User talk:Sam/Archive 8
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sam. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Category types (II)
Sorry I haven't had time to work on starting to implement Wikipedia:Category types yet. It's still on my radar, and I still want to work on it. My slight misgivings are still there, though I recently found Category:Category header templates. Were you aware of this. I realise your category headers would apply to categories only containing articles, but it is a similar principle. Carcharoth 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. Sorry to hear you've not been well. Hope you are feeling better now, or will be feeling better soon! I've also made a suggestion over at Wikipedia talk:Category types to actually use a page-specific link to Special:CategoryTree at the top of certain categories that are suitable for taxonomic downwards browsing. Maybe you could comment there if you have time? Carcharoth 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
categories/tags
Hi SamuelWantman -- I applaud your efforts at Wikipedia:Category types although I'm still thinking them through. However, I have a more modest proposal which might solve some of the problems. What if we just wrote up a Help document for categorization that explained the difference between categories and tags?
I suspect a lot of the problems come from people who are used to "tags" and keyword systems, and are trying to use WP:Categories as keywords/tags. These are the people who are the most argumentative about the system, and I suspect it's because they just don't quite get it. Based purely on anecdotal experiences, the folks who are simply confused about different kinds of taxonomies are not so argumentative and are just trying to get things in the right subject hierarchy. So, if we could write up something that would clearly distinguish between tags & keywords, we would solve the the majority of problems leading to arguments, and perhaps the majority of problems, period.
Then we would have more leisure to consider your proposal simply on the merits of making things more clear & helpful, without having to also use it to solve the annoying problem of people trying to coopt categories into tags.
Thoughts?
(PS I proposed this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#"tags" & tagging versus categorization --lquilter 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Was there a reason for replacing the old picture with one that was nearly identical? Just curious. Tijuana Brass 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah. Just wondering. Tijuana Brass 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Small favourI've just noticed that a number of members of the LGBT WikiProject seem to have needed to revert vandalism to Template:LGBT sidebar by IP editors and new accounts. Often it takes about 10 mins for the vandalism to be spotted and reverted and its a fairly high profile template. It doesn't happen all that often but there seems no reason for such contributors to edit the page. I asked for semi-protection at WP:RFP but the response was that there wasn't enough activity to justify protection. This would be a good reason to refuse to protect an article but I'm not sure its a good reason not to protect a template such as this one. Would you have a look and, if you agree with me, semi-protect it? Thanks, WjBscribe 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Category types are great. What can I do......to help, show my support? Froggy 000 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. A couple quick questions if you don't mind:
Froggy 000 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks again for the quick response. I'm actually doing a variety of computerized processing on the en-wiki database dumps and the fact that categories are used so loosely makes it very difficult to leverage this information. I am now starting to toy with the idea of writing a module to suggest a category type for any category in the system. This will require use of various different heuristics, for example, "Navigation categories contain no (or few) articles and often have ' by ' in the name" or "Subject categories contain relatively more articles and don't have long chains of subcategories. I would certainly provide these category type assignments to you or anyone else who might be interested and depending on how well the mapping works, it might end up saving you a lot of time and effort. Along those lines, I was hoping that given your experience with this topic you might have some good suggestions for other heuristics to use in order to distinguish between the different category types. Froggy 000 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. I've prettified the above template a little, making it a little more in keeping with other WP message boxes. I've also set it to add all tagged categories to Category:Categories to be listified then deletedâalthough that can, of course, be changed. Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Saw this birthed red link to bluere: Category:Categories to be listified then deleted... thought you may want to clear the cat's appearing on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. Cheers! Never saw the harm in another way to track things though! I'd do both--Long live WP:Btw! Cheers! // FrankB 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Actor by series CFDsYou might be aware of this already, but CFD Feb 16 and CFD Feb 15 have a good number of Actor by series CFDs currently running. You might care to speedy close them? Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion, pleaseMr. Wantman, I hope you might be willing to provide some guidance. I've re-read WP:SUBCAT and I remain uncertain about doubling-up on categorisations. If someone is listed under Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States, should they also be listed in Category:Canadian Americans? I am not sure whether the Secondary categorization rule applies. I'm trying to come up with a consistent rationale for a bunch of bios. Compare Eric McCormack and Michael J. Fox. Both are Canadian actors who have had successful careers in the U.S. and have become U.S. citizens along the way. This qualifies them both to be categorised in the subcategory Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States. But McCormack is also listed in the main category, Category:Canadian Americans, and Fox is not. Either they both should be, or neither should be. This question turns, in a way, on how the category "Canadian Americans" is defined. I confess that I have a problem with the category. Is it a catch-all that encompasses immigrants and expats and people of Canadian descent? Or should each of these be broken out into subcats? I've been told that "Canadian American" is the label for Canadian who have become U.S. citizens, but I think the sub-cat "Canadian immigrants to the U.S." is clearer and more obvious. Also, what about the sub-cats "Canadian expats in the U.S. (for those who have not become U.S. citizens) and "Americans of Canadian descent" (born in U.S. to Canadian parents)? I lean towards sub-categorising here. I would appreciate your feedback. You have obviously given the subject of categorising and overcategorising a lot of thought. Please note that there is a current Cfd related to this question that calls for merging Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States into Category:Canadian emigrants, thereby essentially deleting the category. Thank you!--Vbd | (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
disney voice actorsok, thanks! didn't realize that.Bouncehoper 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Question tangentially related to your proposalHi! I hope you don't mind the intrusion. A recent commment on your categorization proposal suggested that the example of "People killed by poisoning" could be used as a test case for speedy deletion. Perhaps you can help clear up my confusion about what qualifies as a category for SD. The SD policy says it has to contain "no articles," which I have been taking literally. So can the poisoning category, which contains one article, still be listed for SD? I recently put up a bunch of under-populated categories on CFD because thorough lists already exist. Some of these categories contain only one or two articles, some contain a few more more. Could I have done this, at least in part, on the CSD page instead? Thanks.--Vbd (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Just want you to know someone agreesre: this -- agree with you up and down on that pov. Perhaps it comes from mature judgment? <g> Look at what just happened in Navigational templates... a perfectly good browsing category collecting things is now scattered, albeit in useful ways in some respects. But what the hell is wrong with collection or collation categories here and there? Unions as you put it in math-speak. It's merely another sort of schema, one a computer is certainly able to handle. On a brighter note, I've been working the category problems from a different (and interwiki) perspective. So you may want to take a peek at the category links listed in Template:Catlst(edit talk links history) (all some trials I've been running--haven't really settled on a standard yet, as is both a community issue, and a back-burner project I've only been able to dabble with since Christmas in spurts), which in the latest 'ease of use' evolution: ({{wpd-catlist-up}} and {{cms-catlist-up}} will at least solve the problem of bottom links on category pages with large populations. Cheers! // FrankB 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Poor ExcusesSorry about that. My obnoxious boyfriend logged on to my account and made the change. Though I admit I helped out with the edit, he came up with the edit summary. :-D No harm intended. âThe preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandymorgan (talk ⢠contribs) 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Suggestion for Template:LGBTJust wanted to point out it might be best to center the "view, edit, talk" links at the bottom of the navication template. Right now it's alligned to the right. â El Cid â´âµ 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC) You recently closed a Cfr that I had proposed. The first category was renamed by a bot and appears to be fine. The other two are messed up. Please see my query at the help desk and, if you can, provide some answers. Thank you.--Vbd (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Superpower catsSince you were earlier involved in the meta-discussion on superhero categories, please comment on the issue now that it's ended up on CFD again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power. >Radiant< 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked user is backAs indicated at user talk:69.252.158.32 and at User_talk:SamuelWantman/archive_7#69.252.158.32, you've been involved in blocking user 69.252.158.32. I'd like to make you aware that (s)he's back; see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blocked_user.--Niels à (noe) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Matthew Shepard head shot.jpgThank you for uploading Image:Matthew Shepard head shot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Comment: to the public doesn't mean public domain. But I think, the {{Non-free fair use in|Matthew Shepard}} can be possible. Alex Spade 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The exampleIt was in reference to WP:ATT/P. I had some problems with the wording myself. Basically, at that link, there are four or five different questions (should two pages be merged, and what about the third, and should the result need work, and do the originals, individually, need to be locked, redirected, or not). Please take a look at the poll and the history, you'll probably see what I mean. >Radiant< 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Out of orderIf you must know it was an edconf :) Software does that automatically. >Radiant< 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
RobertNo, I was not aware. This is very unfortunate. I would like to have your comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Personal_attack_parole_for_CalJW. >Radiant< 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
LGBT WikiProject newsletter
SatyrBot 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I replied to you -- Cat chi? 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
welcoming newbiesHi. Just wanted to let you know that you may want to welcome anons with {{anonwelcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. The first one recommends them to get a username.--ROASTYTOAST 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Request for instructionsHi Sam, could you please drop me a hint about the usage and functionaltity of the allincluded tag. I checked its "what links here" but couldn't find any documentation. Hoverfish Talk 06:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Not exactly, maybe I formulated it wrong. I am aware of the catscan tool and its lag problems. I was refering to forcing the parent category be attributed to articles of a cetain subcategory by including something like (my fictional jargon here) {{apply-to-all-articles|Category:Canadian films}}. Just a thought, without enough tech knowledge of whether it is possible. Hoverfish Talk 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I realize I am part of this resisence. Sorry. If the software is developed to do this intersection task, I guess everything would have to be recategorized. Under the new technology logic I would change my mind and support it. Until then I have my doubts about the usability of such a general group in films. For the moment I applied the tag in Canadian films and started adding the "primary film categories" in all films that miss it. By the way, Bearcat was not so thorough in his categorizing scheme and it will be a problem if more editors keep doing this in an uncoordinated manner. For example, Canadian film comedies was attributed (and Canadian films removed), but American films remains (in co-productions we have decided to give each country cat) and Drama films remains. So in some cases the intersection takes over and in some the parent remains. Please take a look at what I am doing ([1]) and stop me or correct me if you think it's wrong or it could be done more efficiently otherwise. As for 7-8 categories, this is quite the norm in films. I start worrying when I see 10-20 cats. Hoverfish Talk 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I first joined WP Films by tending to the Years in film series. Nehrams2020 was at this time deeply involved in setting up the List of films#By letter & number, which has been our attempt to create such a total film index. I don't know how complete the lists are, but I would say fairly inclusive. This set of lists has also the pro that it offers the year of release, which helps one know if he has the correct film. It also disambiguates where necessary. The con is that it has to be updated manually. Anyway, I am glad we have talked about these matters and I hope we will be in closer cooperation as things progress. I will follow your example and wait for the software update. It's just that the recent changes come pretty deep into my field of work and I have to find a quick solution for it. My mistake with Bearcat is that I was too hasty to announce that I may CfD his intersections and I guess (understandably) this created some frustration. Hoverfish Talk 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for listify info + article exampleThanks, Sam, for the valuable info on my Talk page where you mention that there are many list-type articles out there which do indeed cite the opinions of others (and gave a great example of one such article). This is great supplementary info to go with Radiant's input regarding how Kitsch-related articles/topics could be listified somehow. Thanks again :) âCatdude 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC) You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Please be advised that the new Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond is now using the category that you had earlier said you would speedily delete once it was made into a list as one of the categories of the project. I believe that the members of the project would be very grateful if you were to remove the template you had placed at the top of the category. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories stuffHi there. I'm about to drop a note off at the Categories pages, but I thought you should be aware of this, this and this - not really sure what is going on, as the language is over my head, but just thought you would be interested. Carcharoth 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC) LGBT WikiProject newsletter
This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Semi-protectionHi, Sam, and thanks for your help! Bob Kane has been in need of semi-protection for months. Several editors are continually reverting an overzealous anon-IP who adds ranting fan-edits and doesn't seem inclined to talk about them with other eds. Spider-Man also, since like Batman it's a general vandalism target due to being one of the only superheroes some vandals know. --Tenebrae 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Roman PolanskiThat was a nice little edit to Roman Polanski. Perhaps you cut a Gordian Knot. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Jewish MathematiciansFirst, let me start by saying I have no problems with your bottom line conclusion, and am not challenging the decision. My main interest in this category is actually its implications for categorization by nation rather than the categories relating to Judaism alone, whether by occupation or otherwise. You indicated that it is "POV" to view Judaism as a nation - I'm not sure we should be screening categories like this based on POV where there is substantial authority for treatment (in other words, where there is a legitimate and supported point of view, editing out categories is simply a choice of a rival POV). I wonder how this particular logic doesn't lead to a broad breakdown of national categories. There are issues that are easily spotted: Canadian v. Quebecois v. both (officially, the Quebecois are recognized as a nation); One China v. two, with or without Tibet - but then if you look closely at any nation, there are questions: I can pick apart people considered French today without a second thought and highlight how historical sources categorized them in eight different ways (e.g., Burgudian, Breton, etc.). We categorize Dante as Italian without thinking through the extent to which that was even a relevant concept at the time and what the alternative concepts would be. Shouldn't George Washington, who spent most of his life as a British subject, be thought of as English as well as American, and shouldn't most colonial Americans only be classed as English? To not permit multiple and complex national categorizations is to choose a point of view. I think people think categorization by nation is less difficult than it is, and given numerous academic sources treating Jews as a nation, and numerous official acts proclaiming it so, I'm curious what implications you think there are for the rest of the national categorizations. After all, if we apply a POV screen to this categorization scheme rather than a screen based on reasonable authority, I think we'd have difficulty with many, many national categories. Reply or not as you see fit on this one - I'm thinking about the issue more broadly and may be sparking a general discussion soon.A Musing 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You say "I am coming to believe that most of the categories that lead to these long debates should be deleted just because they are so divisive." If it's divisive, doesn't this mean that if there is no consensus to delete a category? Isn't it a major change in Wikipedia policy to delete categories when there is no consensus to delete?--Runcorn 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
"Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." There is not the slightest controversy about who should be in the category - someone who can be shown by reliable sources to be jewish (and a mathematician). The controversy was solely about whether the category should exist.--Runcorn 11:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"It is the desire to consider Jews as a nationality that is not self-evident." Tell that to all the Jews in Russia and the Ukraine who have "Nationality: Jewish" on their identity papers.--Runcorn 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
My point is that undeniably there are living Jews who have "Jew" as their nationality, so it cannot be denied that "Jewish" is a nationality. Whether it is your nationality or mine is irrelevant in this context unless we have Wikipedia articles and editors want to add the "Jewish mathematician" category to our articles. Incidentally, many Scots consider themselves to have Scottish nationality not British nationality; that is irrelevant, because there is no concept of Scottish nationality in British law.--Runcorn 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no rule that people should only be in one nationality category. In Russian law, Grigori Perelman's nationality is Jewish. His internal passport would describe his nationality as Jewish. Presumably he also has an international passport, which would be issued by the Russian government. That makes his nationality Russian and Jewish.--Runcorn 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So let's get this clear. Would you be happy with a category for Jewish mathematicians provided it only included people who live or had lived in countries that recognised "Jewish" as a nationality?--Runcorn 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Quoted one of your Seven Suggestions at WP ComposersHi, Sam. I took the liberty of quoting one of your Seven Suggestions, Improve articles by building upon what is there, in a discussion on the Composers project talk page regarding biographical infoboxes. Hopefully you don't mind, and won't think that I was misrepresenting you in any way by using it; I have no idea of your opinion, if any, on biographical infoboxes, but I thought the principle, in general, was applicable to what I was trying to express, and I believe my usage did not in any way imply an endorsement by you of my comments in that particular discussion. But I did think it was courtesy to let you know that I quoted you. Hope things are going well for you in general, Cheers, Lini 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC) Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge small.jpg)Thanks for uploading Image:Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge small.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Your statement on WP:AN is extremely wise. Substance matters over number. |