Benotzer Diskussioun:Wolverène

Vu Wikipedia
Op d'Navigatioun wiesselen Op d'Siche wiesselen

Wonder woman[Quelltext änneren]

We must take a decision: or always neuter or always feminin. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 14:11, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

  • Always feminine because it/she's a female character. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 14:24, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
... except for phrases like "dem Personnage seng Heemecht". --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 14:26, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
For me its ok but pay attention not to mix neuter possesivs and prepositions with female subject. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 14:29, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

Seems I replaced everywhere... --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 14:33, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

I saw now, some were not found, but in my next overview I will find all (I hope).
it's even twice strange to use m./n. genders talking about pro-feminist comics
you are right, but its plain with a lot of other mistakes. The article is done by students that can't speak correctly their native language, so how can they write it correctly. :-) --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 14:37, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
I think I more or less understand the language situation in Luxembourg, it's so different from another parts of Europe. If the language will be still popularized by typography, media and Internet (Wikipedia helps with it effectively), in several years the time will come when writing illiterately will be just not cool for speakers and they'll be forced to improve the skills. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 14:53, 13. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

Hi why did you revert Paul Ehmann --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 21:14, 14. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I explained already. I see a German footballer who played for the Germany 3rd football tier as junior, then played for an American college soccer team, and now a free agent since 2014. I'm not sure that college soccer is a very special sport with special recognition criteria, different from Europe's amateur football. That number of interwikis linked to his article for me a secret. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 21:22, 14. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
In other head, I see he's now a coach of a junior team, maybe in a future we can call him relevant as a football manager, who knows. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 21:24, 14. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
I think if he is relevant enough for de:Wiki that has stronger criterias than lb:Wiki he should be also relevant enough for us. Don't forget that third german ligue is allways on a higher level than first Luxligue. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 21:44, 14. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
Their criteria isn't so strong if they accept a player who played in the 3rd German league literally once. Even if relevant, this relevance is extremely borderline.
Even if the article in Luxembourgish will be created I'd prefer to name it as Paul Ehmann (Foussballspiller), as the Luxembourgian lawyer seems to be a person who did much more for a society, his article can be kept with no clarifying. That's my humble opinion. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 21:57, 14. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

I think that Grace Kelly never was an actor when she was monegasque --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 15:03, 17. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

The nationality is changing but not the occupation experience. And after she gained the Monégasque nationality in 1956 she appeared in four screen works (not only as cameo). --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 15:10, 17. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
P.S. She was married Rainier III on April 17th, 1956, her last "big" film (High Society) was released in cinemas on July 17th, 1956 when she gained the nationality. As I know, when you're becoming Monégasque you're refusing from all your another nationalities so in July 1956 she wasn't American actress already. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 15:19, 17. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

am ignored but no matter[Quelltext änneren]

No you are not ignored, but I was absent for two days, I saw your question this morning but was a little bit disturbed and forgot to answer. But on the other side I wonder about the question and about the redirect. Was guatemalesch not good enough. Although we don't not allways align with LOD, an this till its officially agreed as national dictionary. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 18:22, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I mean it wasn't actually a big deal, because I've just realized that "Guatemalesch" is an errorful variant that was suggested by me first. So yes, the redirect may be deleted. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 18:27, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think that "Guatemalesch" is an errorful variant ?? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 19:08, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC) + High German "guatemaltekisch" + "guatemalesch" is unknown at all for Google (I understand that Luxembourgish is 78th-popular language in Internet but at least a couple of results might be appeared). --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 19:17, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
As I told you, some Wikipedians and some other people that are involved in luxemburgish language projects don't agree for all with LOD (LOD is not yet the bible and it's far away to be a complete and correct dictionary) and the new ideas of the luxemburgish language reform are not to search to align allways with german, as luxemburgish should not be dependant of german language rules. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 19:29, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
Those all true but in the end, what do you decide and which variant you're regarding as true? If you as a speaker would like to say "guatemalesch" I will support and will use it in the future, the spelling will be fixed.
I'm not a linguist, just what I see is that in Spanish and French they use denonym with suffix tec/tèque, in English and most of other languages the word root "guatemal-" is enough to make adjective. E.g. in Russian we say "gvatemalsky" and never "gvatemalteksky".
Maybe ask people in de Staminee? No one will regret it. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 19:51, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)
Very good idea but as says a luxemburgish proverb: good ideas and limping goats, allways are too late. And those problems were allready discussed and I will not restart old discussions every three years. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 20:10, 21. Jan. 2019 (UTC)

Hoyningen-Huene[Quelltext änneren]

Moie Wolverène,

Kanns du mir w.e.g. soen, wien dëse Gentleman ass File:Фон Гойнинген-Гюне, Александр Федорович.jpg? Leider ass d'Beschreiwung vun der Foto nëmmen op kyrillesch. - merci. GilPe (Diskussioun) 09:57, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

Salut et ass een Alexander (wateree vun den Alexanderen hunn ech net erausfonnt) --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 10:05, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

Vläicht fënns de mam Wikidataelement méi eraus Wikidata --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 10:11, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)
Et kéint deemno deen hei sinn: Alexander Emanuel Baron von Hoyningen-Huene aus denger Lëscht. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 10:13, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

Merci. Hunn a Fong de Franz gesicht... GilPe (Diskussioun) 10:26, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Fjodorowitsch fon Gjoiningen-Chjune (von Hoyningen-Huene), baron, Active Privy Councillor (conseiller privé actif) and governor of Simbirsk (nowadays Ulyanovsk). Seems he had nothing to do at all with Luxembourg. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 10:37, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if he was Alexander Emanuel/Em(m)anuil, people in Russia normally have only given name + patronym, second given name is rarity.
But looking at all yes, these two are same person. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 10:42, 3. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

SOFIA[Quelltext änneren]

Sofia] I think I'm not blind.

Please note: Actually lb:Wikipedia is discussing with notable linguists about how to manage foreign names. Actually the tendency is to use script with letters as they are defined in the grammar book (year 2005), and so how they are commonly read in Luxemburgish. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 22:12, 10. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

Tschechien/Tschechesch Republik[Quelltext änneren]

What makes for you the difference ?? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 17:22, 13. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh nothing... actually I thought we write the second variant in categories, but I'm realizing I misunderstood. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 17:25, 13. Feb. 2019 (UTC)

I took out wäit because the expression wäit bekannt doesn't exist in luxemburgish. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 07:42, 5. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)
First I actively used "wäitbekannt", later someone fixed it to "wäit bekannt". So unusual. Surely I meant "widely known". --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 10:54, 5. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)

Regel[Quelltext änneren]

Hi: (we say "REEgel" ?)

as long ass the new ortho is not public Regel is considered to be correct. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 09:29, 24. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)
One of our users is fixing this word to the variant with double 'e'. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 09:31, 24. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)
Vläicht sinn ech jo "One of our users"... Kuckt d'Reegel Nummer 2 hei. GilPe (Diskussioun) 21:19, 24. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)
I just didn't want to "point with a finger", so yes I meant it was you.:) I fixed Regel->Reegel several times, but when I faced templates with well-established content I wasn't very sure if I needed to continue. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 21:30, 24. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)
As of the rules of 1999 there were some exceptions as Regel, Segel, bewegen, Bewegung and some others. We decided to apply these exceptions as long as there are no official new rules. I think they will be published soon. After the pubilishing the bot will do his job to change all. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 07:18, 25. Mäe. 2019 (UTC)

categorization[Quelltext änneren]

pls respect my work on categorizing of Walk-of-Fame-honorees

Who was doing something wrong? And what was he doing wrong? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 06:15, 19. Abr. 2019 (UTC)
I didn't critisize anybody saying "respect", I just spent many time on categorization with the Kategorie:Hollywood Walk of Fame, and it might be too nice if new articles about the honorred with Hollywood Star are creating with the appropriate category. Actually I'm thankful to Johnny Chicago for creating the page, I had many plans on what I'd like to write for the lbwp, and the page about that actor was among them. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 09:39, 19. Abr. 2019 (UTC)
So please if you don't want to be missunderstood, say nothing, or say it in a way that it cannot be missunderstood.
But thanks for all the work done. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 09:57, 19. Abr. 2019 (UTC)
Today I'm ending up with the categorization, surnames started with L and M are only left (and K as well, I'm not sure I'll re-check). --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 16:22, 19. Abr. 2019 (UTC)
done --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 13:25, 22. Abr. 2019 (UTC)

Melania Trump[Quelltext änneren]


How was Melanie Trump involved in politics in Slowania? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 09:01, 17. Mee 2019 (UTC)

Removed that category. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 10:22, 17. Mee 2019 (UTC)

Luc Holz[Quelltext änneren]


please: what is (not mentionned in the source)? -- 15:40, 9. Jun. 2019 (UTC)

  • Bonjour, an där Source war et keng Info iwwer de Fait datt de Kevin spillt an der Nationalequipe. OK, ech wäert eng aner Quell addéieren. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 15:51, 9. Jun. 2019 (UTC)
Et ass jo e verlinkte Wikipedias-Artikel dee seng eege Referenzen huet, déi brauchen dann iwwerhaapt net opgefouert ze ginn. -- 16:04, 9. Jun. 2019 (UTC)
.Les Meloures, careful!! Do not edit links, webmasters don't know we're correcting ortho)
Hi Wolwerène: thanks for your attention. And of course you're right! But I had a choice to do: or do all manualy and spend some days or to do it with the bot and have the minor problem with the links, which often don't work no more correctly. Also its very rare to find luxemburgish espressions in internet links. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 16:59, 11. Jun. 2019 (UTC)
Hello, it's not a big deal because I know such things are very sporadic. I just thought your bot works semi-automatic/semi-manually that's why I pointed on that. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 19:20, 11. Jun. 2019 (UTC)

FLF escutcheon[Quelltext änneren]

Hi, that’s not a copyvio: the crest has been redesigned using free-licensed content (the heraldric image of the lion itself could not be copyrighted by anyone... same thing for the squared shape and the hooped background). Furthermore, I don’t think that other national teams (I guess you mean the non-soccer ones) could bear a FLF logo... --Vale93b (Diskussioun) 08:03, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

  • I said they bear "similar things", like e.g. Russians bear Two-Headed Eagle etc., anyway how did you manage to see that exactly this patch is a logo of the whole national team? I know that the Football Federation has the logo, the "logo" of the team is just a heraldic Luxembourg Red Lion and letters FLF, is it enough to call it logo? --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 08:09, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
    IMHO yes: it's not only the lettering, but the shape of the escutcheon too, whose features are enough distinctive to detach it from similar ones. And that's not an unicum: e.g. Spain & Netherlands have a similar situation, as the federation has its logo and the national teams bear their own escutcheons. --Vale93b (Diskussioun) 08:26, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
    Fine, we can put the escutcheon in the article. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 08:50, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Returned it back. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 08:56, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vale93b and Wolwerène, you tell us about
the "logo" of the team is just a heraldic Luxembourg Red Lion and letters FLF and about the heraldric image of the lion.
So please note that the lion on this badge is not the heraldic Luxembourg Red Lion and it doesn't even represent the lion on the badge. So I take the picture out, till we find a better one, and so we have to find a photo of the badge in high resolution or the description of the national team's badge. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 09:43, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find such a badge in Google, neither this nor close-up photo of a player with the FLF escutcheon on shirt. I own at home a long-sleeved T-shirt that imitates the Luxembourgian uniform, I've found it in a second-hand store. Of course I understand it's a souvenir stuff, but I hope it's an official merch, interesting how the badge on that is comparable with Vale93b's. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 12:00, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
Just took a look, nope forget, it's completely doesn't worth any attention. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 15:20, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

stick[Quelltext änneren]

isn't conductor stick an instrument

No it is not, or did you ever hear coming a sound out of the stick? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 17:39, 3. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Seefeblosen[Quelltext änneren]

Do you think that such redirects are usefull? And if so, in which sense. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 07:36, 7. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Hello, other wikis have redirects from the plural form, plus when we are thinking of soap bubbles we're usually imaging in mind several bubbles blowing at once. So people may search it entering the word in its plural form. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 10:06, 7. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
So it is because we want to do the same nonsense as the other Wikis, who are to lazy to correct there bad links. We don't have any bad or broken links so in this sense the redirect makes no sense.
Searching plural forms is also a nonsense, because you reach the singular form before you are writing the plural endings.
Plural forms should only be used in bilogical Lemmata such as for families and Genera and in other rare cases where it is absolutely necessary.
In your sense of reflection we schould or may have plural redirects for every object. I think that is not in the sense of the inventor. --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 11:25, 7. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
If it is the problem you're free to delete the redirect. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 21:39, 7. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Linger[Quelltext änneren]

As Players from Red Boys Differdange seem to be relevant enough, do you really think that players from HFC Haarlem are not relevant? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 11:46, 14. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
Well I returned Ortwin Linger as his sorrowful death had not to be probably remain without attention.
(Who said that Red Boys Differdange players are enough relevant just because of this fact?) --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 11:59, 14. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
OK, not only because of this fact but even if they are in relation of the Lux-national team, you must agree that every footplayer in foreign teams in high ranked leagues are more relevant players than 95 % of luxembourgish players. If en-wiki and nl-wiki think that a 1. division player ass Chelton Linger is relevant enough why shall he not be for lb-Wiki? --Les Meloures (Diskussioun) 12:36, 14. Jul. 2019 (UTC)
I'm very sorry for so late answer. I don't understand this sort of misjudgement about Luxembourgian footballers who are irrelevant by the Relevanz policy even if they are successful within their clubs. The only reason to call them irrelevant is that in the normal life they are policemen or office workers. For me it's not a disadvantage comparing to little-known footballers from countries with profi football who might act as just substitutes during 95% of carrière. Yes it sounds very subjective, OK I admit he may be relevant but I still don't understand if he is among the necessary ones in the disambiguation page. --Wolverène (Diskussioun) 19:50, 15. Jul. 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[Quelltext änneren]

RMaung (WMF) 16:20, 9. Sep. 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[Quelltext änneren]

RMaung (WMF) 19:49, 20. Sep. 2019 (UTC)