User talk:Bermicourt

This user tries to assume good faith and hopes you will as well.

Archives

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14

On 18 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nain Jaune, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the classic French card game of Nain Jaune is named after the seven of diamonds, which is depicted as a yellow dwarf on the game board (pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nain Jaune. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nain Jaune), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Spitzeln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although Spitzeln was also called German l'Hombre, it had little more in common with the most successful card game ever invented than the fact that it was played by three players? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Spitzeln. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Spitzeln), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Vielen Dank für Ihre vielen Übersetzungen im Laufe der Jahre! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello B, do you plan to move the other regional portals that you maintain to the corresponding WikiProject, like you did with Portal:Palatine Forest, and if so, could you give me a sense of timing and let me know if I can help with the moves in any way? UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UnitedStatesian, that's kind. To be honest I'm not sure what to do. I suppose my view is that we should call a halt to all portal creation and deletion activity and engage seriously to reach consensus on the purpose of portals, where they should be located, how they ought to be maintained and to what standards. But there seems to be no appetite for that while those who are driving for portal deletion continue to press home their advantage based on a one-sided view of their purpose. I suppose I'd rather move a portal to project space than see it deleted entirely, so that it can continue to be useful as a project tool. If that happens, I'd welcome your help. But in general I am rather reluctant to waste too much time on them while the rampage continues. It's the kind of behaviour that makes me want to quit Wikipedia. Bermicourt (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elfern you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elfern you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Elfern for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Lee Vilenski -- Lee Vilenski (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently attempting to improve the article, Trip World and there are only scanned images for the german reviews of the game. Here are the links to the scanned images: [1], [2], [3]. It would be a great help if I can get these translations to expand the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here on Persilschein you reverted me. Ok, got it. But now, the reference within the final section "Literature" looks ugly... which was the reason why I changed the sorting. That has to be solved without a "ref", right? Can you do that? Thanks so far!
--H.Marxen (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@H.Marxen: I see what you mean. I've turned it into a direct link to the archive, but am not 100% sure if that's the way we're meant to do it. It might be better to link it from a suitable place within the text and just have the book, unlinked, in the Literature section. Bermicourt (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it. --H.Marxen (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, es wäre schön, wenn du vielleicht behilflich sein kannst den Eintrag über den Venice TV Award im englischsprachigen Wikipedia Portal sprachgerecht einzustellen? Vielen vielen Dank. Liebe Grüße Matthiasvon

Hallo Matthiasvon, hab' einen kurzen Artikel gemacht. Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. All I was doing here today was scrubbing out playingcarddecks.com, which User:TWJohn had been adding to articles in the form of references. I hope that's uncontroversial. All of these sources were quick how-to-play blog entries written that same day, apparently by John himself (they are all credited to "John Taylor" who is "a content writer and freelancer through the company Upwork.com") with no context for where those rules came from. I assume they're cribbed from Pagat or Wikipedia itself, which he links to in the blog entries.

I noticed and removed one cardgamesplanet.com link in passing: it was a reference stuck needlessly after the name of the card game in the opening line, and is just a blog covered in poker ads. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the profile links these look to be the same person, but even if it is some cosmic coincidence, would you agree that rules posted on this retailer's blog don't have the weight of rules published by Piatnik? On closer inspection the site does put out some original content ([4] is an original interview written by a boardgamegeek.com user who says on BGG that they "first published" the interview with playingcarddecks.com), but these card game rules seem questionable, with no suggestion that they aren't just repeating Pagat, Wikipedia or the writer's own recollections. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bermicourt. There is currently a workshop going on about the creation of a new Portal Guideline: User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Your insights and ideas would be appreciated. --Hecato (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for all the good work with German regional portals. I see that there are a few more near the bottom of the portals by pageviews list. Is there anything that should be done to maintain or move these pages? Certes (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work maybe, but now largely wasted. As you know, I think pageviews are a poor way to assess portals since a) they're not articles yet that's how we're treating them and b) they are not searchable and badly linked from mainspace, both of which could be fixed. But as it's clear there's no appetite to retain them in portal space, I'm in the process of moving them to project space where they can still be used to view and expand topics without irritating anti-portal editors. This will take time since the remaining one's have numerous subpages designed to enhance their appeal to readers, something which is now redundant. So I can't promise to do this quickly. But I wouldn't worry, they'll get deleted anyway. And those that are not "near the bottom" will fall into that category as deletionists make their way up the list. Bermicourt (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for all your work on WP. Could you please check this edit I made on the page you started? It seems to have been missing a noun which I couldn't guess. Thank you. --LilHelpa (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems; I've checked the original and clarified the meaning. Bermicourt (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for overlapping edits, and thanks for getting the sources down! I know alternate names for card games can be a real unsourced mess on here - I was trying to be careful in my edits and don't think I lost anything through a revert, I was just trying to avoid having two separate lists of names on the go. The infobox should be using "alt_name" instead of "subtitle", I think? --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And hats off for the "Nerts" move, I was just wondering about that myself... --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord Belbury:, no worries. I was just trying to tidy it up and source it properly and I guess you were doing something similar, by coincidence, at the same time. At some point I plan to compare the "official rules" (usually with card games there's no such thing) of the NNA - an organisation which doesn't seem have any official status and seems to be just self-proclaimed - with those on John McLeod's www.pagat.com website which is widely acknowledged in the literature as a reliable source. Some of the stuff about the electronic games may also be non-notable or bordering on advertising. Bermicourt (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS in fact I suspect the National Nertz Association is a front for a commercial organisation as its official site is a blogspot advertising the electronic games and its NNA link goes to Facebook where we see around 650 followers (very small for a national association). Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kaschlan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the card game of Kaschlan, named after its top trump, became so popular that it was used in the Prussian idiom "my stomach's playing Kaschlan with my bowels"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kaschlan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Kaschlan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would de:Burg Tecklenburg be something you'd like to translate? ... partly? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: warum nicht? Ist mir ein Vergnügen. So missing Germany, haven't been since March when I researched curious north German card games lol. Bermicourt (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - will be helpful for Bruder Martin, - perhaps one line also about the festival held there, with a redirect or two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks very much for compiling this useful article. I am wondering whether the table included in the article is exhaustive of the criteria that you give? As in, are all of the hills in Wiltshire that fall into the categories included in the table? The reason I ask is that I am looking to make an endurance hiking/running challenge that covers all significant hills in Wiltshire and I thought your list could be a good starting point - or even the finished item if it covers everything! Thanks, George — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manofwessex (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Manofwessex: The list is based on the Database of British and Irish Hills at www.hillbagging.co.uk and currently reflects their highest hills down to Castle Ditches, with the exception of Scratchbury (197 m) which should immediately precede it. The last two in the list are included because, although there are higher hills, they are considered more notable. Hope that helps. :) Bermicourt (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bermicourt, concerning this edit:

First of all, my apologies: I didn't realize my edit was already the second reversion, because the previous edit summary was "m" – instead I thought my reversion was the first one in WP:BRD... I also didn't checked the de-4 babel on your userpage.

Recently I revised a larger number of articles loosely based on a version in the German Wikipedia. Often there were names like ...tal, ...berg, ...bach, ...schlucht where it's obvious to German readers what kind of object that is. To give this information in the English Wikipedia, too, I added valley, mountain, river, gorge etc., although this is somewhat tautologous for someone who speaks German.

Do you really think that the "of" is appropriate here? I thought this phrase is not the case of "Queen of England", "Mull of Kintyre etc., but the case of "River Rhine", "Mount Kilimanjaro" and so on, therefore without the "of".

--Cyfal (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyfal: it's a good question. As a native English speaker, I feel I instinctively 'know' when to use "of" and when not to. I've tried to capture usage for these geographical terms under conventions as part of the Germany WikiProject. These are based on common usage. In some cases there are two options e.g. "Eckernförde Bay for Eckenförder Bucht and Bay of Mecklenburg for Mecklenburgische Bucht (use whichever is the widely accepted English form; if there is no English usage, prefer XX Bay.)" For many, less well known geographical features there is little or no mention in English sources, so we follow the pattern of the more well known examples. In the case in point the following would seem reasonable to me:

• The lake is drained by the Wörschachbach which flows through the Wörschach Gorge...
• The lake is drained by the Wörschachbach stream which flows through the Wörschachklamm gorge...
• The lake is drained by the Wörschachbach which flows through the gorge of [the] Wörschachklamm...

Points to note: Streams ending in -bach are not usually split i.e. Wörschach stream is an unlikely translation. Rivers and streams are usually just called "the X". Rivers are almost always called "River X" or "the X river" in British English, but "X River" in American English. If we don't translate the generic part of the German name, we can add its English equivalent even though (we translators know) it's a tautology. I expanded the convention, partly to help me with consistency in the articles I created and also to try and establish consistency among editors translating from German. I did a lot of research of English-language sources in doing this. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your enlightening explanations. Although I've read WP:GERCON, it seems I haven't understand it fully before. Now it seems to me the best option is: "The lake is drained by the Wörschachbach which flows through the Wörschach Gorge...", because within the context its clear that the Wörschachbach is a river, and the Wörschachklamm can be subsumed under group B of WP:GERCON. I will change it accordingly in the near future. Thank you again --Cyfal (talk) 23:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This goat approves of your gaming articles! Thanks for your hard work!

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can try :) But since they are 19th century, you don't have to email them, you can just post them on wiki in a sandbox or such, they are public domain. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. See [5], there's a picture of some grid related to the game. Also [6] bout the German origin of the name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bräus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bräus, from the Swedish island of Gotland, differs from all other card games in that not all cards are playable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bräus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bräus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dreeg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dreeg is a card game played with German-suited cards that is described as "a special Franconian form of Sixty-Six"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dreeg. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dreeg), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo the move from Wiese to Wiese (Norwegian DJ). As a reason for doing this move, you state that there are "many people with the last name Wiese". That is correct. However, is is only one who is know for just Wiese and has that as his stage name. This artist has many millions plays on Spotify and several articles and reviews on Google that justify this. I don't blame you for doing your job but in this case the decision was not right, so please undo as this is the right thing to do here:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangatarzan (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's interesting and you are very welcome to propose a move request on the talk page and seek consensus that a Norwegian DJ is the primary topic on English Wikipedia; which is what you should have done in the first place. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know there is already a disambiguation page at Lordship (disambiguation)? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Then it would make sense to combine them. Bermicourt (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Brus (card game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the Danish card game of Brus, if a seven is led, the player risks it being beaten by the beggar king? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Brus (card game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Brus (card game)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC) 12:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to improve the Nicrophorus vespilloides article (currently working on a userspace draft). N. vespilloides is a burying beetle: a curious type of insect that buries dead mice and birds below the ground before converting the carcass into an edible nest in which it raises its young. It's also becoming an important model organism in evolutionary biology. I've found the original formal species description and would love to discuss this in the article, but it's a paragraph of German published in 1783 (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44317#page/234/mode/1up). I saw you listed here and wondered if you might be willing to translate this? Whilst less vital, it would also be fantastic if you'd be able to translate the first page of the document (https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/44317#page/197/mode/1up) which introduces the manuscript. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section entitled "Nicrophorus" reads: "It is certainly very similar to N. Vespillo, but not the same however. The difference is as follows: it is barely half as big. the club of the feelers is not brown, but black. Head and thorax (“breast shield”) are not covered in yellow hairs; the latter is not smooth, but has four smooth bumps at the front and 3 at the rear; when its elytra are lowered, there is a small yellow spot at the base, on Vespillo this runs into the yellow band; the lowest yellow band does not reach the side, but is only an oval spot. The abdomen is not covered with yellow hair, but is smooth and black. These distinctive signs are always the same." HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 June 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Drużbart, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Drużbart, named after its second-highest card (shown), was the favourite card game of Polish novelist Count Henryk Rzewuski? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Drużbart. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Drużbart), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another good one. I remember your mountain articles, - could you perhaps expand Altkönig a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I am interested in card games and have been in mail contact with Austrian player Christian Daglinger about this fascinating game. I have been careful not to bombard him with questions, but I think I have managed to sort out all question marks now. Regards Feynman~svwiki (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was a member of the ICPS until recently. I am now involved in a patient's organisation and I am following the scientific literature in that area. I am afraid that means that I currently don't have time to write any texts or artciles for Wikipedia, although it of course would be nice to have a German text on Matzlfangen and to involve Christian Daglinger. It sure would be nice to know what German card games you recently wrote about, and if possible also to read the articles. Feynman~svwiki (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info. I have also been working with John McLeod. I helped him with his article on the Swedish card game vira 20 years ago. Feynman~svwiki (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a closer look at the articles about various forms of "knack" later, but I alread have one comment. You use a translation as the title for Norrlandsknack, "Norseman's Knock", but you keep the original Swedish names for the other versions ("svängknack" etc.). I would recommend a consistent terminology, and I think it is best to keep the original Swedish names in this case. "Norseman's Knock" doesn't sound good. As you correctly point out in the text, Norrland is actually a geographical region. So, strictly speaking, Norseman is not a correct translation.

By the way, it interesting to note that "Norrland" has been used in other card games to denote variants that contain strong elements of gambling. There was for example a version of vira called "Norrlandsvira", which contained some contracts with larger payments and larger element of chance than previous versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feynman~svwiki (talk • contribs) 21:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. If an English terminology already has been established, it makes sense to follow it. It is always nice with references to the Vikings, but I must point out that we have become much more mild-mannered during the last thousand years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feynman~svwiki (talk • contribs) 11:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to contact Christian Daglinger again. I don't know if he is familiar with Wikipedia and has an account. Perhaps it is better if we communicate by email. Do you have an address where I can reach you? My address is sten.helmfrid@bredband.net. Feynman~svwiki (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the rules for trick taking. My understanding from my conversation with Daglinger is that you must follow suit if possible. If you cannot follow suit, you must play trump. Subject to these rules, you must head the trick if possible. That means that if you cannot follow suit and you cannot head the trick, you must still undertrump if possible. I never asked if you must head the trick even if your partner is in the lead. I just presumed that you always have to head the trick, no matter who is in the lead.

By the way, how did you find out about Neid-spiel? Feynman~svwiki (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Taroc l'Hombre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Taroc l'Hombre imported bidding from the world's most successful card game, Ombre, a feature that was crucial to the future of Tarot games outside Italy? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Taroc l'Hombre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Taroc l'Hombre), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 July 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Husarln, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the card game of Husarln ("Hussar") is dominated by the distribution of tarot cards, giving it "that brisk and energetic feel" which is reflected in its name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Husarln. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Husarln), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider translating the German article about Robert Sedlaczek? The DYK led me to Illustrated Tarock which mentions "Mayr and Sedlaczek" without explanation of who they are. Mayr also has an article, but it looks mostly like a stub. Thanks! Psu256 (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Robert Sedlaczek and Wolfgang Mayr - Tarock card game experts. Bermicourt (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, there is a german page which could be translated into English for the english Wikipedia. The page is ModuleWorks, it seems to be a company in Germany but it is operating internationally. What do you think? Or how can I request this? Thanks a ton in advance, ElviraElvira Just (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elvira. You've already created this yourself, but your submission was declined on grounds of notability, so I'm reluctant to put my head in the same noose. Sorry. Bermicourt (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bruus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Bruus, once the national card game of Hamburg, rewards players for "daring and tormenting" certain top trumps, and that such tactics lend the game "a certain charm"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bruus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bruus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 00:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Have you a source to support this edit to Mont Blanc you made back in 2016, by any chance? It seems odd to have a redlinked summit so prominently listed over all this time, without supporting evidence. I've managed to add an illm link to ru-wiki, but feel a source is needed for this obscure point. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've just added it. I'm happy to create the article for the red link by translating the German Wiki one. Bermicourt (talk) 07:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since you were on the list of translators from German to English, I was wondering if you would be interested in translating de:Gerhard Schramm (Biochemiker). Regards, 70.172.136.61 (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my subject area, I'm afraid. Bermicourt (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing Helleberg (ridge). I fixed incoming links to Helleberg yesterday and all seven were for the Leine ridge, but I lacked the courage to change it to a dab as I know some editors are keen to keep a surname page at the base name. I think you've done the right thing: it has no information about the surname and it clearly collects links intended for another topic. Certes (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have no dog in this fight, not even a very small one. I just read up on it a bit because I saw someone change CR to Czechia without comment ... which is, I think, what you do if you are very sure you are right, or are maybe hoping just to get away with it ... or something. So I had a look at the CR wikiproject, where I think there is nothing current, and then back through the archives, where I found you arguing for a guideline. This seemed to be to be very reasonable, but did you ever get anywhere with it?

I can't emphasize too strongly that I am not trying to reopen a debate, start a crusade or anything. I need a dispute like this like a hole in the head. I have enough difficulty trying to keep Middlesbrough spelt right! (or, like, people changing England to UK and UK to England and Scotland to whatever.) I am just interested, I suppose, in the wiki-processes and wiki-thinking that went on, and would love to know if it did ever get closer to resolved. I'm certainly, absolutely, I promise you, not planning on reverting the edit that I saw! Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered: I have raised this several times on the project talk pages because every time I was given the reasonable response that Czechia is just an acceptable short (and indeed officially approved) form of CR, I found my edits in practice being changed to CR. The final time I raised the topic, it flushed out some different views clearly opposed to the short version. So there is no consensus. That should mean both are acceptable, but on Wikipedia if there is a small band of editors determined to spell something one way, regardless of the sources, it's almost impossible for reason to prevail. In your case, there are two options. If this is the first edit, then you can revert it under WP:BRD and invite discussion on the talk page. The second option is to leave it - it won't be long before other editors swoop in to revert it whether BRD applies or not. Bermicourt (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, I would like to expand/improve the article on the Saxon Switzerland Climbing Region in the course of the next weeks. My impression is, that the translation from the German page might not be entirely suitable within the English Wikipedia and within the scope of articles relevant to rock climbing. I would like to add a section on the history, climbing style, and maybe a list of notable climbers. Would you like to collaborate? I'm not an English native speaker but I am a rock climber from that region. Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate some guidance as to where I could first create a draft version of proposed changes. Or maybe we can discuss the changes first on the Talk page of the article? Would appreciate any help. Bohnenkraut11 (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohnenkraut11: That's great. I generally translate articles on German topics from German to English Wiki which is how this one got started. I'm happy to collaborate on improving this one. If you want to create a draft either of the entire article or of a section the best thing to do is create a page called something like User:Bohnenkraut11/Saxon Switzerland climbing region draft. Then it's in your own workspace and no-one is going to fuss while you work on it. I often do this for articles and, when I'm happy, I move the page to mainspace or copy the content into an existing article. Obviously whatever we do must conform to Wiki guidance e.g. no marketing, be properly sourced etc. Hope that helps, Gruß. Bermicourt (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for the advice! I will do that and let you know when I'm ready for some feedback and language editing. Bohnenkraut11 (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt! I've partly finished my edit on User:Bohnenkraut11/Saxon Switzerland climbing region draft. I would welcome your input. Ignore the section on the history for now. This will take a bit longer but I thought I could first finish the other sections and start adding them to the main page. I've also created a draft on the German climber Bernd Arnold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bernd_Arnold. If you have time and this is of interest to you, I would be very happy about a review. Thank you so much and viele Grüße!

The article cites "Cotton 1674" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 06:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: it's the first entry in his list of works and there's even a link to an online copy. Do I really need to repeat it in the Bibliography? Bermicourt (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While much of Dummett's The Game of Tarot still stands up, parts have become outdated and Dummett abandoned many theories stated in them. One such example was the French-origin theory of Spanish suits. If you read his article in volume 18 of the IPCS journal, you can see that had rejected it by 1988. The biggest change was the Ferrara hypothesis which formed the subtitle for the book. At the time, he proposed Ferrara as the most likely place for its invention among the first four tarot centers with Florence being the least likely. Since the mid-2000s, the prevailing theory is now the complete opposite. Also gone are his hypotheses on the Piedmontese game of Sedici and its relationship with Ferrara. In fact, most of the history of Piedmontese tarot games (the French reintroduction theory) was replaced by his later research as well as the research of McLeod and others.--Countakeshi (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Countakeshi: thank you, that is helpful. The great advantage of The Game of Tarot is that it pulled together the history of cards (especially Tarot obviously) comprehensively in one place. It's big disadvantage is that it's now 40 years out of date. What would be brilliant would be an updated edition. McLeod and Dummett updated the actual games themselves in 2004 in their double-volume set which I now have, but it doesn't go over the general history of card sin the same way.

Apart from the above article, can you recommend any others that bring Dummett's historical analysis up to date? We may not have a new edition of The Game of Tarot, but it would be good to have an equivalent body of material, at least covering what's changed. I do have access to back issues of The Playing Card.

Should I revert all my recent changes or would you prefer to bring them up to date? Bermicourt (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 December 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Penneech, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 17th-century card game of Penneech, named after its highest card, the seven of diamonds, the trump suit changes with each trick? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Penneech. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Penneech), and it may be added to the statistics page if it received over 400 views per hour. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please help and translate this article [of the Ashanti Empire] from German into English. The English translation at the moment is just a sub section of the Ashanti Empire. Please help translate the article into an English article. Notice the German title when translated into English will sound wrong as well. Kwesi Yema (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake. The German article to be translated is Regierung von Aschanti. The English translation is just a subsection of Ashanti Empire. Can you please translate the article into a new English article? Kwesi Yema (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about your recent edits to domino, but you are certainly wrong in your view that the word "domino" cannot be used for the tiles themselves. --JBL (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll: In this case, I can also quote a reliable source: at John McLeod's Glossary of Domino Terms it says "Dominoes: This is the name of the game. Contrary to popular usage, it is not the name of the tiles." As he is a games expert, I took my lead from him. However, it's always worth asking the question "why?" when we come across a different point of view, so in the light of your comment I plan to research this myself. I suspect McLeod is right from a purist's point of view, but once the masses have adopted a word to mean something, however incorrectly, dictionaries and encyclopaedias are bound to follow these days. In the meantime, I'm happy for my edits to be reverted; otherwise I'll tidy them up when I've done a bit more digging. I'll certainly represent both views. Bermicourt (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, well, as I said, I don't really care about it (by which I mean: your edits didn't make the article worse and in particular left things perfectly understandable) and it certainly doesn't seem worth reverting over. From what little I have read about this, the origin of the word "domino" for the game is old and very obscure, which makes it hard for me to believe one could confidently sort out whether it originally referred to the game or the pieces. I did go check the OED, which has quotes for the cloak going back to 1719, and for the game going back to 1801. It endorses the view that the word is used for both the game and the pieces. There are numerous other uses (apparently at some point "dominoes" was slang for "teeth", and also for piano keys) that wouldn't make sense if it was not understood that the dominoes were the pieces. Happy editing, JBL (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll:. I'll be amending the article to make this clear as I'm coming to a similar conclusion as I wade through domino rules, old and new. When the game first appeared in Europe, domino was the name of the game (going out was also called "going-" or "making domino"); and various other words were used for the tiles. In English they used 'pieces' to begin with, but by the mid-19th century American and British sources were using 'domino' to refer to the tiles and that use seems to be commonplace now, alongside "bones" and "tiles". Thanks for being forbearing. Bermicourt (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references for the Turkish version of Oh Hell: Ohel, Ohel, Ohel

You can google "Ohel Kuralları" for much more. I wouldn't think of adding a new version, but I was suprised that no version in the current page has the "10 + square of bid" scoring system. It does add interesting twists in late game where more tricks are available. I did come across a few web pages in English where squared scoring is mentioned. One sample: Vars— Preceding unsigned comment added by CemEgri (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was just on the King (Card Game) page to review the point distribution for the four player game and to my surprise, the rules for the entire game were gone and replaced with another game. I was just wondering why you did that and if you would be willing to add the rules to the four player game back on top of what ever version you added.

Hi Adambombzz. You can also access the old rules from the history of the article, for example, here. The reason they were deleted was that the article was nominated for deletion due to lack of sources and apparent overlap with Barbu. The consensus was to 'keep' on the proviso that it was sourced. The only reliable source I could find for the game was Parlett's description of the three-hand game. He doesn't give rules for a four-hand variant, nor does McLeod who was cited in the original article. However, McLeod points to descriptions of two similarly named four-hand games: Turkish King, which I have created, and a French variant, Jeu du Roi, which doesn't look like a reliable source. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and sorry for changing something on your personal page, the other day. Of course I shouldn't have done what I did : I was like a TGV full speed on its track and by dint of habit, I made this sorry mistake. LouisAlain (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worries, that's entirely understandable. Keep up the good work. Bermicourt (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English has its own, centuries-old terminology regarding fortifications. You've been translating German articles into English like there's no tomorrow (fortified gateway, bridge castle, God knows what else), without paying attention to the correct, well-established English terminology. Some German terms simply don't exist in English, some mean something else altogether if translated literally. These "articles" are misleading, mainly to non-native speakers, who take them to represent something real in English, which they don't. Please, do some research before doing any more of this! Eine wortwörtliche Übersetzung ohne vorherige Recherche ist immer ein grundsätzlicher Fehler, der kaum noch korrigiert werden kann, Ihre Arbeit und jene aller, die nach Ihnen etwas beitragen, ist für die Katz, verschwendet, umsonst, oder noch schlimmer: Sie ist irreführend. Übersetzer ist ein Beruf und muss durch harte Arbeit erlernt werden, Google Translate ist dagegen nur ein schnelle Hilfe für unterwegs. Thank you. Danke für Ihr Verständnis. Arminden (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn some manners and to avoid making sweeping, over-the-top accusations that aren't true. I'm well aware of the terminology of English 'castellology' and German Burgenkunde and the fact that some terms don't have an English equivalent, hence my work on bergfried, palas and angstloch. But translation is an art, not a science. And please don't lecture me about so-called 'professional translators' - I've seen them make some real howlers in specialist literature. I've responded to your other comments at the talk pages concerned. Bermicourt (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your changes because, in the contentious area of the title, we should be following WP:BRD and discussing any changes on the talk page. I agree with some of the other areas, so I think we can make some improvements. But you need to provide evidence to show that Wasserburg is the accepted English word in sources before changing that bit again. Bermicourt (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you help me translate my personal wikipedia page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/TJ_Tollakson from German to English? Cheers, TJ Tollakson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.79.34 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's done. It probably needs some tweaking by an editor familiar with the sport. You should not edit your own bio though. Bermicourt (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The revert included an edit summary explaining my edit and your friend didn't supply an edit summary so your revert was unhelpful. Catchpoke (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to include a comment with edits, but you didn't follow the right process after being reverted, which iaw WP:BRD is to go to the talk page and explain your 'bold' edit there. Otherwise we just end up with edit wars which is pointless. Bermicourt (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this before finding out that you agreed with me. Catchpoke (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Bermicourt (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bermicourt, hopefully you can help: I'm looking for someone translating this article from German into English: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Bonhoeffer To be honest: for me it's very complicated to find out how to do that. I tried but failed. It would be really great if you can help or if you know someone who possibly can do the translation. Many thanks and best wishes from Zurich, Andrea

That's done, Andrea, although there are one or two loose ends to tidy up which I'll leave to the experts. Bermicourt (talk) 20:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, regarding Eder (Fulda), I chose to move it to Eder (river) so that it follows WP:NCRIVER, as Lennart97 mentions. I am aware there is another river with the same name, but this river would be the clear primary topic for a river. As mentioned in NCRIVER: The primary topic can stay at the undisambiguated title while lesser-known ones add a qualifier, e.g., Jordan River (in the Middle East), Jordan River (disambiguation), Jordan River (Utah)". Do you think you can move it back to Eder (river)? Vpab15 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Bermicourt (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vpab15 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIVER says "If different rivers with the same name exist, disambiguate with parentheses using either the parent river, country or (if both in the same country) the largest geographical entity that distinguishes them" so I don't think that was appropriate and it appears to have simply been that Lennart97 didn't notice the other river. The proposal fits in with that while the alternative doesn't. While partial disambiguation is occasionally used it has been controversial so I don't think it should have been done without more consensus at least. The primary topic example of Jordan River is a base title not a qualified title namely one with brackets anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this discussion to the talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, really appreciate the effort you put into the article Ace-Ten games! Unfortunately there are some dangling references to sources. Could let us know the source for Dummett? And which of the Parlett books did you reference? I've temporarily hidden the citations. Hope you can help us retrieve these sources! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussie Article Writer: That's done. Thanks for alerting me. Bermicourt (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No probs :-) I converted it to the citation template. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt, with this edit, you added a reference to Birlinger & Pfaff 1916... but there isn't any source... do you still have that so we can add it to the article? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bermicourt (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain Bermicourt, but I've found another dangling ref - see this edit where I hid it. Would you know the source? - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dreierles, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that German soldiers fighting with Napoleon brought home a Spanish modification to the Tarot game of Dreierles (pictured) that resulted in Baden's national game of Cego? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dreierles. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dreierles), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for sorting out the Polish translation issues.

I would like to compare notes with you one what drew my attention to Bettelmann in the first place. I was working my way through Sfn errors and using Template:Sfn as a guide. I found it worked quite well, so long as the sources were fundamentally correct. It meant that if you click on the link in the References section it highlights the corresponding link in the Literature section. That's quite nice I think.

As far as I can tell you have resolved all the Sfn errors in the Bettelmann article using a different approach. So I would appreciate hearing your views. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slimy asparagus: sure. I started using Template:Sfn a long while ago because it gave a consistent way of displaying references. What I didn't appreciate was that, unless it was linked to a full citation template in the bibliography, it generated error messages, even if the full reference was correctly entered manually. Basically you have to use one system or the other; you can't mix and match. Personally I prefer to enter the full references manually - it's quicker - so when I come across places where I've generated error messages by using Template:Sfn, I just revert my edits to the non-template system. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You haven't convinced me that Template:Sfn used in conjunction with Template:Cite book is a bad idea. However I no intention of telling you how to edit pages that you have more interest in than I. And you have more experience than I do, so maybe you're right. In any case it only makes sense to me when a Wikipedia page is mostly making page-specific references to offline sources.

From your user page your board game interests seem to be card games. Anything else? I shall be extremely cautious in touching those pages and I shall certainly defer to you. I have put my interests on my user page. More generally I want to look at whatever metrics we have or can construct and trying to improve them.

Speaking of which, are you going to work on fixing errors on pages in your area of interest, using this page: [7]? Slimy asparagus (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the template combination is a bad idea; I just prefer not to use it. Probably because when importing references from de.wiki, converting them to use the template takes up valuable time that I'd rather spend on translation itself.

Yes, my focus is on researching and playing card games, especially traditional Austrian and German ones, although I have also forayed into other European and Anglo-American games and have researched a number of domino games too. I have close links with a number of experts in the field which helps. I and my family play board games, but am no expert and wouldn't have the time to expand into that area.

Re the error log - yes, I've only just come across that and will certainly take a look at doing some fixes. Probably not in the next week or two as I'm on holiday with family. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the report came out today.We have two new pages: Brelan and Culbas. Also I was thought I might look at "CS1 errors: extra text: volume" today, but I will leave Zwickern and the above to you. Slimy asparagus (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those three are fixed. I will continue to do this as I come across them anyway, but don't mind you flagging others up periodically. Bermicourt (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still seeing an error in Zwickern. By the way I followed the advice in Help:CS1_errors#Controlling_error_message_display and it enables me to find the errors quickly. Slimy asparagus (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Comet (card game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the card game Comet, originally called Manille, was renamed in 1682 after the appearance of Halley's Comet? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Comet (card game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Comet (card game)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to come down as condescending on this, but really, you've been here long enough that I shouldn't be having to revert edits like this because they fail to provide a reliable source. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... condescending and perhaps a little hasty. Wikipedia doesn't require a source per sentence and it's usually helpful to request a source for a good faith edit from an editor before reverting and causing both of us unnecessary work. And none of your changes were cited either BTW. I've largely reinstated my edit at German-suited playing cards, adding the relevant sources, so that should now be fine. Your comment at passenger railroad car wrongly assumes I didn't read the background. In fact I did read the sorry saga of the move request, which went ahead despite a split vote and which has only made a poor situation worse. "Passenger railroad car" is the least universal and least common of the discussed options. Meanwhile, given the resulting horlicks, I was simply trying to clarify who uses which terms in order to begin addressing its multiple issues. Bermicourt (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Tyrolese" is an outdated 18th/19th century English term. Please stop insisting on using an outdated term. National Geographic uses Tyroleans, as does South Tyrol's marketing agency: South Tyroleans. As does the province itself: itself and so on and on. Tyrolean is the correct name nowadays, so please stop reverting to an outdated tern. noclador (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:BRD and discuss this on the talk page, not here. Bermicourt (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: Still missing language links (other languages) for flat wagon: es:Vagón plataforma, cs:Plošinový vůz, ja:長物車 and perhaps nl:Containerwagen Peter Horn User talk 03:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, nl:Containerwagen should be linked to flat car as should also be ja:コンテナ車 Peter Horn User talk 03:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, About your reverting my change of "taken into service" to "entered into service". Not disputing your change at all, but I do want to comment on it. In nearly five decades as a native English speaker I'd never seen the term "taken into service" until I read this article, whereas I see "entered into service" quite frequently.

Google shows nearly twice as many hits for "taken into service" than "entered into service", so I don't doubt that it's a common phrase. I'm guessing it may be more commonly used in Europe (where you're from) than in North America (where I'm from), which would explain the different perspectives. Given that context, I'm surprised you resorted to a revert, which "tends to be hostile". Given that mine was a good-faith edit, and our disagreement appears to be one of British versus American English, I was surprised that you chose to rebuke me in a way that will live in my stats forever.

I'm not offended, but maybe be a bit less aggressive with reverting in the future? Stephen Hui (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this to the talk page and responded there iaw WP:BRD. Bermicourt (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I don't know that there is a "discussion about this at the talk page", so I would appreciate you don't make that assumption. There was a discussion at the English talkpage, but given the fact that it has been quiet for well over 2months, I would assume it's concluded and not on the side that you advocated. Alssa1 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the relevant talk pages. Bermicourt (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "in other languages" for de:pfannenwagen still throws me to tank car. Peter Horn User talk 23:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to point to ladle transfer car, but I can see the problem is that the German article also includes torpedo wagon as a sub-section, so they may change it back. Often, different wikis are at different stages of development, so there isn't always a one-to-one match. Bermicourt (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Trictrac, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Trictrac (board pictured) was the classic tables game of France, just as backgammon is of the English-speaking world today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Trictrac. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Trictrac), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jacquet (game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the classic board game Jacquet was the benchmark for all tables games in France during the 19th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jacquet (game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jacquet (game)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irish (game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that backgammon was derived from the esteemed 16th-century Scottish and English tables game of Irish and eventually surpassed it in popularity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irish (game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Irish (game)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you reverted my recent edits to Altes Schloss (Bad Berneck), citing H:MARKUP. However, Wikipedia has been using unspaced headings (example: ==Heading2==) for years, and many articles contain headings using the non-spaced formats. Further, such non-spaced heading formats are used as examples in MOS:HEADINGS, where spaces are described as being optional. Using WP:BOLD, I have added text to H:MARKUP below the Markup / Renders as box as follows:

"Heading formats may contain spaces (as shown in the example above) or not. The key point is that they should be consistent throughout an article, all headings should contain a single space to the left and right of the "=" sign(s) or no spaces, the formats should not be intermingled in the same article. See further examples in MOS:HEADINGS."

Truthanado (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthanado: I'm aware that both spaced and unspaced are acceptable provided they are consistent within the article. Personally, I find spaced headings easier to read, but given that the choice is left to editors, it would make sense to stay with the format of the original editor as we do with WP:ENGVAR to avoid edit conflict. Bermicourt (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly with you. Consistency within an article is desirable. I'm not suggesting that editors go on a campaign to check all articles, but if other edits are being made in the article, why not make sure other things (like heading formats) in the article are consistent. Editors already do that for dmy or mdy date formats. FYI, User:Redrose64 has reverted my edits to H:MARKUP. feel free to comment if you wish. Truthanado (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ticktack, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the mediaeval English tables game of Ticktack has several ways of winning, including Toots and Rovers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ticktack. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ticktack), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ludus Anglicorum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the "English Game", Ludus Anglicorum, was the most popular tables game in the mediaeval England of Chaucer's time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ludus Anglicorum. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ludus Anglicorum), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doublets (tables game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the historical English tables game of Doublets was mentioned in 1549 in a sermon by Latimer to King Edward VI? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doublets (tables game). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doublets (tables game)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt. In general, Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization, which is used almost exclusively for proper nouns, acronyms/initialisms, and to begin sentences. The capitalization section of the MoS states that the names of games are not capitalized. While the MoS is a guideline, I believe it's in agreement with common English usage not just in North America, but in general. I also don't believe that use in specialized literature is necessarily relevant to the issue. I further don't see how capitalization of a game name would aid in clarity and avoid confusion; if anything, it's likely to cause confusion because capitals are understood to mean proper nouns.

You've noted that the names of common games like chess and backgammon are usually not capitalized, and you will find that they're not capitalized in those articles. However, the popularity of a game is no basis for a policy on whether or not its name should be capitalized. Would we need to be constantly evaluating the popularity of games and moving them from one list to the other as it waxes and wanes? The simple and elegant solution is capitalization in accordance with standard English practice.

I won't get into a revert war with you over this, but I'd ask that you consider the issue of whether usage in gaming literature should trump common English capitalization rules, the Wikipedia MoS, and the goal of a simple and consistent policy. Exceptions for specialized fields should not be made unless there's a very compelling argument for them. I don't think we have one here. Lexicon (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had never in my life heard of a particular North American tendency to follow the normal accepted use of capitalization as opposed to a lax British one, and I'm not sure such a thing is actually real. Nor do I suspect that there's anything at all behind your ascribing American imperialist intentions to the writers of the MoS. As for the number of sources using certain spellings, I'm sure you can appreciate that when you're talking about games so obscure that you've only now added them to Wikipedia, the sources are of a specialized nature the use in which is possibly not indicative of the way an average English speaker would use those terms. Specialized literature of all types tends to do things like emphasize its terminology with capitals against common use, which an average speaker would not do. Additionally, many of your sources for these games are also kind of ancient, no doubt employing deprecated pre-20th century language conventions. Both of these (but especially the first), I think, are sound arguments against taking the conventions of the table games community regarding capitalization and applying them to this specific segment of Wikipedia against standard English conventions for capitalization. Lexicon (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advocating for "the average English reader's level of knowledge", though. I'm advocating for common English practice. I don't see this as an informal vs. formal issue. It's instead a specialized vs. common issue. I wouldn't call capitalizing industry terms "formal", and using WP:RS when the only easily identifiable written sources (because of obscurity) are specialized publications might follow the letter of the law while breaking its spirit. And again, I argue that capitalizing in this one corner of Wikipedia would cause more confusion than it prevents (even though I think both are pretty negligible), even if in the specialized gaming literature it might arguably enhance clarity. Also, you must realize that saying "let's stop here" after you've made your point—instead of in place of making it—is just a wee bit rich. Lexicon (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this discussion was fruitless at all. I heard your reasoning, and you heard mine. I also hoped that it was not a case of "neither of us is going to convince the other", as I go into these things with an open mind, able to be swayed by salient arguments. It's unfortunate if you don't do the same. Personally I think my argument should have been enough to sway you, as I do believe it is a good one, and I think that if you'd take a step back from the issue and try to see it as something other than a conflict with someone ruining your good work with their lowly common Americanisms (I'm a Canadian and a Brit, btw, although that's neither here nor there), you might be able to be convinced. Either way, I don't think my being an admin plays (or should play) into the appropriate resolution of this matter at all. I'm open to WP:3O or WP:DRN to start, if you feel my position as an administrator is unfairly affecting the outcome. Lexicon (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt I see you have just undone my deleted section on "Opole". Can we discuss this please? I am on the committee of the Rundlingsverein e V.,have lived for 16 years in a rundling village, and am probably the only native english speaking expert on Rundling villages. Most of the article is mine. I am in regular personal contact with Professor Wolfgang Meibeyer, who is without argument the greatest living expert on Rundlinge.

There is an academic debate that has been going on since the days of Anneliese Krenzlin and Willi Schulz about the origins of the Rundling form. One by now widely discredited argument is that Rundlinge, because their original occupiers were indeed Slavic farmers, came in some way from the Slavic tribes further East (Poles, Czechs, Russians, etc). No evidence whatsoever has been cited to show any such link.

Wolfgang Meibeyer's argument has always been that the half-moon shape was created by Germanic overlords for their Slavic farmers, who cleared the forests in the 12th/13th century following the Wendenkreuzzug of 1147. This is pictured in the Sachsenspiegel, a near contemporary account of the "Ostkolonisation ". There is no known connection to the Opole of Poland. Of course circular villages have existed the world over, and The University of Cottbus' Institute of Heritage Management has catalogised them all very recently. However to put in an article on German Rundlinge, a prominent link to Opole is factually false, and can only come from a lay view. Sadly antique2020 who wrote this addition falls into this category. It is deeply misleading to have this unedited under "Rundlinge". cheers. Adrian Greenwood. agwendland

adrian.greenwood@t-online.de — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.80.39.5 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bermicourt! I was wondering if you would like to translate a paragraph for me from German to English. (I found your name here.) I use Google Translate to obtain basic facts from articles written in foreign languages; however, I do not trust it to translate complex information well. Here is the paragraph, which is in this article:

"Zwischen Ende 1998 und 2000 flog Swissair die einzige Langstrecke ab Basel: New York/Newark. Doch die für die Basler Pharma gedachte tägliche Verbindung war im Prinzip nur eine Reaktion auf ein Projekt eines potenziellen Konkurrenten, der eine Full-Businessclass-Boeing auf dieser Strecke einsetzen wollte. Die Strecke wurde aber nur halbherzig beworben. Auf dem Swissair-Werbeflyer für Passagiere aus den USA wurde das Angebot nach Basel schlicht nicht erwähnt."

Please let me know if you would be available to do this. Thank you, — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 01:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done - on your talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January songs

in friendship

Thank you for being around! - Happy new year, in friendship! - Today I show yesterday's snow and today's music, Schon gewusst? in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February songs

frozen

my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the pic in 2009. It was on the German MP yesterday, with the song from 1885, in English Prayer for Ukraine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, what are you doing? I'm not sure you understand the what Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle entails. This is the edit [8] where user Tino Cannst added new information, while at the same time removing an old long standing statement. I reverted that, so why are you restoring it? Also, I started a talk page discussion [9] because this new item added by Tino Cannst is a minor fact and creates a bit of an imbalance, yet you did not even bother to comment on it, you just restored the new text that was added. Please follow Wikipedia rules instead of restoring NEW text which is disputed. New text can be reverted and it's up to the user to convince others for it's inclusion not the other way around. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. I cherish working with you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are precious too - bless you. Bermicourt (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - and yes, 3 people said so ;) - Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you've been doing on improving the solitaire articles. And thank you also for jumping in the discussion on my Talk page with your comments.

What other editors popping in might not realize is that many of the articles in question have had zero citations for over ten years or more. So the kinds of references we've been supplying improves things, being from reliable contributors, even if the site they're hosted on is not ideal. I appreciate the case you made about seeing them as arguably interim in nature, even if they don't quite tick all the WP:RS boxes. Removing them entirely will arguably only result in some instances where Wikipedia articles on solitaire games are absent of references for another next ten years, even though these are subjects that clearly deserve to be covered in Wikipedia.

Part of the problem is that it's a specialty area of study with few contributors, so over-vigilance and over-policing based on a cursory visit to those pages or the sources in question isn't helpful. And in some instances it wasn't just the citation that was removed, but also other content changes, resulting in an overall regress of quality. But let's keep plugging away, and hopefully our efforts will lead to improvements in the long run. Thanks again for your contributions, involvement, and engagement. Gregorytopov (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Category talk:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust#Correct title?. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rosamund's Bower, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in Rosamund's Bower (setup pictured), the aim is to reunite Fair Rosamund with King Henry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosamund's Bower. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rosamund's Bower), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,807 views (900.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bermicourt, Thank you for creating Augustusburg Castle. User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for your work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ . (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) North8000 (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article German Tarok, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is purportedly hard to find a more interesting card game played with German-suited cards than Sansprendre, a variant of German Tarok? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/German Tarok. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, German Tarok), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC) [reply]

May songs

Thank you for making DYK Germany richer! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Bermicourt! Wir würden gerne eine Übersetzung von der deutschen Wikipedia Seite "Edith Hlawati" anfordern. Viele Grüße! Österreichische Beteiligungs AG (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leider ist das nicht mein Themenkreis. Bermicourt (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Six-Bid Solo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the American card game of Six-Bid Solo originated in southern Germany? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Six-Bid Solo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Six-Bid Solo), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bermicourt. A couple of editors have begun a campaign to evaluate sources over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources and its talk. Mostly they're sifting through potential sources for the welter of new games coming out every day, a difficult task that I'm not really interested in. However, I've floated a few online sources for historical games, which were also welcomed. Just mentioning in case you know of additional quality sources that might be worth listing. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bermicourt I'm making a list of card games articles where the pronouns are too ambiguous, hoping you'll find time to take a look. I still may change part of the article where there is less ambiguity, but in which case I'll identify the ambiguous section:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature_(card_game) - second paragraph of Strategy section
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarocchini - Variations > Game play section
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truc_y_flou - Rules section

Tom dl (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are interested in card games. Perhaps you would like to review Draft:Escopa? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for working on Siegessäulen. Are you able to find any other sources to add? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really my main subject area, but when I checked Google and Google books there weren't many references at all. None for peace columns and a handful for victory columns. Bermicourt (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites "Armanino 1977" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata•3 23:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: that's done. Bermicourt (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding the Beuth (locomotive) article with info from the German wiki article. As the sourcing of that German article is wonky, are you aware of any other sources to further improve the article? Especially for stuff like "first steam locomotive developed independently in Germany", sources would be nice to have. Best regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You edited a sentence I wrote about the Laws of Backgammon which was published in 1931. I am happy to send you a copy if you don't believe its existence. Mwcc1919 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bermicourt. Glossary of card game terms caught my eye because it's reference section was almost entirely Harv/sfn errors. I explained in the ES I pinged you in what was causing that, but, looking at it now, there's still quite a few errors caused by a lack of citation in the bibliography. I tracked down Arnold 2007, but could you please add citations for Dummett 1980, Goren 1950, Gibson 1974, Parlett 1979, Pardon 1864, and _ 1881? (Should that last one be Hans Jörgel 1875, currently unused?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for alerting me to that, Tamzin. See response on Talk:Glossary of card game terms#Missing citations. Bermicourt (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Bermicourt,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be Tarot. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.

This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.

While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I hope you will do so.

I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.S Philbrick(Talk) 14:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: no, I was aware of the need for attribution from other language Wikipedias, but not from within the same Wiki. Thanks for pointing that out. I think I've fixed it, but let me know if it's still not right.Bermicourt (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as I mentioned, it isn't well-known. You are very experienced, I assume you've done it right. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a happy result to get to close an AfD because the article is now in good shape. Thanks for teaching me something I didn't know about German history and architecture. Lizthegrey (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kanonenjagdpanzer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Full.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited South Bohemian Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostmark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Děčín Weir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Děčín Weir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

FromCzech (talk) 12:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hoy (Lake Constance) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoy (Lake Constance) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QuicoleJR (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Glawnoje Raswedywatelnoje Uprawlenije has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Glawnoje Raswedywatelnoje Uprawlenije until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you reverted some of the sfn fixes I made (well, I thought they were fixes) in deference to some bot process. I'm fairly new around here and I am curious about what sort of problems the sfn template might raise. Thanks. Andy02124 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! When created a sort name redirect like Frey, Richard L., it is helpful to include {{R from sort name|F|R}}, so we know what kind of redirect it is. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll take a look at the guidance. Bermicourt (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit on the Canoe page contains some errors: In American usage, canoeists nowadays also use double-bladed paddles in (open) canoes, and those are usually not called kayaks then. And for sporting competition purposes, the American distinction between a kayak and a canoe is not sometimes but almost always adopted (and the English language obliged): e.g. participating with a kayak is not allowed in canoe races. Kanoniem (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed you made some mistakes regarding the Kayak page: In British English the word kayak does not refer to an open canoe, but the word canoe can also be used for a kayak. So the Kayak article is _not_ about the kayak in the narrower American sense of the word. Kanoniem (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on the talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I come across one of your articles while fixing footnote errors I try to stick to your "text-based ref" style although I admit that if that's more work than updating the sfns, I'll go with the sfns. Treppenrommé has sfns referencing an uncited work dated 1988, so I'll leave it to you to sort out. Andy02124 (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bermicourt. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ski route, 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) 08:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vogelsberg (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread your an app called Poohead has been developed for iPhones as being promotional without checking who'd actually added it. No implication about your motives intended!

It does look like there are a lot of apps out there which can't call themselves "Shithead" due to app store rules and have to pick a different name, though (eg. "Sheethead", "Lucky Head"). Doesn't seem worth singling any out on WP:PRIMARY app store sources, not even for sourcing an alternate name. Belbury (talk) 10:42, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think it's a genuine app and felt it worth mentioning as an alternative (and slightly more polite!) name. Certainly no promotion intended. Bermicourt (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For writing a useful article at Galician Tarok!

Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 03:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ace-Ten games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triumph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the page Trump (card games), and you reverted it. Your edit summary reads “m”. Could your please explain? 2600:1006:B066:3AE6:C495:41BE:A0A0:2F70 (talk) 15:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the talk page. Bermicourt (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder of own proposal: I propose merging Pusoy dos into Big two. Pusoy dos is a minor variant of Big two and I don't think it merits its own page. There are very few sources for this as a stand-alone game. One of the citations here goes to an archived article that is not a WP:RS; the other goes to John McLeod's page for Big Two at pagat.com where he only gives Pusoy dos a couple of lines as a variant, not even a separate section. The essential differences can be added to Big Two without causing would any article-size or weighting problems.Bermicourt (talk) 08:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: given the lack of objection and the clear case, I think that it would be fine for you or any other used to merge these. You might have more expertise than me to do this elegantly! Klbrain (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cups (suit) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cups (suit) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coins (suit) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coins (suit) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Batons (suit) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batons (suit) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swords (suit) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords (suit) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Bermicourt, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note - is the term 'group' best here? No parent category for this term. Red links for Trump group; ditto for subcategories. I see this term also used at Category:Plain-trick games. At minimum, we need some kind of category for card game groups, but wouldn't term variant or family be better? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bermicourt,

Please do not make up your own speedy deletion criteria. CSD criteria are intentionally limited in scope. Both of the categories that you did this to have been merged which is preferable to deleting a longstanding category in favor of one that was just created today. Or they should have been renamed via CFD speedy renames. But please don't create a slightly different category to one that has existed for years and then tag the older one for deletion with your own deletion rationale. It will likely be declined. Categories have specific rules and if you don't know about them, spend some time reviewing proposals at Categories for Discussion which will help you learn about the process. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's helpful and I will follow that process in future. Just to say that the purpose was to align the categories with the main card game article which contains a recognised classification and naming system for card games, so I'm not inventing new names. Bermicourt (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Bermicourt,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I extend the olive branch.
    I apologize for my over-caffeinated screed. It's alarming to me that you would consider just leaving the project entirely over a style dispute, and such a result is certainly not my intent. There is far more to quality game-related article writing (at which you are good) than some capital letters. I certainly share your concerns with people substantively changing direct quotations, and altering once-sourced material to make it disagree with what the sources say. These seem to be unrelated matters, and I know that fending off bad edits (usually clueless or confused, not ill-meaning) can be a drain on one's patience. I hope that a WP-house-style versus game-publishers'-house-style mismatch is not actually enough to put you off the long-term encyclopedic boon you provide, especially in a topic area with few contributors.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I strongly agree with your take at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swords (suit), etc.; if I'd seen those AfDs when they were open, I would have chimed in a like manner.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bermicourt. I saw you remove yourself from the participant list at WP:MOUNTAINS. I just wanted to let you know that I've appreciated all of the work you've done on mountains in Europe, and on game articles. I think you're a positive force for Wikipedia, and I hope you stay! — hike395 (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the Rivers Project. If you stay, it will be positive for the encyclopedia, but perfectly understand if you wish to bow out. Good luck with whatever you decide. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This. I really value your contributions related to card games and I hope you'll reconsider. IMHO Wikipedia's quality is steadily improving, minor issues like house style on capitalization should not be an impediment to our curation of content. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hike395: @The joy of all things: @Piotrus: thank you for those kind words and I will miss working with you. Sadly, the issue is not seen as minor by our style champions otherwise it wouldn't be enforced. If one day Wikipedia can accept an inclusive "both/and" approach in these areas – as it does with WP:ENGVAR – whereby articles on a given topic may use title case if the relevant literature does, while other articles may follow the general practice of using lower case, then I may be motivated to return. But I don't expect that to happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I may see you on German Wikipedia... Best regards. Bermicourt (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermicourt, you had said on my talk page that "I and others have been working over several years to bring them to a higher standard". But I haven't found who else might be interested in these discussions, or in coordinating. Let me know if there's someone I should be in touch with. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: I was mainly referring to the three or four editors who built a good foundation before I began working on this topic in parallel with my research and writing. They're still around, but not very active. There are also two or three experts, but they've never been actively involved probably because of real life busy-ness. In recent times, there have been a couple who have helped in tidying articles up and dealing with vandalism, but don't tend to create or expand articles. These include User:Gregorytopov who was active until end 2022, but has gone quiet, and User:Belbury. The truth is that I'm a prolific editor, helped by having translation skills, but I don't have any obvious successor.

BTW in looking up the occasional fact, I notice that you're continuing to introduce errors into card game articles and breaking your own rules about capitalisation, but I've deleted my watchlist and not actively monitoring this any more. Such a shame that these articles will now go steadily downhill because we couldn't agree a "both/and" solution as we have with WP:ENGVAR. Signing off now. Bermicourt (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad to see you go. If I've made errors, who can point them out if you won't? Dicklyon (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great shame to see you packing up! I'd always looked up to you as someone who knew their stuff on card games and was taking time to get the details right. Big boots to fill if they're now empty. My own edits in that area have just been workaday copyediting, weeding out silly house rules and sometimes rewriting rules to match the sources.

I saw the wave of apparently search-and-replace lower-case sweeping through the card game articles, but only stopped to rewrite the particularly unreadable one that was on my watchlist. If there was a discussion about whether and how to apply that change, I didn't see it. Belbury (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief discussion on my talk page, User talk:Dicklyon#Happy New Year! Let's work together!. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Have a good year whatever you do, - your help here is greatly appreciated, for mountains, castles, card games ... remembered! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a DYK on the Main page, but my story would be different, about Figaro, - this Figaro. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Eifel, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eifel (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Eifel 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. Schierbecker (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bermicourt--I saw you wrote up that nice MGH template, but I can't really figure out how to use it. Where does this fit in? I don't see a parameter for Concilia. Is it one of the Rerum Germanicarum series? Honestly, I've never been real fluent with the MGH, haha, and I would appreciate your help--I'm trying to clean up Folcwin, and my friend in Germany tells me I should remove the outdated Mansi. Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to announce my retirement, triggered by a few style editors insisting on lower casing game names that are always capitalised in the subject matter texts and not permitting a sensible "both/and" approach as we have done for years with e.g. WP:ENGVAR. This is an issue that has hit other projects (e.g. bird names) too. While it may seem a relatively minor issue, it was frustrating to bring articles to a high standard in line with the sources only to see unnecessary and potentially confusing edits being made by editors who didn't always understand the subject matter and the sources behind them. The changes were also introducing unnecessary errors that I was having to clean up. I have better things to do. Bermicourt (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm sorry to see you go. Gotta find another way to figure out how to use the template. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have retired for the reasons explained on my User page.

The only exception is that I may occasionally correct glaring factual errors with e.g. card game articles. Bermicourt (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

yes, I've seen that with sadness, remembering great collaboration over many years, - nonetheless, when seeing that Burg Eltville [de] has no article here yet, you were the one coming to my mind - perhaps you make an exception on a generous day ;) - I just uploaded two more pics of it, follow "places". Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)--[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: for your friendship and collaboration, I've now added the article. Bless you. Bermicourt (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sooo much! - I'll watch it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami_IV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration in memory --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bermicourt,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]