text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Croix macaw/archive1

St. Croix macaw

 * Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about an extinct macaw only known from a few bones, hence a fairly short article. The article has a chequered nomination history, and was originally brought to GA by a now retired user, who I recently asked "permission" to improve it further for FAC, which was granted. The article has been expanded and rewritten considerably from the GA version (the previous version can be seen here), though some text under description (and the images there) is basically retained from the GA version. I had a lot of relevant sources lying around from writing about other extinct macaws, so I thought it was about time this one got the treatment. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * File:Saint-Croix-Macaw-Distribution.png: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
 * Added. All that's known is that it was found on the islands shown. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * File:Parrot_Skeleton_Lydekker_with_Saint_Croix_Macaw_bones_colored_in.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added; though Lydekker was possibly not the artist, no artist is credited, but he is the author of the book. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild
I had a look at this for GoCE and there was some interaction on the talk page, so hopefully there won't be much left to comment on.

 * "were imported or native species" Optional: → 'were native or imported species'.
 * Makes sense, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "Its bones are intermediate in size between those of smaller and larger macaws" I know that we have already discussed this, but could you clarify how this statement, which does not, it seems to me, increase the knowledge of a reader, would not be improved by being replaced by 'Its bones are intermediate in size between those of the two main groups of extant macaws'. This does not, it seems to me, contradict the source.
 * How about this, which should be more specific: "Extant macaws can generally be grouped in either large or small size clusters, yet the bones of the St. Croix macaw are intermediate in size between the two". FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Spot on. Just what needs to be said.

 * It doesn't seem reasonable to present the reader with "Pomarrosa phase" without definition or explanation. Even more so as the only use of it I can find in the literature - I am open to correction - is in a single paper, dealing with this extinct species. Personally I would delete it and write something in English, but as a minimum it needs explaining.
 * It seems to have been discussed in this thesis: But since it isn't free online, and it isn't that important, I've rewritten the text so it isn't named. Now it says "found in a kitchen midden deposit which has been dated to around 300 AD." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Is there a reason why the comment in Nicholls (p 263) "early reports suggest that many species still existed in large numbers at first contact" doesn't make the cut?
 * Doesn't really apply to this species, as it is not known from any reports, and may have died out before European contact (it is true for the Lesser Antillean macaw, tough, where it is discussed). FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * The four cites to Wiley are each to a 32 page range. This makes it difficult to check them. Would it be possible to narrow this down in each case?
 * Broke it up as "125–128, 230–132, 137–145, 149–151" (a style I have been told before was ok), better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * An entirely acceptable style. Still 18 pages for a single cite though. Before I dive into the text, are you quite sure that all 18 pages are needed to support each of the four statements linked to?
 * Yeah, the thing is, much of the text here summarises several pages in few words within single sentences. For example, the following sentences cover ground that the paper takes many pages to cover in detail: "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets". That alone covers several chapters where the source examines each of these issues. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "Native Caribbeans hunted parrots and held them captive" Why refer to parrots when the same source refers to Native Caribbeans hunting and capturing macaws? (pp 137-138)
 * Changed, macaws are parrots, but I see your point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies; trying to be too succinct. Makes a little more sense for your "typical" reader now, I think.

Some quick first thoughts. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, should now be answered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry that it took me so long to come back to you on this. A couple of comments above. Having just read through for probably the fifth time I can't find any additional quibbles. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I'm used to waiting for months with articles like this, so that certainly didn't seem long. And thanks for the coming source review! FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JM
Happy to offer some comments. If it's of any interest, I have a biology FAC seeking reviewers at the moment. Don't feel obliged to join in, though.
 * Thanks, didn't know there was another biology article up, I just took on Crusades, which is a bit of a whopper, so Ill try to have a look when I'm done with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "Condyle" is undefined/unlinked jargon
 * Was linked and explained at the last mention of the word for some reason, now moved to first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Disambiguation needed for "trochlea".
 * No article for this particular kind, so removed link and added "(a grooved structure where bones join)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "while the more robust shaft of the femur is consistent with the condition in Ara but dissimilar to Anodorhynchus." You've lost me, sorry. Condition?
 * Changed to "is similar to that of Ara". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * "and the attachment of [pronator brevis (one of the two pronation muscles in the wing) on the humerus is placed farther upwards." What's going on with the brackets?
 * Was a partly removed duplink, now removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I appreciate that we have no idea of the colour, but do we have an indication of the total size?
 * Isn't stated specifically in any of the sources, unfortunately. We can of course extrapolate from the sizes of the other species it was said to be close to in certain measurements, but that would be OR here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

That's what jumps out at me. Please double-check my edits. Tough topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Added some replies, tough topic, but luckily very few historical sources to worry about (compared to other extinct birds). FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, seems we forgot a verdict on this one, ! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Support. On a second read, this article looks good. It's a tough topic, but you've done a decent job of bringing things together and making it relatively accessible. The only thing I thought was that Category:Species made extinct by human activities might be worth adding. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review - pass
I have ended up looking so deeply into the cites and sources that there will be very little extra needed for the full source review. So I will do it formally once I have completed my review above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

See initial comments in my "normal" review above.

 * The titles of cites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 should be in tiytle case.
 * You mean capitalised titles? Isn't that only for books (from my past FAC experience)? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, rereading the MoS I can see how it could be interpreted that way. (It probably needs clarifying.) Fair enough.

 * As mentioned above, I have serious qualms regarding the large page ranges in many of the cites. I do understand that on occasion this may be necessary. However, looking at specifics:
 * 1) Cite 5: Olson is used to source "In 1983, he indicated that if the macaw had indeed been transported, the specific name would be a misnomer." This is supported by "Given the fact that there was a lively trade in macaws between Indians in tropical Mexico and those in the desert southwest, it seems probable that trade in macaws would have been carried on in the West Indies as well, so that Ara autocthones may well not have been autochthonous to St. Croix at all." in the source. I fail to see why more than the single page which this is on is cited.
 * Furthermore, seems I haven't even given a page range for it, so either way it needs fixing... I'll just await your response to my comment below to see what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets. Since they are known from kitchen midden deposits, the macaws from Puerto Rico and St. Croix were evidently also used for subsistence. " has "Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets" supported by Nicols - fine. You offer 18 pages(!) of Wiley & Kirwan to cover the other two sentences. On the last two of these is "Extinction of West Indian macaws.— ... the combination of environmental changes and human-related pressures most certainly sealed the fate of all Antillean macaws. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect; although such persecution had been underway for some two millennia, the arrival of Europeans with their advanced guns must have vastly increased the efficiency with which macaws could be killed, thereby accelerating population declines ... The effects of other factors, including hurricanes and disease, are less easily predicted, but nonetheless potentially contributed to declines and extinctions." I am unsure why any other pages are cited, and some, eg 125–128, 230–132, seem irrelevant as support for the material.
 * I have removed 125-126. As for 230, that was a typo for 130, but 130 is exactly about this bird? But I have cut out page 131 and 132 from the range. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 * 1) To support "In 1978, the ornithologist Storrs L. Olson (using the spelling autochthones) agreed that the bone belonged to a macaw not assignable to any known species, but noted it may not have been native to St. Croix, since indigenous Caribbeans are known to have kept and traded macaws over long distances." you offer all 19 pages of Olson & Gill. But all that is needed is " The bone is indeed that of a macaw (although from an immature individual) and does not appear to be referable to any known species. However, since Indians elsewhere are known to have kept and traded live macaws, often transporting them long distances, the actual provenance of the species Ara autochthones may be subject to doubt." Most of the rest concerns itself with material having little to do with macaws of any species, much less the sentence it is offered in support of.
 * Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I could go on. Could you please check all of the longer citations to see if they could not be amended to only refer to the two or three sentences which actually directly support the material in your article which they refer to. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, before I do that, there has been discussions about this issue before; whether journal article page ranges should be broken down as books are, or if their entire page ranges should be given, as is de facto the norm, from what I can tell. Some seem to be for it, some against. Generally my impression is that it is mainly required for very long journal articles (30+ pages), and I can dig up some old FAC discussions that concluded that if we want to look at some precedents. Not that I don't see the merits of your suggestions, I'm just wondering where to "draw the line" for page range lengths. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Well WP:VERIFY says "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page ... " Personally I am what you might consider the stricter end, although I had considered myself, and been considered, pretty relaxed prior to checking this article. Basically I don't want a cite to direct me to any pages which are not necessary to support the statement they are attached to. So with Wiley & Kirwan, while all you need IMO is the section I quote I am not going to get worked up if you also cite 137–145 giving lots more detail, but I am going to come back asking for justification if you include 125–128, 230–132. I would be very open to an explanation, but if it is simply deep background, then I don't think that it meets WP:VERIFY. Hopefully this is clear and makes sense; let me know if not.

 * I am aware that off-Wiki there are other conventions, and that there have been attempts to import some of them into Wikipedia, but WP:VERIFY seems clear to me. All of that said, from the spot checking I have done it is clear that your sources do support your text, and I have no point nor principle to prove. Make verification a bit less time consuming and I'll be happy. (Just for comparison, in my recent FAC Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you generously assessed, for Lambert's 12 page paper I used six separate cites; and Wagner's encyclopedia entry, which is split over two pages, gets two separate cites. Purely for info, I will not be expecting that here.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look soon, I just wonder if you'd want this done for all journal sources, or just the very long ones. As for the (on-Wiki) discussions I was referring to, here is one: FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

 * I had not seen that particular one, but my view is that editors can chatter, or even agree, as they wish, but unless it results in a change to the MoS, or at least a positive RfC, it is just chatter. (Note that I am not saying that I disagree with it, only that I don't believe that it meets the MoS.) I don't wish to be hard on you, I realise that you have put a lot of work into the citations in good faith, so do the longer ones, ping me, and I'll have another look. (But wading through 30 pages of Wiley & Kirwan to find three sentences right at the end 'did my head in' and is in my opinion an unreasonable burden on a reader. In addition to the MoS issues.) I note in passing that Template:Cite journal shows that there is parameter for "pages", to give the page range of an article within a journal, and another for "page" described as "The number of a single page in the source that supports the content". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing but respect for your judgment, so no problem, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made changes according to the three points above, as well as shortened some other ranges, . I wanted to shorten the Wing 1989 range, but I only have access to a newer edition of the book where her chapter is at another page range, so I don't know exactly where the relevant page is in the original. And the reason why I need to cite the original edition of the book is that the later response to Wing's statement is found in the same 2001 second edition of the book, but is written as a response to the 1989 edition. So it's a bit complicated... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

That all seems fine, thanks. And thank you for the explanation.

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have done a fair bit of spot checking, and the sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber
Looking now...
 * ... meaning native, aborigine, or indigene - "indigene" is an unusual word. I'd remove as the first two give the meaning enough
 * Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 *  Though fossils of the parrot genera Amazona and Aratinga have been found in pre-human sites on Puerto Rico, none belonging to macaws have been found. - presumably second "have" should be "had" as this sentence predates the current discovery
 * By current discovery, do you mean of the St. Croix macaw? It was not found in pre-human sites (which would indicate it was native), but only in kitchen middens (which makes it unclear if it was native). Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment... I added "none such" in front of "belonging to macaws" to make it clear it is in relation to the other "pre-human" remains... FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad - I misread the statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

 *  It is likely that the St. Croix macaw became extinct due to these factors, but the date it happened is unknown - presumably there is a clear date when there are none...? So can be "date unknown but before....?"
 * You mean that we should be able to extrapolate before which date it should have gone extinct? None of the sources speculate on this, we don't even know if it happened after the arrival of Europeans... The only source which says anything about an extinction date is Hume, who just says "date of extinction unknown". FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What I meant was it could be narrowed down to (say) "unknown but before 1700" but if no sources do that then don't worry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support, none of the sources speculate on that, also, if the birds were imported from elsewhere, who knows how long they could have survived in their native area after disappearing from these islands... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, strong article and on track to pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  00:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


text:
User:Prahlad kumar

== Prahlad kumar facebook.com/prahlad0007Full name	Prahlad Kumar Born	4th of march 1989 New Delhi, India

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Prahlad kumar


text:
Wikiversity:Administrator Creation and Behavioral Criteria Guidelines and Policy

Note: this page is now listed at Archive.

This page may have been effectively superceded by Custodianship. You are welcome to put your comments or add material here or there in the main page or on the attached discussion as seems most appropriate to you.

This is very much a policy in drafting. It is tied into how we will manage our community internally and its interface to the rest of the world.

Update: It has been proposed that at Wikiversity we use the term "Custodian" to refer to users empowered to help with the site's file maintenance, cleanup and emergency mediation. See  http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Custodianship

Processing of Custodial Requests has begun at Candidates_for_Custodianship. People interested in helping out with routine site maintenance and cleanup should apply immediately while this policy evolves per community input.

Useful links for background, policy and procedures on other large Wikimedia supported Wiki community projects.

 * Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_administrator

 * Wikipedia FAQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administration_FAQ

 * Wikipedia Reading List on Administrator Responsibilitiesw:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list

 * Wiktionary - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Administrators

The wiktionary model seems small and perhaps applicable to our early days. I could find no specific guidelines or policy so perhaps they relying on Wikipedia's early model of you can have administrator priveleges until you screw up enough the community wants you out for a while until you learn the responsibilities better and skills at meeting them improve. Mirwin 08:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wiki Commons looks like a fairly excellent one page self contained writeup lacking only a couple of quantitative criteria to be entirely suitable for Wikiversity at this time.
 * Wiki Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators

Draft below is tailored from Wikipedia Admin FAQ
For the moment the words Administrator and Custodian refer to the same position of responsibility within the Wikiversity project. All other Wikimedia Foundation sponsored wiki project currently use the terms Administrator or Sysop interchangeably for what Wikiversity may refer to as Custodian.

See also: Administrators for current list of administrators.

What is a Custodian? What is an administrator? What is a sysop?
Three words for the same thing ("sysop" = "system operator" = "administrator" = "admin" = "Custodian"). An Custodian is simply a member of the Wikiversity community who can access a small number of restricted software functions: deleting, protecting (and unprotecting) articles and files, and blocking (and unblocking) user accounts or IP addresses. The software internally uses the string "sysop" to flag their accounts, perhaps one reason that term is used. They are friendly folks that are willing to help you if you post a message on their "talk page" or request assistance. See the current list of custodians.

Responsibilities of a Custodian
A Custodian keeps current with Wikiversity policy and applies it with caution and civility.

A custodian should try to answer requests for assistance promptly, though please bear in mind that they are all volunteers and may not be available to help immediately.

How can I Become a Custodian?
First, you'll need a user account. Then, start to contribute to Wikiversity - its content, and, hopefully, policies or other modus operandi. In this way, you demonstrate to the community that you are here in good faith as you absorb the local policy, culture and procedures. After a period of useful contribution, you can add your name to Requests for Custodianship. Voilà! Be sure to read the Administrators' reading list, Administrators, deletion policy, protection policy, and blocking policy, and use your new "powers" with caution and civility.

For initialization purposes at en.wikiversity.org people may use experience at other Wikimedia supported wiki communities to meet the three months of experience requirement. People wishing to be administrators in the nearterm should be participating in helping create policies and procedures here at en.wikiversity.org by at least periodically reading and voting in the straw polls.

Who Monitors the Conduct of a Custodian?
Custodians monitor each other; nearly all custodial powers are completely reversible by any other custodian including: page deletions, lockings, and IP bannings.

At the current time the only way to have custodial status of a usermeta:Help:Administration removed is to request this action of a Wikimedia Steward. All Wikiversity participants are encouraged to approach another Custodian for assistance in evaluating the case against a Custodian and preparation for presentation to a Wikimedia Foundation Steward. It is worth a little extra local effort and caution to avoid overloading the Stewards and prevent unnecessary hard feelings within the Wikiversity community via mistaken charges being lodged against our Custodians. We much prefer to mediate and resolve problems locally at Wikiversity if that is at all possible.

What if I have a Problem with a Custodian?
It is a good starting point to discuss the problem with another Custodian to see if it can be resolved locally. Probably wise to try several if the first few feel unable to assist or you are dissatified by their response. After this the only effective action is to begin working way through the sets of Bureaucrats and Stewards. One could also try joining the Wikiversity-L mailing list and asking for assistance. At each point in the chain it would be wise to consider whether the perceived problem is really large enough to justify all this effort at resolution. As a community we do value your contribution so please stick around even if some specific persistent problems are irresolvable. We have a very large and growing knowledge base so perhap you can avoid problems with specific individuals which cannot be resolved satisfactorily with reasonable effort at this time.

How can I Get Help From a Custodian?
Wikiversity participants can go request assistance from an Custodian here. Request Custodial Action Please use our Custodial resources sparingly, many controversies can be resolved with a little extra effort applied to a little extra civility

How is Persistent Inappropriate Behavior from Custodians Handled?
The members of the community approach a Steward of the Wikimedia Foundation and request that Custodial status be removed. This step is untaken cautiously and rarely so be prepared to document the problem with the misbehaving Custodian and make your case that this merits disciplinary action on the part of the Steward.


text:
Talk:German/Level III

Remake
'''This needs a total remake, it is not even funny. It is very silly and useless to have A WHOLE different sub-section, with all the lessons of level 2, and the only thing which is different is a small, little advance page for each lesson. It needs different, and harder lessons. Isn't that the whole reason for a different sub-section page? We need all the complex grammer and difficult words of German in this level, or put the easier parts of complex German grammer and vocabulary of it here, and make a Level 4 and put the more difficult parts of complex German grammer and vocabulary in there. Derbeth even said we had to do something. And it is time. We need to get a plan together. Yes or No?''' -- German Men92 0:45, 17 Feb 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I started the remake, now we need to get planning for level 3 & 4, level 5 is a big review level, and it's have a lot cultureal thing, and the history of the german language. -- German Men92 14:24, 18 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Starting discussion
Under the table of contents, I've listed both what each lesson covers and what should or could be covered. We can then modify the pages to meet these lesson goals. I think it is important to not have very complex grammar rules in a lesson before other rules supporting those are introduced - Marsh 17:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas. %^) Just what is needed: the corect terms/words for these things like Advanced Lessons! My having to use a dictionary is a handicap -- Marsh 20:02, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Marsh. The more I look at the German-book, the more I feel uncomfortable with the complexity of the grammer you introduce in the early lessons. I would definitely prefere to begin with very easy things in the first lessons (like the different konjugation forms of easy verbs.), but nothing about reflexive verbs, declinations and differnt grammatical times. I know, that is a quite fundamental thing that affects the complete structure of the course, but for me, it seems worth to think about changing its complete structure. --- Hansm 11:57, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll will work on what you suggest when Wikipedia settles down. Right now I keep getting booted out. I have been following a highschool German textbook, but my stories may be a bit more complex (the stories in the textbook are god awful) - Marsh 19:14, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

Let me give a proposal for a first lesson:

Markus ist Student. Er studiert Biologie. Er begegnet Katrin auf der Straße. Sie studiert Mathematik.
 * Markus: Hallo, Katrin! Wohin gehst du?
 * Katrin: Ich gehe einkaufen. Der Kühlschrank ist fast leer. Ich brauche Wurst und Käse. Und du? Wohin gehst du?
 * Markus: An die Uni. Ich habe viel Arbeit.
 * Katrin: Gut! Dann bis bald. Tschüß.
 * Markus: Tschüß, Katrin.

Now, what's the goal?
 * Only simple verbs, i.e. regular conjugations (at least in Präsenz).
 * Only Nominativs. Well, actualy, there are other cases, too. But incidently, they are the same as their nominativs, so you need not to explain it for now :-)
 * Heinrich and Karl are rather old fashioned names. Markus and Katrin are more usual and give a parity in genders.
 * The question "Wie geht es dir?" is unusal as a greeting in German. So, it's not such a good example for a typical German small-talk.

What could you explain?
 * Pronouns in Nominativ (ich, du, er, sie)
 * Simple Conjugations in 1st, 2nd and 3rd person singular.
 * How to build questions.

 * I disagree. "Wie geht's?" is common small-talk, but you'd usually first greet. It'd be more common than telling the other person what your fridge is lacking. Also "(Ich gehe) An die Uni. Ich habe viel Arbeit" sounds very very odd. In German (or at least in colloquial German of most regions of Germany I know of) you'd rather say "Zur Uni" and "Ich habe viel zu tun". I don't know about Austrian and Swiss German, tho -- although I'd guess most foreigners first want to learn the Germany-German variant when intending to learn German (as this is also usually the one taught in schools). -- W:Ashmodai

 * I'll work those changes in. I agree, what is always needed here are native speakers assessing the conversational material for "modern" appropriateness. I do not have that ability. I was last in Germany around 1953 and then as a child not speaking German! - marsh 19:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for a 2nd lesson:

Markus ist in der Universität. Er trinkt dort einen Kaffee und isst ein Brötchen. Danach geht er in die Bibliothek. Er sucht ein Buch über Biochemie. Er holt das Buch aus dem Regal und setzt sich an einen Tisch. Nach einer Stunde geht er in den Hof und raucht eine Zigarette. Danach geht er an den Tisch zurück. Er denkt: "Wenigstens eine Stunde..." und stellt das Buch wieder in das Regal. Heute ist nicht sein Tag.

What could you explain?
 * Genders
 * Articles: der, die das, ein, eine, ein.
 * Nominativ, Dativ and Akkusativ. (We could live without Genitiv for a while)
 * Daklinations with articles.
 * Keep everthing in singular.

-- Hansm 12:56, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hansm. These are good ideas, and I am certainly not qualified to "rule over" this textbook. I am concerned myself that the early lessons may be a bit too difficult, one reason that I created two levels out of each lesson (a simple and a more advanced presentation of the same concepts). We can work your suggestions into the front of the existing material, pushing the existing stuff further back in the book. While not an easy editing task, I'm willing to do it to make the text more consistent with modern German and, as you say, simplify the earliest lessons. Any corrections/additions you proivide are greatly appreciated — and input from others would likewise improve the book. That is the idea of doing a book here, so do not worry about stepping on toes. Just be conservative in removing material already worked on and try and preserve the overall style (which can also be improved on). Others have done some of these lessons (not all by me), and I usually try and keep the material by moving it around to someplace where it best fits in - Marsh 18:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Organizing the Approach
Hm, now we all have been working on our 'German patchwork', but still I'm not so happy with the result. Maybe the biggest problem I see is the grammatical concept. Summarizing the grammatical themes, I found the following list:

 * Realize the result right now is a patchwork because all I have done is adjusted Lesson 1 and 1A to fit the material you suggested be used as "less difficult" to read; I've yet to get to any of the other lessons (just a start on Lesson 2) that are impacted by the changes. Having said that, I do agree with the approach you are starting to outline below. - Marsh 02:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I've added explanation to each point to give you a sense of what organisation exists (and does not exist in many cases) - Marsh

 * personal pronouns, all in nominativ, some in dativ (Lesson 1) All are pronouns; that is all that is accomplished here: Introduction to pronouns
 * personal pronouns, but nominativ only (Lesson 1A) This is an advanced lesson, not intended for begining students to access, but should amplify one or more of the lessons in the basic Lesson 1 for 2nd year or college level students without introducing something the Basic lessons will need; rather limited on what this can be in Lesson 1A (Hey, you did this lesson :^?)
 * personal pronouns for familar and polite form, nominativ and dativ (Lesson 2) Familiar and polite pronoun concept introduced in Grammatik 2-1
 * word order in questions (Lesson 2) There are many things to cover about word order in German sentences, so this is just the first one
 * again, personal pronouns for familar and polite form, nominativ and dativ. This is the first time that the meaning of cases is explained! (Lesson 2) Not so, case is mentioned in Grammatik 1-2; this is first application of the concept (it is afterall only Lesson 2) - it could be argued this is too soon in the sequence
 * Composed nouns (Lesson 2A)- ''Please ignore for now. All advanced lessons will change somewhat, based on the premise that they should amplify points made in the basic lesson - Lesson N = Beginning student; Lesson N + NA = advanced student (same lesson, more detail)
 * Numbers, cardinal and ordinal ( Lesson 3) Some lessons will have to cover these broader aspects: time, numbers, colors, etc.; best to start early with numbers
 * telling/asking time (Lesson 3) Makes pefect sense from fact that fact that German numbers introduced are 1-12. Numbers greater than 12 will be part of a future lesson (2nd "round")
 * nouns, gender, definite articels (Lesson 3) May need to go to Lesson 4, but this is the introduction to nouns; seems like articles (definite at least) are good to include at this point. Again, there can be an appendix page that gives the rules and has tables for nouns, articles, endings, etc. This constitutes information of reference value; lesson should stick to just one aspect about nouns, nothers aspects coming up one at a time in later lessons - this approach allows the examples to grow in complexity in a way meaningful to what the student should know by a particular lesson. This is where I especially need a native speaker to develop (or tweak) the stories and conversations to keep them consistent (or close to) the expected level of grammar knowledge at the point where they appear. Note that the Vokabeln is geared to this approach as well.
 * (possesive) pronouns in accusative and dativ (Lesson 3) Each case of the personal pronouns is taken in order in successive lessons
 * again, personal pronouns, but nominativ (Lesson 3a) out of sequence for reason elaborated above; ignore for now
 * possesive pronouns in dativ (labeled as genitiv) (Lesson 4) These are possessive adjectives, not datives
 * indefinite articles (Lesson 4) Expands on the definte articles lesson in 3
 * gender of ordinals, nominativ only (Lesson 4A) out of sequence
 * details of telling time ( Lasson 4A) out of sequence
 * personal Pronouns: accusative case (Lesson 4A) out of sequence
 * Conjugating 'to be' (Lesson 5) I've not worked on this lesson - contributed by others
 * personal Pronouns: dative case (Lesson 5A) ignore for now

Is there any kind of intension behind that? For me, it looks somewhat like a random result.

 * I do not agree it either is or looks random. Although after about Lesson 2, it is now all mixed up. One cannot take any area (say verbs) and treat it to completeness in a single or short sequence of lessons. Since language is the melding of all the parts of speech and grammar, the best approach (IMHO) is to start with as many of the basic concepts as can fit in but initially cover each rather superficially, then step these up in complexity in a programmed way ("rounds").  Thus, the lessons now present cover lots of different areas, but only in a basic way. The next set of lessons (yet to be even dreamed of by me) would go back to all of the concepts in the first 5 or 7 lessons and bulid in complexity on each. It may take many cycles of this to progress from beginning German to any kind of mastery.  That is how language courses work.  One can now find in several places on the web German language grammatical rules - sites that present everything there is to known about pronouns on one page, all there is to know about verbs on the next, etc.  These are great sources of information, but no one has or could learn to speak a foreign language from them. They are not language courses, but language information sites. In a sense, I did envision having appendices to the language book that somewhat used this approach - Marsh 02:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Proposal
I'd propose the following strategy:
 * 1) Elaborate a grammatical giudeline. Fix, what grammatical themes should be treated in which lesson.
 * 2) Write the example texts.
 * 3) Give short additional explanations and vocabulary.

Point 1. is probably better done by those who have learned German as a foreigne langugage since natives often do not realy know what porblems may occure when learning German grammar and what are the actual grammatical rules.

Point 2. is maybe better done by German natives. -- Hansm 14:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I think this is a good idea. In fact I proposed something very similar awhile back on one of the Germam:Talk pages. But you are the first native speaker that has expressed any interest in the organization of the book. I especially agree with your assessment of who should best work on the first two points (although I'd like to stay involved in all aspects as I suspect would anyone else that joins in) — but clearly a native speaker can do the best job on the example texts. - Marsh 02:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * Please exapand on your third point. I'm unclear what you are proposing there? As for the grammatical guideline, I can make that clearer, even to the point of getting out ahead of where the lessons presently are; but that will take time. Just keeping organized/edited what we do have is already a big consumer of my online time.  Realize again, that because of the changes WE made to Lesson 1, it will take a few days for me to work through the consequences to the lessons to the end of Lesson 6.  In fact, the lessons past about 4 are not near any shape to use. Please read the Vorwort if you have not already. It explains the overall organization of the book. Otherwise, the organization that is already present is this: Each part of speach (pronoun, noun, verb, etc.) is introduced at some point early in the first lessons.  Each is then elaborated on over the next several lessons to a review point. Only fairly basic information and examples are given on each.  Then another sety of lessons is developed with a bit more complexity introduced.  From the saample Lesson 0.1 you prepared, this seemed to be exactly where you were going - Marsh 02:32, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I never did say that we have to treat one theme after the other to completeness in a sequence of lessons. It's just the point that we have to find a reasonable and tranparent sequence of grammatical themes we want to explain. E.g., for me, it looks odd using (partly very complicated) different verb forms in 4 lessons without saying anything about verbs. But you may see other preferences. That's why I have suggested to elaborate a guideline first. Anyway, I agree totaly with your idea about more and more detailed rounds.

 * To point 3 in my proposal: Maybe I have formulated it a bit confusing. Sorry. What I wanted to say is this: After we know, what the main grammatical points for a lesson should be (Point 1) and the example texts are written (point 2), we need to integrate the key examples from the texts into the grammatical explanation. Furthermore, it might have turned out that the examples must use some additional grammatical stuff that should at least be mentioned in the grammer part. The latter 2 steps are point 3. Maybe, I better had sayd point 3 and 4.

 * -- Hansm 14:22, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I see what you are saying. And of course that is also where you can be a big help. After 1 and 2 are "completed" you could go back (especially to a conversation or story) and add or modify some lines to better illustrate the lesson points.  We (or others) could extract examples from these to illustrate certain lessons (i.e., Point 3). As to your point on having so many verb forms in the conversations before verbs are introduced I can give two explanations: 1) some grammar rules will lag behind use of the rule in conversation or stories just because all the rules cannot be given up front; 2) however, you and others have been simplifying the conversations to minimize this problem (much appreciated input), so I'm not too concerned that it is a problem that will eventually not be serious - Marsh 07:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * One more short explanation: I think, point 2 should be oriented as close as possible at point 1, i.e. the story or conversation should be written with some new grammer rules in mind. Idealy, it will give many grammatical examples in a quite naturaly looking way.

 * I simply have begun to organize a possible guideline. The basical idea is to first collect themes (subsection 1) and then diviede it into lessons (subsection 2). I would highly appreciate if you would add your ideas and themes. -- Hansm 19:41, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

-

Themes that should be treated
This is just a brain storming collection of themes. The enumeration is intended as reference, not as sequential number. So please, append new items at the end and give them a new number in sequence.

 * 1. Personal pronouns in nominative.
 * 2. Personal pronouns in dative.
 * 3. Personal pronouns in accusative.
 * 4. Meaning of and ideas behind declensions
 * 5. Rules for declining nouns with definite article
 * 6. Rules for declining nouns with indefinite article
 * 7. Meaning of verb conjugations
 * 8. Regular conjugation in present tense (Präsens indikativ).
 * 9. Some important irregular verbs in present tense (Präsens indikativ).
 * 10. Building the perfect.
 * 11. Building the particip perfect for regular verbs.
 * 12. Adjectives
 * 13. Adjectives must fit in number, case and gender to the noun
 * 14. Word order in German sentences: questions;
 * 15. Numbers (1-12), telling time
 * 16. Numbers, (13-100), math
 * 17. Possessives (pronouns and adjectives)
 * 18. Prepositions
 * 19. Modal auxiliaries
 * 20. Irregular verbs
 * 21. Konjunktiv I und II, and uses of werden
 * 22. Capitalization of nouns

What theme in which lesson

 * Lesson 1: 14 (introduces "grammar" and "pronouns")
 * Lesson 2: 1 (introduces "verbs")
 * Lesson 3: 15, 5, 2, 3 (introduces "nouns")
 * Lesson 4: 4, 6, 7
 * Lesson 5: 8, 9 (partly?)
 * Lesson 6: 17 (introduces "adjectives")
 * Lesson 7:
 * Lesson 8:
 * Lesson 9:
 * Lesson 10:

 * I think this is a good way to approach organization; we can "move" the themes around here to set up a good sequencing. However, I would suggest that Lesson 1 is now done as it stands; that Lesson 2 could have intro to verbs (and possibly therefore #8), but is also about done.  I have set things up to have an introduction to each of the parts of speech (English speakers are not always that familiar with this). This does not mean there cannot be a "first" lesson on that subject in the same lesson, but generally it would be best to have that in the very next lesson. Remember, that for each lesson there is also a goodly Vokabeln to be learned in addition to a grammar lesson.  We must also consider that the stories and conversations should be short so sound files can eventually be prepared for each; but that having short ones, means needing to have more. One way to have "more" is to spread the lessons out. Since this is a textbook, there is no reason to cram too much onto each "page"). I'll give this more thought - Marsh 03:08, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * I've now completed Lesson 1A, Lesson 2, and Lesson 2A. We can now develop additioonal themes using verbs and pronouns. If nouns are introduced in 3 as I suggesdt, then Lesson 3 is near completion and lessons on verb forms can be developed. I'll move the concepts/themes to the contents page for reference - Marsh 04:37, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--

Vocabulary
Moved to Talk:German: Introduction.

Why does German:Contents redirect here? I think, to be fair, it should redirect back to the cover page. - SamE 15:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Same Lessons for Level II and III?
I'm wondering why level II and III point to the same lessons. Is level III a repetition of II? -- messi 23:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thought I answered this already somewhere? Anyway, the answer is that yes Level III is the same as Level II but then Level III includes the advanced lesson page following each basic lesson page. This is explained in the introduction page. Appreciate your corrections. :^) - marsh 18:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some fun ideas for advanced sections

 * German slang
 * Bavarian dialect

title: Talk:German/Level III


text:
Οἴνωτρος

Etymology
The Italic tribe of the has been linked to both Oenotrus and the word, supposedly referring to the fertile vineyards of southern Italy, but it is unclear if the connection stems from folk etymology. Also compare.

Proper noun

 * 1) Oenotrus

title: Οἴνωτρος


text:
Talk:Dave Michaels (musician)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dave Michaels (musician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706232610/http://www.oaklandlyricopera.org:80/BIO_DAVID_MIOTKE.htm to http://www.oaklandlyricopera.org/BIO_DAVID_MIOTKE.htm

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dave Michaels (musician)