User talk:Mic

Hello there Mic, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on Nordic Council. Cheers! --maveric149

Hey Maveric! Thanks for the welcome and also for the pointers on conventions and style. Unbridaled enthusiasm might be a good thing, but on the other hand a Wiki order is probably superior to a Wikid anarchy. Some kind of presentation and mission statement should be in the pipeline. (Curiously I'm a borderline INTJ/INTP) -- Mic

You are welcome! I also have INTP leanings. Small world. --mav

Hejsan! Vilket användarnamn har du på svenska Wikipedia? // Liftarn

Hej! Jag såg behoven på engelskspråkiga Wikipedia som större och har faktiskt inte hunnit registrera mig som användare i den svenska delen ännu. / Mic

Störe och större... Det är ju relativt. Svenska Wikipedia har betydligt färre användare och artiklar så på det sättet är behoven större där. Varför inte översätta dina artiklar till svenska? // Liftarn

Jag tycker att det är viktigt att arbete görs för en svensk Wikipedia. Idén bakom Wikipedia är väldigt bra och jag tror detta kommer att visa sig på längre sikt mot andra svenska sajter som visserligen har Wiki-innehåll, men som är mer begränsade till formen. /Mic

Hi Mic. What a thorough article on holidays in Sweden! I added a link to the Swedish Wikipedia, maybe someon can transfer it there. (You also may want to add an article with a better title than helgdag and redirect to that page.) Sebastian 10:14 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, after your comment the article text has also been added to the list present in the entry. While, I approve of linking, also between separate language editions, I think there could be a problem of linking to where there is no entry. That should however be solved easily by creating a stub article. /Mic

Skriv gärna på svenska wikipedia också! Vi behöver fler skribenter där! Den fjättrade ankan 22:45 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Mic. I've brought up your point about not capitalising "von" at the start of a sentence at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies). (I wasn't sure what page to bring it up on, to be honest.) The uncapitalised "von" looks odd to me, and STÓD/ÉÍRE doesn't seem to like it, either. Is it a Swedish convention? -- Oliver P. 04:54 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

The convention is to never capitalize a surname or title beginning with "von", or "af" for that matter, even when beginning a sentence. It is to my knowledge the only way to start a grammatically correct sentence without a capital letter. It is better to omit the prefix altogether rather than to capitalize it. / Mic 15:38 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry about the List of cities in Sweden article. Why is the swedish alphabet organized that way? LittleDan

NP. The Swedish alphabet has three extra wovels which are also considered separate letters. This which makes "Ö" and not "Z" the last letter of the alphabet. In Norwegian and Danish treatment is the same, as opposed to German where "Ö" would be sorted as an "O". / Mic 21:15 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Mic, I have renamed the List of Swedish field marshals => List of Swedish Field Marshals. As Field Marshal is a formal title it would generally receive capitalisation in a wikipedia article title. Slán (gaelic for goodbye!) STÓD/ÉÍRE 03:25 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Well, though I was and am aware of the principle, strangely I did not consider applying it to the list name. Thanks for reminding me. -- Mic 03:37 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Why do you keep making those content-less university college pages like the [University college of (Swedish city here)]]. You should put something there.

They are stubs and as such not content-less. -- Mic

I think I wrote it somewhere else, but I can repeat it to be sure: I do really appreciate what I've seen of your work here! However, having a bunch of Danish friends, who admitedly are slightly more Chauvinist than my Swedish friends, I am surpriced to see your Sweden-map without qualifications. I can hear the Danish rantings about Scania, Wiken and Bleking not being parts of Götaland, ...or at least not of Götaland-proper. And, actually, that's what I'd expected from my Scanian friends too - at least the younger ones. (Then I think there are issues with Wärmland and Jämtland and Härjedalen too, aren't there?) ~~If you can limit the Österland to its Medieval size,~~ a 16th century border maybe would increase the credibility of the map and the article it adorns? -- Ruhrjung 22:52 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I presume your comment concerns the Lands of Sweden entry itself, but I also presume that you are familiar with the content of the subentries for Götaland, Svealand, etc. Many of the issues that you adress are covered there, but never the less I think it's very a relevant concern. The present state is the result of a compromise, that has become a sort of archetype between, several different historical states and a modern everyday staue of use. More work is certainly needed to disambiguate and clarify geographical developments.

Yes, it's the map at Lands of Sweden which moved me to a comment. That I didn't express clearly ...or rather, didn't express at all. Mea culpa! At a closer look, I notice another error of mine: The Österlanden-border was not a medieval Nöteborgs-border, or something similar, but an internal border between Österland and Norrland. This is not to say that I've basically changed stance. I am, in this case, primarily concerned by Swedish presentations which allienates Finns, Danes or Norwegians, aswell as by Finnish presentations allienating Swedes. In this case I fear the map steps on sensitive toes in both Finnland and Denmark.

I'm very much interested in developing series of maps that would give more detail to the process. There are good sources to use for this but the work as such, to achieve or maintain some level of qualitative standards, would be quite time consuming and that's a chief reason why it has not come about just yet.

Most certainly time consuming. It's important also for the uniformness and the aesthetics that you, who have started, are given oppertunity to do as much as you have energy to, before someone else mix in. If I had mixed in, had had the right files and programs, and certainly also more knowledge when it comes to Swedish history, I had done three things with the map: 1/used a different colour for the acquisitions of the 30-years' War; 2/decided a year for which it should be valid (for instance after the incorporation of Scania in something like 1721 or so); and 3/checked the status of Wärmland and Karelia for that year.

It boils down to: as Scania wasn't properly incorporated until some 60 years after 1658, and as Karelia was lost at about the same time, the map might disturb sensitive Finns and Danes as more than neccessary Chauvinist.

As you might have seen there is an entry on Skåneland. Though, that stub wouldn't be nessecary if there already was a good extensive article on the eastern parts of the old Danish kingdom, but as with so many things Wikipedia is continously a work in progress. I would like to see more coordination on the shared historical and other topics between the Scandinavian and Nordic countries and the more parties willing to join such an effort would be all the better. -- Mic 05:52 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

Coordination sounds nice, and don't interpret me too harshly, but I fear it sounds better than it works. -- Ruhrjung 08:24 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

The aim is to achieve an unbiased account and consistent representation of Swedish and Scandinavian history, satisfying not only Wikipedia NPOV requirements but also in a manner as which can be agreed upon regardless if you're a Swede, Dane, Finn, Norwegian, etc as well as satisfying a historically verified approach. The sorry state of the former History of Sweden entry, prompted me to create the new entry, based on the 1911 EB Sweden article. Even if this provides an in extensio article on Swedish history it also creates several new problems, mainly concerned with the antiquated language, bias and sources. -- The problems related to inadequacy are widespread over the entire Wikipedia project, however they should not be over interpreted. The failings in the state, of the Lands of Sweden article, is one of inadequacy not of chauvinism. Nevertheless, I am very thankful for the contribution of a different point of view and I agree that any such point needs to be addressed in order to avoid misconceptions and misunderstandings. I think that your suggestion to use a representation utilising different colors could be a workable solution to clarify the issue within the single map. An update is forthcoming. -- Mic 10:19 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Why are you moving geography pages to history-named pages? A list of cities/districts is geography, no? --mav

I want to achieve a distinct separation between current and historical administrative entities, in order to avoid confusion between them. The cities are defunct as entities since 1971, and Sweden is quite unique in not having "cities", as such. I feel that it is important to stress this fact. The aspect of the districts is mainly historical since not all parts of the country has had them, also they were abolished in the 1950s. However, it could be the case that integrity would be better preserved by deletion of abortive projects rather than moving and redirecting. -- Mic

That makes sense - thanks for the explanation. --mav

Yes, this makes sense!

See also: Talk:Lands_of_Sweden -- Ruhrjung

Hi. I am a little confused as to why you moved County (England). Firstly, the useful "pipe trick" cannot now be used; secondly, there are largenumbers of broken links which should now be fixed. I assume you are planning to do this? To be honest, I do feel, with all due respect, that some discussion of your plan before carrying it out might have been wise. Nevilley 00:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot to add that many wiki entries on things are in the singular. I don't know if this is a rule, or just common practice. :) Nevilley 00:05 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

The style suggested by WikiProject Countries is that of History of ..., Subdivisions of ... and in this case Counties of England. Naming the article "County (England)" rather suggests a disambiguation from the County article. Many entries on the different subdivisions of the United Kingdom predates the implementation of the relevant WikiProject project, which has created a somechat confusing and different style of naming of articles, as well as making them, more than nessecary, hard to find. Do you have a reason why England and UK related topics should be organised differently than other countries? To tell the truth that question didn't occur to me. -- Mic 10:05 May 5, 2003 (UTC)