User talk:Moverton/2004

Hello, "Moverton" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:


 * Peruse Welcome, newcomers and associated pages, such as
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Sign talk page entries with ~, which is automatically converted to a name and date.
 * If you have any questions, see Help, or you can a question to the village pump.
 * I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:35, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. Your Troop engagements of the American Civil War, 1861 seems like a lot of work to begin with, but please see Manual of Style. As your article now stands, it needs a lot of work to match the Wikipedia stylebook. Rick'''K 05:51, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Arkansas River
I am wondering why you created a new category "Rivers of Kansas"? There is already a category for Kansas rivers. We have standardized all the states on a common format, with the state name, followed by rivers. It gives a standardized format which is now broken. -- 06:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've restored the river to original category. Please honor the conventions that have established. I see as well that you created a brand new category called "History of Kansas." Please note that a convention for these has been established too. Take a look at Category:U.S. state histories. Notice now that Kansas doesn't fall into alphabetical order. This is a bad situation. If you disagree with the current categorizations, you are certainly free to express you opinion, but this is something for a discussion, not for unilateral action that breaks the naming scheme. Thanks. -- Decumanus 06:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Follow up
I take it that you are creating these new categories because you want to alphabetize things nicely within Category:Kansas, so that not everything is under "K". Please don't create new categories from existing ones. This will lead to chaos. The trick is to use a pipe technique. For example will alphabetize the entry under "H" instead of K. In the near future, you will be able to control the entry of the category itself. Keep this in mind. It is much better to do this that to create new categories out of existing ones. :) -- Decumanus 07:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Before I change anything else, where are these standards published? I didn't see anything saying what the categories should look like.  The Wikiprojects on categorization didn't appear to be working on the U.S.  Mike 07:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * They aren't really "published" anywhere. They just exist by convention which you can identify by following the category hierarchy. Certainly some of the existing ones are not optimal, so you have my agreement on that point. If a category already exists, it is pretty easy to see what the existing convention is by following the hierarchy. For example, follow Category:Kansas history will take you to the U.S. category, and you can see all the states. At this point, changing a single state is not good. It would be best to change all the states (lots of work) or none at all. It's one of the weaknesses of categories, one that I've expressed on the mailist list, that it requires a ton of work to change categories because you have to edit lots of individual articles. That's not to say it can't be changed, but a lot of people have put in a lot of time at this point, and it is something to be discussed in Talk pages for example inTalk:Category:U.S. state histories, where you could bring up the idea of changing the categories from "STATE history" to "History of STATE". You might find a lot of people would support you. In the case where there is no convention yet, then whoever gets there first (which might as well be you) and starts establishing categories for that will set the convention for the time being (e.g. XXXX of Kansas, or Kansas xxxxx, etc., and people who do the other states will likely follow). -- Decumanus 07:26, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess to clarify a little: when dealing when state related categories, check to see if its part of hiearchy of other U.S. states with a similar format. If so, it would be unwise to change it without discussing it, because a lot of work may have gone into that by many editors to create a nice hiearchy. If it isn't, then it is much more clearcut to change the category name. Be aware, however, that since categories can't be moved right now, if you change an existing, you should list the old (vacated) one on Categories for deletion, so we don't have stray empty categories lying around. -- Decumanus 07:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Category:U.S. Senators of Kansas
Hi, I cleared this category for a couple reasons. First, it looks pretty bad to have redundant classifications on articles. As every article was already tagged with Category:United States Senators and Category:Kansas politicians, it makes no sense to additionally tell people, "by the way, he was also a U.S. Senator from Kansas." In many cases, it would make sense to only have the more specific category, and then subcategorize it under the broader U.S. Senators and Kansas politicians listings, but not only has this not been followed regarding the Senators from any other state, but there is a strong benefit of having all U.S. Senators grouped together in one category. There is also already a List of United States Senators from Kansas which I have categorized under Category:Kansas politicians, and that article can also be reached from the opposite direction through Category:United States Senators by state. Because of this, no navigational ability is gained by having the Kansas-specific U.S. Senators category, and it just provides unnecessary clutter on articles. Take a few minutes to navigate through the other state categories, and through the various layers of U.S. politician categories, and you'll get a good sense of how things are laid out and hopefully why it is that way. Thanks! Postdlf 17:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
You may be interested in a last-ditch attempt to save User:Pgreenfinch's endangered article European Union Olympic medals count for 2004 which is on a subpage page of VfD at Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004. Because this is a subpage it may not be noticed by those scanning the regular VfD page. Recent votes to keep appear to be sock-puppets or people who have become users only to support this article. You may wish to add your vote or comments or both. Jallan 13:29, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Redirects
Please don't create redirects to articles that don't yet exist, because the redirects don't work and are very ugly. They are candidates for speedy deletion for that reason. Instead, create at least a stub at the target, and then create the redirects. Guanaco 19:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Occupations categories
I like your work so far. I really like the SOC guidelines, since they can be a great research tool. I'm a little unsure about putting the actual article links in the text of the category, but willing to see how it works out. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
 * The idea of putting in the links was simply to highlight where they are located in the scheme, especially since some are not as obvious. However it turns the category into a cross between a list article and a regular unannotated category page.  I agree that the guidelines are good and I'm attempting to avoid deviating from them too much.  But I also understand the complaints by others that the Category:Occupations can be more than just the root category.  So what I am doing is putting the intermediary categories only as a child of Category:SOC occupations and the detail categories also as a child of the Occupations category.  It may not be perfect, but I think this is a nice compromise. &mdash;Mike 22:53, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

cfd tags
If you're going to slap cfd tags on categories, and the empty them, you should have the common decency to actually list them at WP:CFD. Gentgeen 09:00, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Would'nt slapping a cfd tag automatically list it under WP:CFD ?? Alren 22:51, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Olympic tennis players of India
This is a very narrow category. There's not much potential for growth. I proposing to delete this category. The other category you created Category:Indian tennis players would be of much use. Having participated in Olympics does not warrant not being listed as a Indian Tennis player. Imagine German tennis players not listing Steffi Graf but would only find under German olympic tennis players. Alren 22:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource author
Are you sure about your edit at ? Could you provide an example in which the Wikisource  namespace is used for articles about an author? If so, then, by all means, the change should be kept. Otherwise it is probably wise to revert it. -- Itai 15:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Better yet I will give you four examples. See these: And there are many more sources that can be added for each of these, especially for famous people like the U.S. presidents. &mdash;Mike 03:25, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Wikisource:Author:William Jennings Bryan - Wikisource biography by Mary Baird Bryan.
 * Wikisource:Author:George Washington - Wikisource biography by Robert C. Winthrop.
 * Wikisource:Author:John Adams - Wikisource biography by John Fiske.
 * Wikisource:Author:Thomas Jefferson - Wikisource biography by James Parton.

My favorite's Calvin Coolidge. Anyway, I see your point. Very well. -- Itai 10:44, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the vandalism revert
Is it wrong to be comforted that for the first time someone's vandalized my user page and it wasn't personally motivated? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

County entry "enhancing"
This is just a random comment to let you know how impressed I am by the work you've put in to "enhance" Kansas county entries. Doniphan County, Kansas looks really good so far, and it's definitely the most comphrensive county entry I can ever recall seeing.

If you're trying to think of extra info to add to those pages, I'd love to see political representatives and vote breakdowns (for example, how the majority went in the 2004 elections).

In any case, I'm very impressed, and I shall try to use your work for motivation as I try to make myself do the same type of work for my home state's county entries. Seeing as we have a whopping eight counties, I imagine I should get to that some time this century, though no promises. ;) Beginning 05:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well at least you don't have as many counties to complete. In many parts of the country counties may not be as important, but out this way counties serve as important location identifiers.  I haven't devoted as much time to it as I should.  However maybe your kind comments will inspire me to put my nose to the grindstone and get some more of them done.


 * Political representatives could be included but I'm trying to balance this with the likelyhood that that type of information would be kept up-to-date. Perhaps a proper external link would be better.  Also, I think the election breakdown may be better served in a separate article.  But thank you for the suggestions&mdash;additional ideas are always welcome. &mdash;Mike 06:49, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Categories that you orphaned
Hi, I'm working on the cities project, and orphaned categories in general. Earlier this month you edited Category:Towns in Kansas and Category:Villages in Kansas and removed them from the parent category Category:Kansas. Are there no towns and villages in Kansas? Or are Cities the only form of municipal governement? If so I will nominate the two categories for deletion, and make note of it in the Cities category. Thanks Sortior 21:45, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, cities are the only official form. I checked the cities that were in those categories and found that the Census website says they are cities and not towns or villages.  I corrected the pages to reflect that status. &mdash;Mike 01:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)