).

So, how to conclude? I'd like to have a quiet discussion with Moroccansahraoui in order to see whether a consensual proposal can be made to the community. He's keen too, and we'll find another canal if the use of French on this page is deemed inappropriate. Clpda (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You're right that using your best common language is only natural. On the other hand, transparency is a central concern on Wikipedia, and if the discussion is about a content dispute, it's in the interest of the greater community to know what's being said. When taking the entire community into consideration, I think transparency is more important in the long run than ease of communication, unless communicating in English is impossible.

Besides, I think you'll find that going about it your way (coming to an agreement among one "side" first before presenting a proposal to the "other side") won't actually be any faster or easier than discussing all the options openly with everyone. Your way may be more methodical, perhaps, but when the "other side" rejects your proposal (as, if they are as aggressive as you say, they probably will), you are back to nothing again and have to start over.

There are better ways to deal with stalled disputes (as described here). Personally, I would check into those instead of introducing language barriers (intentionally or not), which is discouraged on Wikipedia, even on our own talk pages. While you're right, we do get some freedom on our own talk pages, I think the "Use English" guideline applies even to user talk pages. It says "No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages." which I interpret as meaning all English Wikipedia talk pages, including user talk pages.

Maybe I'm being too pedantic here though. Whatever you are discussing in French isn't a big deal to me personally. It's just something Wikipedia discourages, so I thought I'd let you know. -kotra (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MS:I am sorry about that. In fact, my french is much better than my english. That's why I have now a french account with the same username to talk in french.--Morocccansahraoui (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was good decision. We have more articles with unaccurate names. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The national library in Denmark is Royal Danish Library (more precisely The Royal Library). In former times some of the university libraries were allowed to have "national" in their name, but they have never been national libraries. The National Library of Education is now a faculty library of The University of Aarhus and the National Library of Agriculture is now a faculty library of the University of Copenhagen. None of these two libraries have now "national" in their names.[[3]] Billelar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billelar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information. According to it, I agree that these entries were maybe not justified after all. For the time being, I think that the additions you made of a full name and affiliation are fine. I think that a more specific rule for inclusion into the list would help. I'll think about this overnight, study the national library page again and might start a discussion on this topic.

PS: it would be good practice if you a) mention your changes to articles in the edit summary (below the edit window), b) sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes or by using the 10th button (from the left) available on top of the edit window, and c) provide a minimal information on your user page since a user appearing in red on a history page looks suspicious to most. Clpda (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It took me longer than I had planned to study the matter. The result is first an addition at the beginning of the article national library (2nd paragraph as of today) with two references. Please, see the online one, in particular sections 1.3 and 3.5.1. I understand IFLA's wider definition as allowing the two 'secondary' national libraries we are talking about to be maintained in the list, as long as they nationally provide at least a kind of service. What do you think? Clpda (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen you've put 2 original names in italics in the list of national libraries (Kosovo and Northern Cyprus). I have nothing against this typographical and stylistic change BUT:

• it should be applied to the rest of the list (big work of questionable benefit).
• the results with non-Latin scripts is unknown and might be counter-productive.

I suggest you remove the double apostrophes. Best Clpda (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Clpda. While changing some instances of Kosova into Kosovo in various articles I added the italics to the non-English names in Latin script of that section quite automatically, without really thinking about it (or about consistency within that article). My apologies for that.

By the way, the current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting incorporated the mention that "[t]ext in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page" following my proposal. :-)

In any case, here are the two internally consistent versions of "List of national libraries": the one without italics, and the one with italics. Since you are the one maintaining that entry's quality, I leave the choice between the two at your entire discretion. :-) - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt reply and action! First, I'd say that I don't contest at all the change from Kosovo to Kosova. The future will tell us which form dominates and WP will just adapt!

About italics and your updated version (big work indeed!), I wouldn't revert such a change without a little discussion. Italics generally suggest a quote, a translation or any other kind of external source. In this respect, the translated names of the libraries would rather be better candidates to italicization than the original names. Out of simplicity, I would come back to non-italicized texts at all levels (OK: exceptions). Best Clpda (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The current version of our Manual of Style for text formatting mentions that "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages", but also that "[a] proper name [in other languages] is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to".

The lead sections of articles on "non-exclusively-anglophone topics" usually include relevant alternative names in foreign languages, which are commonly italicized, to the point that our {{lang}} templates for languages written with Latin characters already include the italics by default:

{{lang-fr|Bibliothèque}} gives you "French: Bibliothèque".

{{lang-de|Bibliothek}} gives you "German: Bibliothek".

{{lang-it|Biblioteca}} gives you "Italian: Biblioteca".

Thus, some (although not all) of the articles on each national library that use English translations as their titles currently give the local names in italics, as in:

"The National Library of Algeria (in French: Bibliothèque nationale d'Algérie, in Arabic: الجزائرية الوطنية المكتبة) found its..." [4]

"Library and Archives Canada (in French: Bibliothèque et Archives Canada) is a..." [5]

"The Royal Library in Copenhagen (Det Kongelige Bibliotek) is the..." [6]

"The National Library of Estonia (in Estonian: Eesti Rahvusraamatukogu) is a..." [7]

"The National Library of Ireland (Irish: Leabharlann Náisiúnta na hÉireann) is a..." [8]

"The National Library of Latvia (NLL) (Latvian: Latvijas Nacionālā bibliotēka (LNB)) is..." [9]

"Poland's National Library (Polish: Biblioteka Narodowa) is a..." [10]

...in my personal opinion, marking a very practical visual distinction between Wikipedia's passive voice in English and interesting details about other languages (in this case, the "original" names in the local languages).

But, really, it's entirely up to you. Your reasoning is sound too. If you consider that our anglophone readership would be better served by not using italics in that entry, go ahead and revert my last edit. :-) And thank you for keeping an eye on that article's quality. - Best, Ev (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the references and examples you are giving are right and in accordance to the recommendations but they are all related to leads, whereas "our" foreign names are in a structured list, and in addition given between parentheses (which provide a differentiation). I also had a look at the List of sovereign states, from which this list is a derivative (i.e. following the same plan), and country names in local languages are not italicized. So, I don't know really! I'll think again and come back over the week-end.

Oh, and by the way, it's not entirely up to me: WP is a collaborative project and nobody may claim any kind of domination on any article. We discuss, find agreements and let the work progress this way! And thank you for spotting my little "surveillance" work. Clpda (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think now that your move was right and I won't revert it at all. I'll italicize the few names you missed, as well as the non-Latin scripts that I know as 'able to be italicized', i.e. Greek and Cyrillic. Best regards Clpda (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done! and thank you foor having discussed the matter with me. Best Clpda (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. :-) Briefly put, because I'm used to see "local" names italicized in other Wikipedia articles, I find that using italics in this one makes reading more intuitive and thus easier.

There's only one little detail: according to the current version of our Manual of Style, non-Latin scripts are almost never italicized (the few exceptions I see often include book titles in the footnotes, and I guess that specific words within quotations, when those specific words were italicized in the original). So, Arabic, Armenian, Chinese, Cyrillic, Georgian, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, etc. should be italicized only in those few exceptions. — Thus, I took the liberty of removing the italics in those scripts.

In the case of the Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Library, it would seem that "Dewan Bahasa and Pustaka Brunei Library" is an alternative English name, and not a Malay one. Thus, I removed the italics there too. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine, thank you. Clpda (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussion transfered to Talk:List_of_national_libraries#Australian_State_libraries). Clpda (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clpda/Sandbox/List of national libraries, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Clpda/Sandbox/List of national libraries and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Clpda/Sandbox/List of national libraries during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]