User talk:Hordaland/Archives/2014/January

Need help doing ref

There's a ref (#129) in the article Bergen which keeps showing an error no matter what I try. The newspaper article being cited is:

• Var madam Felle Jonnemann sin mor?

My translation of this is:

• Was Madame Felle Jonnemann's Mother?

It seems I can't figure out what "trans_title=" means or how it's meant to be used. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 07:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the reference for you see here. The original title goes under "title=" and the translated title goes under "trans_title=" you had two "trans_title=" parameters and left "title=" blank. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, wonder how I did that. Thank you very much! Hordaland (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bare hyggelig, Godt Nytt År. (I hope that's correct) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, indeed. Sorry I can't do it in Irish. Hordaland (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

There's many ways to say it but I use Athbhliain faoi mhaise duit. Pronounced "At-vlee-in fwee washa dit". ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio?

When a large chunk of text is taken from a U.S. .gov site, and a reference to the agency is provided, and their copyright notice says:

"Unless a copyright is indicated, information on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Central Intelligence Agency's permission. We request only that the Central Intelligence Agency be cited as the source of the information...."

is that usage against our copyvio policy, or not?

(That is the general question. Case in point is in the section Copyvio on Norway's Talk page.)

--Hordaland (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That's fine. If the content is in the public domain, there is no copyright we could violate, and the CIA may request whatever it wants, but we wouldn't even need to comply with that (though of course we should cite our sources anyway). Huon (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a redirect

The people who answer these {helpme} calls are wonderful, I've discovered. Thanks!

If one searches on Fløyfjellet, one gets two hits. The one is Fløyfjellet (Nordland), and that one, going to a mountain in Nordland, is fine.

The other is Fløyfjellet which is a redirect to Fløyen, a mountain in Bergen. Obviously the plain search result Fløyfjellet should be changed to Fløyfjellet (Bergen) and the bare hit Fløyfjellet shouldn't be there.

I could make a new redirect Fløyfjellet (Bergen), but I don't know how to make the current Fløyfjellet disappear.

Thank you! --Hordaland (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Norwegian geography, but based on a Google search the mountain near Bergen has many more hits, so I think it should be considered what is called the "primary topic". That is, it gets the bare Fløyfjellet, and there is a note at the top of the page for the mountain near Svolvær. If you still have questions, you can raise this issue on the talk page for Fløyen or just add another {{helpme}} here.

Glad to help! --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 18:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Hordaland! To answer the more general question of how to edit a redirec that's already in place: when you click on the link Fløyfjellet, it'll take you to the redirect's target (here, it's Fløyen, as you note), but if you notice, at the top of the page right underneath the page title, there is some text that reads (Redirected from Fløyfjellet), with that link in place. If you click on that link, it will take you to the redirect without immediately forwarding you to the target. Once you're there, you can click the "edit page" button and change the redirect target (or remove it and write an article, or anything else) in the normal manner. Does that help? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! I think I will change it. Mount Fløyen is only rarely called "Fløyfjellet" while, as far as I know, the mountain near Svolvær has only that one name. (And, Writ Keeper, now that you explain it for me, I believe I've "known" this procedure earlier. There's sure a lot to remember.)

Since you're so kind, could I ask another favor? In the article Bergen, the reflist looks weird, while {reflist|2} looks all right?

Hordaland (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dear, oh, dear. I've apparently created what's called a double redirect (or worse). Now Fløyfjellet goes to another redirect. Help!? Hordaland (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's not that big a deal; I think there's a bot that will come around and resolve those automatically. The idea is that anything that points to a redirect should really point to the redirect's target.

But after reading your description a little more closely, what I think we need to do is this: delete the bare Fløyfjellet redirect. On top of it, we move the Fløyfjellet (Nordland) article (User:Anon126, I'd say we make that the primary topic because the other article, while it might be more prominent, also has another perfectly good article name, and this way we don't have to disambiguate anything). At the top of the Nordland article, we make a hatnote that says "This refers to the mountain in Nordland. For the mountain in Bergen, see Fløyen" or something like that (there's a standard wording that we can use for it). That way, if someone just types in Fløyfjellet, they'll be able to get to either article. Then, we keep the redirect Fløyfjellet (Bergen) pointing to Fløyen, and have a redirect pointing from Fløyfjellet (Nordland) to Fløyfjellet (which will automatically get created as a result of the page move).

So, to sum up the situation at the end of all this: Fløyen will contain the article about the mountain in Bergen, with Fløyfjellet (Bergen) as a redirect pointing to it. Fløyfjellet will contain an article about the Nordland mountain, with the redirect Fløyfjellet (Nordland) pointing to it, and a note at the top of the page that mentions Fløyen, in case that's the one the reader meant to go to. Does this sound good to everyone? I believe it'll take my admin powers to accomplish this (to delete the current Fløyfjellet redirect in preparation for the page move), but that's no problem. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If you'll do all that, I will be sjeleglad. (That translates to delighted, but I like the Norwegian word better. It means "soul-happy".)  :) --Hordaland (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree --Anon126 (talk - contribs) 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, done. Take a look and let me know if it looks good. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

My goodness, you are quick. The hit "Fløyfjellet (Nordland)" is still there when one searches "Fløyfjellet"; I shouldn't think that was necessary. (Maybe a bot kills that?) Otherwise, very nice. Thanks so much! Hordaland (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessary, but having it there won't hurt anything, I think. Redirects are cheap, so there's no real need to remove 'em as long as they're pointing to the right articles. Plus, this way, if there are any pages that link to the old title, the redirect will take them to the new one without us having to go through and fix them all (there are only a couple, but still). You're quite welcome, though! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Proverb

Did you know that there is a well-known proverb along the same lines in German, too? "Abendrot: Schönwetterbot'. Morgenrot: Schlecht Wetter droht." --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Added and thanked. --Hordaland (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Help me, please.

In my browser, at least, there appears to be something wrong with the References section of the article Bergen. The tag "reflist|2" looks OK, but the 2 columns are extremely narrow, with too much white space on the right. (I fixed ref #82, which stretched clear across the page, but that didn't help.) Can you see what's wrong? Thank you, --Hordaland (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the edit I just made fixed the problem you described. The problem was that since the image was dipping down below the References header, it was taking up that much space all the way down to the next section... I forced a section break with {{-}} and now it should be better (although there will now be a little white space going across just above the references header, I think that is better than the alternative). Technical 13 (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are incredibly quick (exactly 10 minutes), thank you! That section has been bothering me for "ages", and your elegant solution never occurred to me. Thanks again, Hordaland (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thank you kindly for looking over toothache. Regards, Lesion (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I learned a good deal going through the article. --Hordaland (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)