User talk:Sam/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10


Congratulations!

Congratulations! It's my pleasure to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Congratulations! -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Huzzah! Congrats. Jonathunder 16:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

renaming categories

Hi - To rename a category in 5 easy steps:

  1. edit the existing category and copy the contents (minus the cfd template)
  2. paste the contents into the new category (sometimes supercats need a sort key depending on the rename)
  3. move the talk page if there is one (and delete the resultant redirect)
  4. replace the existing category with a categoryredirect using template:categoryredirect and wait for user:NekoDaemon to move all the subcats and articles (or just recat by hand for a sparsely populated category)
  5. when empty, delete the original category referencing the CFD discussion page in the delete summary (or leave a categoryredirect per your discretion)

Not hard, just a little time consuming. This should be recorded some official place, but if it is I don't know where off hand. Deleting a category is harder since (without user:Pearle's or user:Whobot's assistance) the references have to be deleted by hand. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You: "Deleting a category is harder since (without user:Pearle's or user:Whobot's assistance) the references have to be deleted by hand."
Me: I understand the rename part, but not the delete. So how do I get user:Pearle's or user:Whobot's assistance? Or is this the reason why some of you admins have tens of thousands of edits? It looks like I have to get User:Beland involved in this, but I am bot ignorant and not quite getting it.-- Samuel Wantman 20:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Um, yup, by hand (or with AWB if you can stomach using Windows - they can make me do it at work, but I use a Mac at home). This is why user:Who has tens of thousands of edits, but I'm not sure if anyone else has really tried to maintain WP:CFD by hand (a fair number of my edits are categorization related, but from Category:Orphaned categories rather than CFD). Who used to literally do nearly all the CFD-related uncats and recats by hand, one . . . article . . . at . . . a . . . time. Beland runs Pearle on request. Who now runs Whobot on request. I think there may be some other bots around that can uncategorize. If you're a perl kind of guy and you're interested, you can probably get a copy of Pearle from Beland and set up a bot account to run it from (see Wikipedia:Bots). NekoDaemon is run by user:AllyUnion and is written in Python if that might be more to your liking. Although I don't run any true bots and don't have a bot account, I do some minor scripted things using ksh and awk involving fetches but not writes (sort of "half-bot") - specifically admin activity updates at WP:LA and the list at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one did you add?

Samuel. Which one did you add too the Archie-isms list? Any others you think off share them. Archie Bunker could abuse the English language about a horribly as anyone I've ever been aware of. Best, --Bumpusmills1 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

re: WP's getting scattered

Hi - I replied on my talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Hi Samuel,

I am an admin with a couple of featured articles [Autism/Microsoft] with the technically "lower-functioning" version of the condition, so I feel at least partially qualified to comment. I'm hardly error-free myself though, so try to keep that in mind :).

Your inquiry is a difficult one. To start I will say that I agree with you that the people in question need to follow policy just like everyone else, wikipedia is probably not the place for special treatment. I can also sympathize your feelings on the matter, as many times editors such as those can be difficult to deal with, and I have had my fair share as well. The condition itself does lead one prone to not observing some policies as you mention, especially WP:AGF. However, I think it can be bad to overcategorize "aspies" too much, as drawbacks can be overcome with experience. Of course, wikipedia is probably not the place that is going to happen, which is probably the complication in the situation.

Also, I and probably others do not consider themselves "part of the aspie community" - it can seem sort of factionalized like political parties sometimes. In terms of solutions, I think personally if we could somehow communicate to people not to take what people say so seriously on wikipedia (as one of my fellow admin's put it - "It's the Internet, for pete's sake!") it could help a bit. Another thing is to try to get people to contribute to the encyclopedia and not come to it to push a POV (and, failing that, at least avoiding the articles in question with the POV problems), as that has been a real problem on a lot of articles. Telling people to WP:AGF is good and I think that somehow if we could get the point across that the object of wikipedia is to write good articles with decent coverage of every POV with a NPOV stance and that everyone is basically trying to achieve the same goal it could help. Mentorship may be helpful in some cases too, as you mention.

Hope that helps :).

WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I was going to make another section on this, but I hope that you don't mind if I add to the above.

I think that there are some things here. Firstly, people with autism (of which Asperger's Syndrome is a type) tend to have different behavioural traits to "neurotypicals" and one of which is to behave in the way that Mistress Selina Kyle has been. In other words, being very direct, quite abrupt, not really understanding how to communicate happily, being very obsessive, very precise and so forth. Hence having great technical knowledge in a short period of time. If she really does have Asperger's Syndrome, then there is no reason to believe that she is not a new user. People with Asperger's Syndrome are often regarded as geniuses (rightly or wrongly) because of their exceptional learning abilities in their chosen paths. So if she has AS then she almost certainly is new. Of course, if she doesn't have AS then she probably isn't. It really annoys me when people don't take the time to understand this kind of thing.

The issue then is whether we should go to lengths to accommodate people who are different to the norm, such as Asperger's Syndrome "sufferers". Should we? Well, probably not really. If she is making personal attacks, she should be treated appropriately for it and banned or whatever is the appropriate penalty. However, what we should do is to see whether it really is a personal attack, as in is she aiming to attack someone personally? To date, I have not seen a single edit from her which is an actual personal attack - every single one is attacking the editing style. For an example of an actual personal attack, see the comment below yours from Ambi! I don't think I've ever seen a more obvious example of one. There's a few from Kelly Martin at various points as well. And people saying such things as "I don't care if you're an Aspie, it doesn't give you the right to do this..." or "Leave your Asperger's Syndrome stuff at the door" could be considered to be personal attacks.

Really, in my opinion, we shouldn't even mention that she has Asperger's Syndrome as an element of passing judgement. The only reason that that should be relevant is in trying to understand her, to help with the Assume Good Faith elements, or in determining expertise. So whilst it is relevant in offering an explanation for her masses of edits and expertise, it is not a reason to block, or to stop from blocking.

The whole discrimination thing is a complicated one, and if we didn't mention Asperger's Syndrome then there's no problem and we can't be guilty of discrimination. But as soon as we mention it as a reason for a decision, then we are treading on dangerous waters.

There are people out there who hate Autistics with a vengeance, and who will discriminate against them significantly. There are people who hate everyone with a mental disorder. There are people who want to get rid of "all crazies". You just have to be careful.

I have seen so far 4 3RRs where MSK was correctly blocked and 1 joke vandalism. So I think that she should have had 5 24 hour blocks. There were a lot of inappropriate blocks against her though. But the main issue is that she has been criticising SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin.

Someone without Asperger's Syndrome likely wouldn't have done that, as they would have realised that doing so was going to get them banned.

Of course, you can say that she's not an Aspie, that this is all an elaborate ruse, and that she is someone who had previous issues with SV and KM (and/or other admins) and is here to try to get rid of them.

I am not familiar with who User:Chaosfeary is so can't comment if the behaviour is similar. However, note that Chaosfeary is not a banned user. They were just someone who had a few short-term bans, all of which have since expired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Based on close personal experience with Aspies and the available literature I strongly support virtually everything said above by WhiteNight and Zordrac. Here's something I posted, off the top of my head, to WP:ANI before arriving here:

  • The rules apply to everyone. Disruptive behavior is not to be tolerated. I should add that it is quite uncommon among Aspies, and ascribing it to their having Asperger Syndrome is unwarranted in virtually all cases. And even if one does ascribe it to AS, the remedy remains the same. Explain, point out rules, be civil, assume good faith - be a good wikipedian and it doesn't matter whom you are trying to correct. Stay cool. Blocking and problem resolution as usual.
  • Asperger Syndrome is much more pronounced in children. Like other children, Aspies learn to adapt to the differences between them and the rest of the world (since the rest of the world won't adapt to the differences). It takes them longer and is more difficult, but in the end many do not really stand out from the crowd in day-to-day communications. It means that, probably even more than regular teenagers and adolescents, Aspies can be expected to improve their behavior given time, and getting a new chance after six months or so should always be negotiable. And since we're building an encyclopedia, it would be a pity if Wikipedia unnecessarily lost the contributions from - often quite intelligent - people with a knack for gathering facts and a far more than encyclopedic knowledge of specialist subjects.
  • As to being "wheelchair friendly" - Wikipedia is all that and more. Most Aspies do not have a problem with rules per se; in fact it is almost a defining symptom that they fare better in a well structured environment with clear rules. The absense of eye contact and body language when co-operating via the Internet solves any remaining sources of miscommunication so in fact Wikipedia and Aspies are a well-suited combination. AvB ÷ talk 09:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is actually a really interesting issue. I'm going to try and refer a friend of mine (also classified with autism, and a leader of Aspies for Freedom to consider this topic. Anything to get peers and superiors hooked on Wiki! Tyciol 10:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

List of largest suspension bridges

I don't see the Oresund Bridge on this page. Is it excluded deliberately? GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Given the sheer length of that page, is there anything in particular you wanted my opinion on? Radiant_>|< 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

maintained articles

I think your comment at maintained is a good one. The problem is, there are many Wikipedians who specialize in fighting vandals. Often, these vandal fighters resent it when anyone points out that they do not understand the articles that they try to protect. Increasingly, there is subtle vandalism to pages that requires an expert. Under those circumstances, just any admin is not adequate and it would be good to have an admin who is an expert on a topic leave their calling card. I view the "maintained template" as a useful advance for Wikipedia. I suspect that more steps in that direction will be taken in the future. For now, it might be best to make sure that the "maintained template" is used well. --JWSchmidt 20:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver small.jpg

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Lions Gate Bridge Vancouver small.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. 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 unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:CategoryTOC

Yep, it was an oversight. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Netoholic @ 18:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

NekoDaemon and template

I've changed a bunch of soft category redirects to Template:Category redirect, but I don't see any of them in the log. I am a sysop so it should show up. I wonder though, NekoDaemon's page says it is looking at Template:Categoryredirect which redirect to the one I used. Is it picking up both templates? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking it over, it looks like only {{categoryredirect}} works for NekoDaemon. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I came here wondering why the bot never works for me (I am an admin). I keep using the actual name of the template and not {{categoryredirect}} which redirects. It seems strange that it wouldn't work when you use the actual name of the template. -- Samuel Wantman 11:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that part of the bot is no longer run hourly due the fact it's very process intensive. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I may have to investigate it, but I'm busy with real life matters at the moment to spare time to my Wikipedia efforts. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah... if you look closely, it isn't my problem. The category has been changed for the image, but it is still showing in the old category. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

categorization idea from Steve block

Hi - Don't know if you've noticed the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Categories and tags. I think this is an excellent idea that might have a profound effect on categorization as we know it (even though it would require software changes). I'm curious what you think about it. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection for the Batman page.

Two weeks ago, I asked for semi-protection to the Batman page. You suggested we 'begin a dialogue', and then -- as far as I could tell -- considered the issue closed from your point of view. I just checked out the page after four days, and with the exception of minor copyedits, it seems everything I see has been vandalism and revert wars. The good editors are spending all of their time keeping the page in working order. I, for one, have no interest in doing this; if that's what it means to be a wikipedia editor, I'll leave it for people who want to merely repair rather than improve. I'm asking again for your help. Simnel 06:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Lulu

Storm clouds ... and silver linings Thank you for your support on my RfA.
Unfortunately, it failed to reach consensus. Nonetheless, it proved an opportunity to establish contacts and cooperation with many supportive editors, which will be beneficial to editing Wikipedia in the future. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (t @)

Categorizing professions by nationality

I edit slowly and in stages -- still adding bullet points :p I inserted a couple more above your comment. I have no disagreement with your comment :) I may have a little bit more to say--LiniShu 02:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally all done, now --Lini 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Con/Supermaj

In my opinion the Supermajority page is misguided, since WP doesn't actually work by supermajority. Also in my opinion the Consensus page should clearly state (1) those percentages heavily in use, and (2) that those should not be considered set in stone. If I understand correctly, people want those percentages removed because they think people shouldn't use them, or overuse them, or consider them too binding. While that is a noble concern, you cannot change user behavior by modifying a guideline page, and you do confuse newbies by not explaining the status quo on a descriptive page. I believe, however, that Kim holds the opposite opinion, so we don't seem to have a consensus on the consensus page. Radiant_>|< 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh dear, this is getting worse. Now WP:CON states that we use supermajority for determination... ouch. This needs a thorough merge-and-rewrite job, possibly histmerge to clear out. No, WP:CON doesn't need strict percentages, just rough lines would be ok. Just so people know that 55% is insufficient for a RFA. Radiant_>|< 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you

Thank you for changing the lead paragraph back at Brokeback Mountain, taking out the over-detailed release date. I didn't want to do it because I had made enough changes. I have to remind myself that the articles will find their own equilibrium and enough people are checking on them, even when it seems that no one else is noticing the obvious at that exact moment. Moncrief 23:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like your posts on the Brokeback Mountain article very much, I don't mind that you blocked me for violating the three-revert rule, and I thanked you here. Surely there would be a nicer and more civil way to ask me to make fewer edits than the way in which you did so. Just a thought. Moncrief 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And now I've read it again thinking about it in a humorous way, and I feel sheepish. I see how you must have meant it tongue-in-cheek. So I apologize too, for overreacting. Moncrief 15:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It ultimately succeeded with votes of 52/1/2, so I am now an administrator. Should you have any questions, comments, complaints, or requests at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail.

Gamelan lists

Yes, I'll do the Australian list. I'm heading overseas tomorrow for a two week holiday, but I'll look at this when I get back.

Good work with the other lists! -- Danny Yee 08:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing in good faith

SamuelWantman, I am truly sorry. I was running a test on the article and reverted to an older version to confirm something, but forgot to return it to your version. You can revert it and I am sorry if I inflicted any negativity on the article or the discussions. I had archived the talk because it had been inactive for approximately a week. If you would like to restore it to the talk page, by all means go right ahead. Once again, I am sorry for my mistake. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyoming

Thanks for your work on the "Wyoming, United States" bit of the Brokeback Mountain article. I know it's a minor point, but it was my pet peeve of the week and I think you came up with an elegant solution to the awkward writing. KGiles 05:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Speedy rename

Thanks for the help speedy renaming Category:Unites States seminaries to Category:United States seminaries. You saved me a lot of time. MPS 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actors categorization

Samuel, could you please take a look at, and possibly contribute to the current discussion on Category talk:Actors. In a couple cases, as other experienced, respected editors have come across my additions of parent categories to Actors articles, they've removed the parent categories, per the rationale of not having an article in both a category and its parent; I've then taking an opportunity to refer them to the discussions on Wikipedia talk:Categorization and Category talk:Actors, because I believe their perspective on this issue is important. However, I fear that Nareek and I are in a position of trying to defend the idea while being at a disadvantage; he is a very new editor; I am a relatively new editor (less than a year); neither of us are admins; I have actually been of neutral opinion about whether to have the parent categories populated or not, but attempted to determine a consensus from the original discussion so that I could proceed with editing and categorizing correctly... your voice may carry more weight :) Thanks, --Lini 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. --Lini 04:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

categorical disruption

Hi Sam. You know, disruption is a strange concept. I personally don't think having to delete one category is going to finish off the Foundation. If you think it is though, I'd like to point out the following.

  • WP:BEANS Don't suggest nonsensical categories if you don't want to see them made.
  • Wikipedia:Adminitis When you have a rollback button, everyone looks like a vandal.
  • WP:ABF Leave my monkey out of this.
  • WP:AGF Stuff sometimes happens that doesn't help write an encyclopedia, but doesn't hurt it either.
  • WP:IAR Rules keep order, but it's important to cut loose sometimes.

Be good. Love, !? 03:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin?

Thanks for the offer, but I think I might have too little patience, and not enough regular time to devote to Wikipedia to make a good admin. Nice self portrait, by the way! -Seth Mahoney 03:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Just wanted to say I like the work you've been doing. Keep it up! And let me know when your draft nears completion... +sj + 22:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I thought there was a second rewrite underway. My mistake :-) Well, I'm sure that categories will continue to be refined as the months pass... soon becoming one of WP's core strengths. +sj + 23:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: List of largest suspension bridges

Samuel, you're quite right, the auto-numbering of 'unlabelled' URLs something I didn't consider. I've adapted my script so it won't touch URLs of that form.

Apologies for messing up your article. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 01:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

re user:68.110.9.62

I noticed you thought that this fellow and I were having a "feud." Have you noticed what he is doing? I thought it was not accepted to have users go on campaigns against other users, track and systematically deface their work across many articles, and use threatening language. Are you comfortable with what is going on in here? Haiduc 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, and all issues can be worked out, other than repeated abusive edits made from behind an impenetrable wall of true conviction. As for opposing views, I would welcome them and I wonder where the editors are who might have something to add to this, other than personal reflections based on their own distaste of homosexuality in general and pederasty in particular. Whatever materials I have been able to find on these topics I have added, and if you look you'll see that there is quite a bit of material on the abuses of pederasty. I have no investment whatsoever in covering up material reflecting on youths being hurt, quite the opposite. The problem, if you will, is finding material that addresses pederastic practices per se, rather than generic child abuse, which has its own article.
Regarding this anon, I cannot be expected to deal with him myself, and his repeated abuse of power must be dealt with. The root issues here, as I am sure you are aware, go beyond the merely academic. Haiduc 16:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Who's going to defend your behaviour, eh Haiduc? 68.110.9.62 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Samuel. 68.110.9.62 16:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lookie lookie at more accusations leveled against my person, about my psychology. This gay-propagandic ribbing is present in his entirely fabricated article: Criticisms of sexual behavior. I am not drunk with power I no doubt, do not even have. 68.110.9.62 16:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have responded here. -- Samuel Wantman 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help in this matter (I can't help wondering how you have time to wrte anything, dealing with all this stuff). I thought things were handled properly, the only thing missing is a discussion about how this kind of event (not the first or last, for sure) is not in the least about writing or editing, not even about bias or objectivity, but simply about bullying. The behavior, the comments and the choice of topic all point in the same direction. Not that our response could - or should - be any different. Regards, Haiduc 11:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Greatest German films of All Time...

Sorry, I didnt add Nosferatu to that list. Steve-O 21:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge and wisdom

I think I understand what you're saying, but I stand by what I said about the Reference Desk and Wikipedia in general. Don't get me wrong, I'm worried about Bowlhover and I sincerely hope he or she is going to be okay. I just think it's pointless to act as if general knowledge is a secret, and it's arrogant to try to influence people by denying them access to knowledge. It's all right there in articles like Suicide methods and Euthanasia anyway. Let's pray that Bowlhover makes the right decision, now that he or she has all the information. —Keenan Pepper 17:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay rights template

ApolloCreed at the Help Desk kindly fixed the Gay rights template, I hope anyway. Do horizontal lines still show in Firefox and Safari between the rows of links in templates 8 and 14 as shown below the comparison table at Template talk:Gay rights#Please_give_your_opinions_here:? Wuzzy 01:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Bisexual actors

Hello SamuelWantman : ) I appreciate your high quality comments on Category:Bisexual actors's Cfd. I marked out my Delete preference after I suggested some inclusion criteria. I tend to make my decisions from a practical pov. Looking through the actors listed in the category, many had no supportive text or sources. This is a problem because it is unclear if the actor should be in the category. The reality is that a large segment of the real world population consider bisexuality a controversial topic. For this reason, Wikipedia needs to be sensitive to the way it is used. Instead of eliminating the category, I want to make guidelines for editors applying the tag and readers. That is the reason I suggested some inclusion criteria on the category talk page. Do you have time to look at the criteria and make a comment? (Please excuse my response to the IP user. I tend to defend myself when someone implies that I'm a bigot!) FloNight talk 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will

I noticed you recently removed the link I put to the Talk Page on Films that have been considered the greatest ever. Can you think of a better way for me to include those references, either by putting in a footnotes section or by some other method? I only ask because this article is pretty explicit about backing up our statements and I'm concerned that some viewers may think it's an unsubstantiated claim. Palm_Dogg 23:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Palm_Dogg 16:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What I don't like is a whole bunch of red links together for things that will never have pages. They just look horrible. Wikipedia:WikiProject Music says "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article, so don't link to them unless the article already exists." and also "Do not link to songs unless.. You are willing to write an article on it". M.C. Brown Shoes 06:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Hieronymus Bosch paintings, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 05:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Mining of CfD

It was a slightly aborted attempt, and temporally quite localised to the time (April, May, June, July 2005, carried out in Sept 2005) so I don't know how useful it actually is. It also comes without any 'documentation' in the form of statistics to prove what is claimed, but it is all backed up in the relevant CfD logs. Anyway, it's a section of one of my talk archives: User_talk:Splash/Archive3#WP:CENT. Where, incidentally, I agree with collecting up CfD's precedents. I still do, just not with making them binding, but it looks like things are taking a step back from that anyway. -Splashtalk 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

anything going on?

Hi - I've been inordinately busy in the real world for the past several weeks. Anything in particular going on that I might be interested in? I see we've passed 1,000,000 articles. Anybody else significant gotten fed up and left (Radiant!'s the last one I heard about). Just curious. Per the note I just added to my talk page, I'm not gone or anything - just extremely busy. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Category:Bridges in Norway

Hi Sam, thanks for the message. I actually disagree with your suggestion, but am more than happy to implement it for you if you can persuade me it's in line with the policies and guidelines. :) I know not everybody knows about the counties of Norway, but (1) List of bridges in Norway is going to be easier to navigate than a large category (a cat page can only display 200 at a time, a number this rapidly-expanding cat was pushing up towards: it is awful if a category like that is subcategorised, because then it is also impossible to see all the subcategories in one glance!) and (2) most articles will contain sufficient information to sort them by county. Sometimes an article gives municipality without county (if I'm not sure which county the municipality's in, I click on the municipality link). Failing that, it wouldn't be inappropriate to leave the bridge article in the national category, just like there are often bridge articles (usually stubs) left in Category:Bridges in the United States that are awaiting State classification (generally because the article doesn't explicitly state the State!). It is unlikely to spend too long there before being subcategorised. Moreover, if the main category contained a mixture of county-and-national-categorised and merely national-categorised articles, it would be extremely hard to identify those not yet categorised by county.

The new category structure matches that used on Category:Bridges in England, Category:Bridges in Australia and Category:Bridges in the United States. Since I haven't seen any change there, I don't see any evidence there is a consensus to dual-list bridges so they always appear in their national category.

Further, I think that the guidelines at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories have been misunderstood. There are in fact four situations where dual-listing is appropriate (it is generally frowned upon) and I do not believe any apply in this instance. These four are:

  • INCOMPLETE SETS OF SUBCATEGORIES: The example given is that articles under Category:Best Actor Oscar are also listed under Category:Film actors, because there is no complementary "Category:Actors who have not won Best Actor Oscars". However, every Norwegian/English/American/Australian bridge lies in at least one county/state.
  • SECONDARY CATEGORIZATION METHODS: Where a secondary characteristic has been used to classify articles e.g. articles in Category:African American basketball players should also be left in Category:American basketball players. However, the by-country characterisation is basically a categorisation by location; the by-county/state subcategories aren't a secondary classification but a more specific primary classification (evidence to support this comes from considering subcategories such as Category:Towers in the United States, Category:Skyscrapers in the United States: I can't find an analagous example where dual-listing building articles for both region and country has been decided on). However, I believe that for bridges, this is relevant for e.g. the distinction between toll and non-toll bridges; this is fundamentally the reason why dual characterisation was used for those articles that lie under Category:Toll bridges in the United States.
  • THE TOPIC ARTICLE RULE: Not relevant here; it would be relevant to a general or list article about "Bridges in Nordland" for example; it would be listed both under the Nordland bridges cat and the Bridges in Norway cat.
  • COMMON SENSE RULE: This applies only to special cases. It is hard to see why this constitutes a special case; there are numerous examples of other categorisations of buildings/structures by country and then by locality where there is no dual listing, and, to my knowledge, none where there is. The example given here is: "Category:Musicals and its subcategory Category:Musical films. Some musicals have separate articles for the stage and screen productions and sometimes the same article describes both. Since the articles are not written in a consistent way, the duplication helps users find similar articles when they are browsing through either category." Bridge articles do not suffer from a corresponding ambiguity - an article about a specific bridge is about an specific entity that exists in a specific, classifiable location; even if the article does not specify the location (usually because it is a stub) then it is still potentially classifiable once the extra details are found.

As a final point, was my subcategorisation of Norwegian bridges was appropriate in terms of its "granularity"? There are several local administrative levels in Norway: regions being the biggest, counties intermediate, municipalities smaller. However, the regions have not been widely used for subcategorisation purposes, and municipalities are too small and numerous to be useful for subcategorisation; this follows the model generally used for categorising Norwegian places/culture/buildings etc on the Norwegian wikipedia. A good sign for this is that most of the subcats have a fair number of articles in them, but none have a massive number. However, the main category was likely to exceed 200 articles within the foreseeable future and then become hard to navigage, especially in terms of not being able to see all the subcategories.

So I believe my choice of granularity was appropriate, as was my choice not to dual-list (recap of my reasons: dual-listing should only be undertaken if one of the 4 guideline conditions apply, none appear to; furthermore, it raised the scenario of having 200+ articles in the category and then not being able to navigate easily through the subcategories; additionally, for a complete alphabetical list, a list is better than a category anyway, and one already exists).

Hopefully this will have persuaded you of the merits of my case; if you think I've misinterpreted something then I'd appreciate you getting back to me. Like I said, I remain persuadable, and would be happy to go through and dual-list all those articles myself if there is sufficient consensus elsewhere. If you could steer me in the direction of the debates you've said have occurred on this topic I'd be grateful, I think I'd like to weigh in there too and just check what's going on and what people are thinking/saying at the moment. No point me being at logger-heads with a consensus I'm not aware of! :) TheGrappler 19:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think you've done an excellent job at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, it gives a pretty clear statement of instances when dual-categorisation is sensible. Unfortunately, this particular category does fall into a bit of a grey area. I'll stand by what I said about it expanding rapidly - recently there have been several per day turning up, and the list, although well-maintained, is nowhere near comprehensive. I like your solution for ensuring the display of subcategories for large categories, it's certainly pretty elegant. However, for the time being, I'd prefer not to resort to it. My fundamental reasoning is this - "by country" is a different kettle of fish to "by nationality". Nationality is a tough thing to judge people by, especially because people's nationality can be quite "woolly" and rather subjective; further, it can be utterly incidental to their work. The location of a building is a different thing altogether. People look under Category:Bridges in Norway because they are interested in the location of the bridge, not its "nationality". The country is being used as a geographical area, not a socio-political entity. The building itself doesn't move (similarly for skyscrapers, towers, museums etc) and its location is a fundamental part of its identity. Subcategorising by a more specific geographic area therefore doesn't seem too odd to me. I think it's important to think carefully about what people want when they are browsing - it is helpful to be able to do an "eyeball" search when you can't remember a name exactly enough to search for it. However, in a category search, names are all you have to go on. In a good list, there may be some more annotation to jog the memory. It also avoids the 200-limit scrolling problem. And it also helps avoid the "overcategorisation" of articles, something I know I am often guilty of myself :) I think what we desperately need is a major WikiProject:List maintenance that takes advantage of the fact that our categories get lots of lovely new articles put into them, and our lists often don't :( I very much sympathise with the fact that change here is very hard to achieve, very slow, and often involves ticking a lot of people off, no matter how hard you try to avoid it! Like I said, I will be happy to contribute manpower to help reclassifying if I see clear evidence of a stronger, clearer consensus in guidelines coupled with consensus-supported moves elsewhere. In the mean time I will get on with a bit of list maintenance! :) 82.22.42.49 17:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you edit the Lists category page to ...

remove the admonishen against adding articles directly to the main category? --JeffW 09:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kurushima-Kaikyo_Bridge_small.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 16:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Best Genre Movie Disclaimer

I disagree with you about removing the disclaimer on Films that have been considered the greatest ever. I think something should be posted there about the ambiguity of genres and their citations. Your argument gives IMDB and the like way too much power in determining the genre of a movie, especially those that cross genres. Please reconsider. --Happylobster 13:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Runyan_Bridge_2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Bot request/comment

Well, if you just want the bot to add a category (the higher up one) to every page in a list its trivial, any pywikipedia bot (including Tawkerbot) can do it. If you want the AI, that's getting into fuzzy logic and might be a little trickier -- Tawker 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bridge FLC

Hi, it is a good list. But the references need to be formated in reference style and not just as external liks. And truthfully, I don't think it's quite yet ready. My own personal guideline for featured content is "it could not be better." Like you have those external links that don't really exist. Why do you need automatic numbering? I am not picking on random stuff to put you down. For example, I have this baby that I nurtured from complete scratch. To see it featured would be the same as to receive a gold medal, but I know it is not ready. There are way to many red links, there are missing COA pics, there are unverified dates, etc. Yep, I have veeeery high standards :) Renata 12:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, sorry for confussion, but I was talking about my list :) But, hey, thanks for typing such a long answer. I did some quick math. 42 images are missing and twenty something links are red. So red links pass as ok (only 20%). Now the images... You have some 60 images. Carnildo picked on some of them, and you fix a few of those. There is still a couple that are missing something. Plus you use same pic for two bridges at least twice. So I think this is your biggest trouble.
Could you consider linking nonexistant websites to the same article instead of an error page? I dunno but I feel uncomfortable with this invention. (Yes, you made your case about auto numbering).
Also, I was referering to these references. They need to be in reference format. I.e. they should give author, full and proper title of the page, organization which sponsored the page, organization which hosts the page, date when it was created, any other available info. This can be fixed like in 5 mins.
I could support when the references are fixed if not those images... Yes, I see your point and frustration. I will think about it. Renata 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I got an idea. You could ask a guy from Bridgemeister.com for photos of the bridges. He seems to be a nice guy :) And that would solve your troubles. And now I really fixed the references (still not perfect though). Renata 14:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)