User talk:CalJW/Archive Jan-Dec 2006

Catigorization rewrite
Thanks for your comments. As we get closer and closer to a consensus on these issues, there has been less and less comments and edits from others. I hope that the reason is because there is agreement, and not because everyone is tired about talking about the issues. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the new version and make any changes in emphasis that you think are necessary. It would really help to have someone with your experience as a second pair of eyes. Please let me know if you find any glaring mistakes or omissions. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned category
Hi there. I've been going through Special:Uncategorizedcategories, and I noticed you recently removed the category Canadian business executives from all of its parent categories, leaving it an orphan. In the future, can you please nominate unneded categories for deletion at Categories for deletion or request that they be speedy deleted using the &#123;{db}} template, whichever is appropriate? Thanks, SCZenz 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do that more often than anyone else. But that one time I couldn't be bothered to do it all by the book. CalJW 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

British television networks cfr
Hi. I saw your comment on WP:CFD and I'm not sure I follow. Are you objecting to the British category being removed (partial object) or are you saying you Support now? Do you still have an objection remaining? I wouldn't be surprised since this area has clearly been neglected for a while and has become confusing and misleading. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Hello CalJW. Would you be interested in running for and admin? - Darwinek 10:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting it, but no. I dislike the admin system as it creates a caste system within wikipedia. CalJW 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chinese newspapers
Please be informed that some background information was presented at WP:CFD regarding the above  mentioned category. Thanks. &mdash; Instantnood 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Transport in England
You may have noted that I've voted to keep this category. I fully appreciate your concern for the nuances of England's position in the organisational structure of the UK, but feel that people using categories to find articles are quite likely to think of England as an identifiable area for their search regardless of the exact constitutional position. My attention was drawn to this by Mais oui! who is evidently concerned about your reaction to his contributions. In my opinion you're quite right to suspect a nationalist agenda in what he does, but in this case you've both been overreacting to each other's comments. For the productivity of Wikipedia it's best to try to keep discussions objective and it can undermine arguments if they appear to be about personal politics rather than the tricky task of trying to find an accurate and useful NPOV. Up to a point your comments look fine, but some discussions have gone over the top a bit. It'll be great if you can avoid being provoked into going past the line and apply tact and diplomacy. You may note that Mais was trying to get me to intervene as an admin, and while having accepted nomination made me feel a bit of a duty to try to help where I can, this doesn't seem to be an admin matter. If it is, I'm obviously too involved now to take any admin action. ....dave souza 18:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope you have also reprimanded him. You are perhaps unaware of his track record. He has a record of losing his temper and is trawling for votes among people he thinks can be relied upon to agree with him (and making attacks on me on their pages), meaning that the outcome may not represent consensus. I resent his constant allegations that I am not engaging in serious debate when I make more effort to explain my position than he does. He simply tries to close off debate. CalJW 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

User removing British
A user has been systematically attempting to replace British as a nationality with English on a huge number of articles with no prior discussion or consensus and has continued to do it despite my messages on their talk page to stop. The user has an account Special:Contributions/Layla12275 but also uses Special:Contributions/82.4.86.73 and Special:Contributions/82.110.217.226 in order to evade a block for 3RR. I would appreciate your thoughts on what action should be taken. Regards Arniep 03:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

DC streets
An AfD that you recently particpated in has been recycled. Please see Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C. (second nomination). - brenneman (t) (c)  05:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

War of 1812 category discussion
You said: "Delete At least get rid of the word "Theaters" which is unacceptable bias in a category about a war between Britain and the United States. CalJW 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)" Can you expand on why the word "theaters" is bias in this context? I'm not trying to be argumentitive or anything, I'm just not too sure what you refering to... thanks!Mike McGregor (Can) 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the British spelling is "theatre" CalJW 13:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ah, I didn't even think of that (It wasn't bias, it was just sloppyness on my part)... I personally perfer commonwelth spellings, but as a bloody coloinal, some U.S. spellings sneak through... That, and my spelling has never been so great. (our public schools were gutted while I was a youngster...;-) )Mike McGregor (Can) 19:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Peacock Throne vandalism
Someone named Houshyar keeps deleting the additions to Peacock Throne. He also deleted an explanation from the Talk:Peacock_Throne page.

Please help.

--Malaiya 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure why you have asked me for help. I amended the categorisation of the article, as I have for thousands of others, but this isn't a subject area I am familiar with. I see that you made the last edit to the article, so perhaps your opponent has given up. If the problem persists, I suggests you appeal to an administrator. CalJW 21:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Page name for temperature articles
To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 23:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation
Despite our disagreeing in the Category:Classical pianists issue, I'm only here to ask you a question (since you seem to know a lot about categorisation)... How am I going to monitor the changes on classical pianists' articles now that they won't be in one category? I've read through virtually every edit that has been made for some months now and I think that it is very good for the mantainance of the articles. If this won't be possible after the recategorisation, I simply don't know what to do. --Missmarple 10:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Cal, These policies are in the process of changing. There was quite a bit of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization about this topic recently, and the emerging consensus seems to be that most of the Fooian Fooers categories should be duplicated up to the level of a topic article. Thus, all the 'classical pianists by nationality' articles would also be duplicated in Category:Classical pianists. People who just want to browse through French pianists could still do so, but people who want to browse through all of them (or monitor all of them) would have that option. Please look at the discussions about this (related to film actors) and I'd like to hear your reaction to this. -- Samuel Wantman 09:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how having them in one category helped. The usual way to monitor articles is to put them on one's watchlist, and category changes make no difference to that. CalJW 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It helped because I only had to click on 'Related changes'. How am I going to monitor new articles then? I'm not trying to start a fight or something, I'm only asking because I'm really worried. There have been a lot of new vanity/non-notable articles on classical pianists recently, and I don't know how I'm going to monitor them if we break the category in so many small ones... --Missmarple 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I sympathise with the problem, but I still think that it is more important to use the standard system of categorisation. You should be able to see most of the changes by clicking on related changes for say ten countries. There is also talk of a feature being introduced to allow users to "look through" a level of categories to the content of subcategories, but the idea has been around for a while and I don't know when it will be introduced. As for the vanity articles, by all means nominate any you come across, but I think an attempt to keep a category down to a predetermined size is likely to be frustrating and end in failure. CalJW 12:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing things that far would be a total disaster and must be resisted. CalJW 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean about Chronologies vs. Timelines?
I'm trying to figure out what you meant by your comment to my merge proposal, which was


 * "Oppose Not the same thing at all, and the existing name is correct. Category:Chronology organises articles about specific periods of time, whereas Category:Timeslines contains timelines."

Are you saying that Category:Chronology should just contain subcategories (for organizing articles) and shouldn't contain any articles? Or are you saying that any articles in Category:Chronology shouldn't be timelines? Do you define a timeline as a list of dates associated with events? If so, that describes all the articles I've looked at so far in the Chronology category.

And what am I to make of the fact that both categories are subcategories of each other? --JeffW 04:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Chronology may not be an ideal name, but the category contains many things which aren't timelines so I can't see what the problem is. Chronology isn't a subcategory of timelines either. CalJW 05:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd seen that Chronology was a subcat of Timelines, but I guess I'm mistaken. I think the bottom line is I was also mistaken when I thought that Chronology was a misspelled Chronologies.  Instead, Timelines is a proper subset of Chronology.  Then do you agree that the pages like Supervillain chronology are more properly categorized under Timelines?  --JeffW 05:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I don't have a problem with a few items being moved around. It might be a good idea to move that page when you recategorise it. CalJW 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Cricket subcategories nominated for deletion
I have nominated Category:Cricket subcategories for deletion here. This is just a courtesy note because you took part in an earlier inconclusive debate on the same subject, and may wish to comment on this one. If you're not interested, please forgive the intrusion. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Rome
I noticed you've removed the Classical Civilisation Category template from a few categories. I've been working my way through the Class Civ categories inserting the thing for use as a navigational aid, partly in an attempt to support the associated portal (P:CC). I'd be grateful if you had any advice as to making the template less "messy", as you put it, or perhaps making it more standardised (It's based on the portal templates). At the moment, the Class civ category tree is pretty big and poorly standardised. I've made some efforts to clean it up, but if you can make any suggestions for improvement, they would be much appreciated. The best place to put them would likely be in Category:Classical_studies or, better, Portal_talk:Classical_Civilisation (since it's visited by a modicum of editors). --Nema Fakei 12:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest two things:

I think the top "article space" in category pages should be kept quite clean and it is usual practice across Wikipedia to do that. All the major navigation methods in Wikipedia are valuable, but people who arrive in a category have chosen to use categories just then and it seems inappropriate to me to make an alternative navigation tool highly intrusive at that point. A better and more standard location for the template is at the bottom of articles. CalJW 13:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Link each category to the Classical civilisation portal by adding at the top of the page. I will do a few now.
 * Continue to work on the category system, which is not yet as close to maturity as are those for many other topic areas, but needs to be done some time. I might help out if I have time.

Another thing you should be aware of if you are not already is that you can request name changes for categories at categories for deletion - as well as deletions of course. I should have said before it is not the template itself which I was calling messy, indeed I wouldn't object to it being expanded, but simply positioning it at the top of category pages, where such templates are not usually seen. CalJW 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scouting Categories
The WOSM and WAGGGS categories are part of the Scouting WikiProject and the debate about these two category names has raged before and the result was to name them as is, largely due to the length of spelling them out. The abbreviations are standard. Someone that spends as much time worrying about categories should know how to find that out. You also could have brought it up to us about them as they are clearly marked as part of our project on their talk pages. Kindly remove the proposals and talk to us first about such things in the future. Scouting Project Coordinator, Rlevse 01:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will not remove the proposals. No one owns a section of Wikipedia and I suggest that you stop calling yourself the "Scouting Project Coordinator" as it suggests that you think you do. I am as entitled to work on categories as you are to work on scouting articles and most renaming nominations in respect of deabbreviation go through. CalJW 01:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll call myself whatever the project members and I want to call me. Your time spent on categories would be more effective spent improving the articles.  Rlevse 22:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to run your own website your own way, it is easy to set one up, but this is Wikipedia, and you should abide by its policies and show respect for your fellow editors. CalJW 22:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Rlevse 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Statutory Instruments
Hi. I notice that you have previously voted or commented on the proposal to delete the List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1996 page. The debate about the delete proposal ended with no consensus. This is just to let you know that I have started a discussion on how to go forward from here. I am currently trying to define what the problems with the page are so that we can try to find a fix for them that stops short of outright deletion. If you wish to take part in the discussion, the new debate can be found here. Thank you. Road Wizard 00:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Help
Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 01:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC) on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Deny recognition poll
(Note that this is a form notification.)

Hello CalJW. Since you commented on the Deny recognition proposal, this is to notify you that a formal poll has been opened concerning it. If it is accepted, it will be be used as a launching pad to amend other policies such as the deletion policy; that page itself will be marked as historical, not policy. Feel free to reread the proposal and place your vote. // [ admin ] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Category:Newcastle upon Tyne media

 * ''You voted just before I posted my explanation of what happened here. It is only empty because all the articles were moved a couple of days ago. That was renaming without a vote, which is improper... Could you please reconsider your vote?

Sure; have just amended it. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Speedy rename template?
Hi. I noticed that you had piped a bunch of your recent speedy rename requests at CFD, and I'm trying to figure out if you're using a template thats causing the piping. I don't know if cyde's pywikibot will get screwed up with piping, but in any case its redundant code. Thanks for any help. --Syrthiss 23:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand you. CalJW 04:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

category:Arts and Culture of Philadelphia
Could I trouble you to look at this one again Cal? I think you may have missed that Category:Philadelphia culture is pre-existing. Bhoeble 13:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Storms
Hi there. You voted in the CfD debate here, and I've started a discussion about this at Category_talk:Storms. Any comments would be welcomed. Carcharoth 11:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

John Zaritsky
In Nov 2005 you categorized Oscar winning filmmaker John Zaritsky as an American Documentary Filmmaker, however, Mr. Zaritsky is actually a Canadian documentary filmmaker. In fact the entire stub about him looks to be lifted from some another source. His Oscar winning film being Canadian caused some controversy, due to the rules at the time a film shown on American Television and shown in American theatres was ineligable for nomination, but one that was shown on Canadian television and in American theatres was. This was changed after his win, which bit Michael Moore with Fahrenheit 911. Sorry, im ranting right now. Just though I would let you know That I am going to change the category. Dowew 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Category Conduct
Hi,

I had transferred everything in the category "Visitor attractions in Paris" to the "Tourism in Paris" category - in an effort to clean up and unify same-subject articles spread through several categories. I had no intention outside of this, and every article affected was re-attributed correctly. How is this misconduct, and where am I to seek consensus for category changes? T HE P ROMENADER 22:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see now that you have reverted all the above changes - Wiki has a 'Tourism' main category leading to different countries, but no 'Visitor attractions' category of the same caliber - and this is why I made my original changes. Now there are both again, but neither category ever graces the same article - so how are they different? -Is there some reason for this that I may have missed? If so, I apologise.  T HE P ROMENADER  22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've had a read around and I see that it should have been done the other way around - my error. Apologies. I would still like to know though where to discuss and seek consensus for this kind of thing - I'd even asked on the Community bulletin board that a 'trained hand' see to the categories, but nothing has changed since months. So I took things into my own hands - I would like very much to complete the Portal:Paris but cannot until its categories are sorted, and making heads or tails of this is no easy task. T HE P ROMENADER 22:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to empty a category, the place to go is categories for deletion. "Tourism" and "visitor attractions" are not the same thing, though it is true that most articles which belong in the tourism menus relate to visitor attractions. The contents of category:Tourism in the United Kingdom should make things clearer. I don't see any major problems with Category:Paris, which has most of the standard subcategories for a major city. However there are two subcategories which need to be nominated for renaming to the standard forms, which I will deal with, and some articles in the main category which need to be subcategorised. CalJW 22:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrondissements of the Paris département
Hi, Thanks for pointing that out. The 'bot-generated makes sense for the other 99 départements but not for the special case of Paris. Thought I'd dealt with special cases but that one totally escaped me :-( There certainly would be a case for just deleting the article but, on balance, I think it best to keep the series complete.  I've edited the article to make more sense - comments appreciated.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   10:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Overseas regions of France
Hi CalJW. I notice that in March as part of your extensive work on countries you added pages on the four overseas regions of France (ie Guadaloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, La Réunion) to the various "...by country" categorizations.

I suggest that it is incorrect to classify these territories as countries. They are not sovereign states nor overseas territories (such as Puerto Rico or Bermuda) but full regions of France with the same status as eg Brittany or Burgandy. Their only local government are the same local councils as exist in mainland France. Analogies for this are Hawaii in the US and the Canary Islands in Spain.

I think may you have followed the example of the CIA World Factbook for your classification (from which many of the articles on these territories have been lifted) rather than local sources.

I would recommend that the relevant pages would be more appropriately categorized within the relevant "France" categories rather than the "countries" categories. THJames 08:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of article
The article for Center School (Connecticut) has been rewritten using reliable sources. It should probably be renamed to Center Elementary School (Brookfield, Connecticut), but that's a different matter altogether. Thought you'd like to know. Silensor 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lesotho categories
The four categories listed at Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 5 were not tagged for renaming: I suggest relisting them - however I take it you are withdrawing category:Lesothan literature and Category:Lesothan novels anyway? Tim! 10:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll do it sometime if no-one else does. CalJW 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My user page
I changed it for just for you, buddy. Happy editing! --Liface 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Versailles pictures
You requested some pictures for the versailles article, specifically some interior shots. I have a very large number of versailles shots from last spring on my photo website. http://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/gallery/449326 If you want to look through and pick a few, I would be willing to release them into CC and post on the article. Gaijin42 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Number 37 (the chapel) would be great and maybe number 86 as an example of a typical stateroom and number 164 of the bedroom (but ideally with some of the shadow at the bottom cut off). CalJW 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have uploaded the three pictures. They are available at Image:Versailles_stateroom.jpg Image:Versailles_chapel.jpg and Image:Versailles_bedroom.jpg I will leave it to you to place within the article, as there are a large number of pictures already, and I would feel awkward about swapping out someone else's pictures for my own. Gaijin42 21:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted content
Do not recreate deleted content like you did with Articles for deletion. We are trying to get rid of cross-namespace redirects, not create more of them. -- Cyde↔Weys 15:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a self-defeating and apparently pointless idea, and why exactly did you expect me to know about it? I was acting in pure good faith to improve Wikipedia by making access to an important page easier. Your comment is a clear breach of the good faith policy and I trust you will express regret for the tone of your comments. As for the specifics, where is the policy? I wish to dispute it. CalJW 16:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reading Redirect, which as you might expect is our basic guideline for using, creating and deleting "redirects". Then read WP:AGF in great detail, and consider whether accusing somebody of not assuming good faith might in fact be a breach of that very policy in itself… HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 19:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is entirely unreasonable to expect me to have read that in advance of taking a totally innocent good faith action. Once again an administrator sticks up for an administrator and shows little sense of fairness to a non-administrator. I find the way administrators treat other users is the worst thing about Wikipedia, much more of a problem than vandalism. CalJW 16:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even assuming good faith (and without knowing the specifics of the incident in question), Cyde↔Weys's comment reads like a barked command at a dog rather than communication between two people. I understand and empathise with CalJW's feelings of hurt and anger. I hope that CalJW will return to continue the good work on categories. SilkTork 23:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you left
But I can respect and understand your reasoning. Silensor 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Championship
I read with regret that you've decided to leave, but I decided to post this here in case you might at some stage reconsider. You marked the article on Championship for cleanup and also, I think, as a stub, as well as expressing concerns about its worth. I have attempted some tidy up on this article, and have removed the tags. I'm not sure how much further it can be taken, but I'd be grateful if you could take a look, and reinstate the tags if you still think they should be there.--Robotforaday 19:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)