Bertux

Welcome!

Hello, Bertux, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Always wonder if anyone reads all those ABCDEF... Tell me if you do!

Re: Betuweroute

It's definitely moved up the quality chain since the last assessment; I'll make an adjustment soon. Other than the History section, the article is still a bit list-heavy. Perhaps a better representation of the communities served would be via a route diagram. Also, a geographic map to show where the line runs would be helpful for those (like me) who are not as familiar with that part of the world. The article on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line has an example with a diagram and a geographic map. Slambo (Speak) 21:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tompouce

I can see you have been busy, lately. I would like to you give some advice to further improve Tompouce and other articles you work on.

1. Try to write in neutral tone of voice. I noticed that you sometimes use non-encyclopedic language, such as "The Jealously Guarded Features of a Dutch Piece of Cake".
2. For section headings, only use a capital letter for the first word and proper nouns, not for every common noun. See for more information Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters).
3. Refer to reliable and independent sources, in order to make the article verifiable. Articles from Wikipedia are not really independent, so other sources are preferred.

Good luck! – Ilse@ 08:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: Weeping willow; in Dutch kronkelwilg or treurwilg?

Salix babylonica (Weeping willow) connected with nl:kronkelwilg. Should be nl:treurwilg, I think.

Akzidenz-Grotesk–translation

Hi, thanks for your edit! In German "Akzidenz" has the specific meaning of "commercial" printing (I've seen "jobbing" used as a translation, but it's a dreadfully outdated word and the meaning's not very clear). Quoting the Duden edition on my computer: "Druck-Erzeugnis, das nicht zum Buch- oder Zeitschriftendruck gehört (z. B. Anzeige, Formular, Prospekt)". More generally in German an "Akzidenzschrift" is a font intended for use in such situations. Blythwood (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Blythwood, thanks for dropping a message here!

Your Duden quote does indeed state that commercial print may be called Akzidenz, but this does not imply that Akzidenz means commercial or that the words Akzidenz and commerce refer to the same concept. Actually in your quote and the lines below the lemma reads: Herkunft: ursprünglich = gelegentliche (Druck)arbeit which translates as: Origin: originally = occassional (print)work, being neither book nor magazine. Besides various printwork for businesses the category occassional work includes birth cards, certificates, pamphlets, birthparty invitations and many more that is not commercial in scope. Speculating I think the term refers more to the in-between status of such generally small print jobs than to the scope of the product.

Moreover, as I read the current version of Akzidenz-Grotesk it seems to indicate that Akzidenz generally translates as commerce. A glance at the list of synonyms in the Duden lemma akzidentell may suffice to suggest otherwise: bedeutungslos, nebensächlich, unbedeutend, untergeordnet, unwichtig. In translation: meaningless, secondary, insignificant, subordinate, unimportant, accidental. This can be hardly surprising als akzidentell and accidental are etymologic branches of the same tree — Bertux (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply-these are good points. I'm typing on a phone at the moment as I'm out but I'm thinking about what a redraft could look like. Blythwood (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback about Content Translation

Hi,

Just wanted to thank you for the comments about Content Translation at nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg/Archief/20200410#Feedback vertaaltool. A lot of useful stuff! I passed it on.

A couple of comments that particularly caught my eye were these:

• "Dit artikel heeft een groot aantal kopjes, wat een stotterige workflow oplevert"
• "Vertrouwt de VT mijn kritische vermogens niet? In GT kan ik wél de hele pagina vertalen (mits die niet te groot is), gewoon door de url in het vertaalvak te zetten."

If I understand correctly, you don't like that it gets you to translate paragraph by paragraph. The idea behind it is that helps translators work in small chunks. For most people who translate pages, this is the convenient way to work. This was confirmed in user research that was done when developing Content Translation.

Translating a whole page using Google Translate site translation feature is probably good for reading a web page, but when people are writing, the assumption is that it's easier to focus on smaller chunks.

Another problem with translating a whole page at once is that very often Wikipedia editors don't want to translate the whole page, because some paragraphs in the source article may be simply irrelevant for the target language.

So it's not that we don't trust you to translate a whole article—quite the contrary, we do. It's just that we have reasons to think that at least for most people, it's more convenient to do it paragraph by paragraph. But if you still have a different opinion, I'm happy to listen.

Thank you again! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amir E. Aharoni, thanks! Your arguments are valid: users should not be forced to translate everything. Even so I would very very much like an option or checkbox to Translate all paragraphs. Ideally each paragraph would have a checkbox, with one on top to select or unselect all. Unchecking a checked paragraph should only hide the translation, not remove it from the concept. Only when publishing the concept there should be a prompt tot confirm that only the checked paragraphs would be published.

Btw, yesterday and tomorrow I have been fuming about the CT, see Dutch Helpdesk, heading Vertaaltool: Nederlands vertalen naar het Nederlands?.

Here is the translation:

Via Preferences, heading Betafeatures you can switch on the Translation tool (VT) at the very bottom. [In Dutch Wikipedia that is.] With a mouse-over at Contributions one gets a menu with Special: ContentTranslation; I have prepared a number of English and Danish articles and translated the German article Reptiloide into Dutch Reptilian. So far so good.

However, when I tried to go the other way, the thing turned out to translate Dutch into Dutch if I specified nl → en or nl → de. No cause or reason was given; the thing worked somewhat, as categories and templates were translated into their English and German equivalents. I could not translate into Danish either, but at least that could be suspected because the mouse-over was missing on the Danish Wikipedia. Spanish did work in two directions. After a lot of searching I found a possible cause: according to User access levels, heading Extendedconfirmed I am still eleven contributions short of the right to use the VT.

Is there a good overview of the possibilities and impossibilities somewhere? Or can there be a decent error message at an early stage? I've been looking around for goddamn hours and still don't know where I stand! Bertux (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I have copied my questions to Mw:Talk:Content translation#Translating Dutch to Dutch. Documented?. Better to discuss thereBertux (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Machine translation into English is not enabled for anyone. Maybe it will be enabled some day. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's weird enough as Google Translate nowadays does a better job than most people, but how for God's sake is it too much too give a decent error message? Or at least a reference to helpful documentation? Or perhaps the slightest hint as to why one shouldn't try this? In Danish Wikipedia is the popup at the contributions link disabled, why not at the English and German versions! Goddamned fucking developers, do your job instead of making me search for hours to find out what the bug was! Bertux (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Try-out

Hello, Bertux. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Try-out, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)