User talk:Brigade Piron
My talk page archives are available at User:Brigade Piron/talkarchive.
Always precious
Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Considering starting a CFD
Hello Brigade Piron, I wanted to reach out about your essay at User:Brigade Piron/"Luxembourg", "Luxembourgish" or "Luxembourgian"?. I stumbled across something and it's been bugging me for a bit, and I was considering proposing a mass renaming of ~637 categories to change "Luxembourgian" to "Luxembourgish" for adjectival usage in category names (see the list here). Your essay seems to support this idea, but I wanted to run it by you first as a sanity check before I make this type of mass edit. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Hey man im josh, thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. I fear that this is rather an impossible task given the resistance of a large number of US-based editors, but I wish you luck. Among all possible choices, "Luxembourgian" is certainly the least used and frankly the least logical choice. I think the other two are pretty much evenly split. But if you are up for the fight, definitely - go for it! It can't hurt. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Eric: who was interested in this question some years ago.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bourg is back! Or is it the burg? Hi to you both. Josh, not to be boorish, but you mean Luxembourgish, no? I would be one American voice supporting this, though I can't help liking Luxembourgeois (Brigade: why don't I see this in my 1985 OED?). FYI, before I saw the link in Josh's sandbox, I ran this n-gram out of curiosity. Eric talk 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- I definitely did @Eric, my bad on the typo! I think Luxembourgeois could make sense, but I agree with @Brigade Piron, "Luxembourgian" is probably the worst possible choice, and any move away from that is a good move. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think go for it then! I'd personally advocate "Luxembourgish" and work from there. But it's the first step that is most important. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I expect to make the mass nom at some point today or tomorrow. Pinging @Eric to let them know. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey man im josh, did I miss it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, I expect to make the mass nom at some point today or tomorrow. Pinging @Eric to let them know. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think go for it then! I'd personally advocate "Luxembourgish" and work from there. But it's the first step that is most important. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- I definitely did @Eric, my bad on the typo! I think Luxembourgeois could make sense, but I agree with @Brigade Piron, "Luxembourgian" is probably the worst possible choice, and any move away from that is a good move. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- The bourg is back! Or is it the burg? Hi to you both. Josh, not to be boorish, but you mean Luxembourgish, no? I would be one American voice supporting this, though I can't help liking Luxembourgeois (Brigade: why don't I see this in my 1985 OED?). FYI, before I saw the link in Josh's sandbox, I ran this n-gram out of curiosity. Eric talk 14:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Also @Eric: who was interested in this question some years ago.—Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Hey man im josh, thank you for your comment and apologies for the delay in responding. I fear that this is rather an impossible task given the resistance of a large number of US-based editors, but I wish you luck. Among all possible choices, "Luxembourgian" is certainly the least used and frankly the least logical choice. I think the other two are pretty much evenly split. But if you are up for the fight, definitely - go for it! It can't hurt. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 7 February 2025
- Recent research: GPT-4 writes better edit summaries than human Wikipedians
- News and notes: Let's talk!
- Opinion: Fathoms Below, but over the moon
- Community view: 24th Wikipedia Day in New York City
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 has closed
- Traffic report: A wild drive
The Bugle: Issue 226, February 2025
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:United Nations contingents in Korea
A tag has been placed on Category:United Nations contingents in Korea indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)