User talk:Paul A/2009-2

Food of the Gods - disambig page
Thanks for the edits to tidy up my edits! I've not done many bits on disambiguation pages, and so I'm not completely up to speed with MOS:DAB. Thanks for your work!  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Lists of Negima characters
I have nominated lists of negima characters for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead People
I was wondering what i should do if i am categorizing an article about an american actor for example, should i add him in the category actors,in the category american actors, or both?Mephiston999 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just . In general, you only need to put the tag for the most specific category, because the whole category is itself inside the less specific category: for instance, is inside, which is inside . —Paul A (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories
Thanks for improving my page on Len Fox. I'm having trouble finding appropriate Categories for a new page on Louise Hanson-Dyer. I guess at  or , and the only way I can see to test if they exist is to submit the page. Is there a less messy, time-consuming way?--Doug butler (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Son Dexter entry
Hello Paul, this is Son Dexter. I initially created my Son Dexter listing on wikipedia in 2006. I appreciate your watching over my entry at Wikipedia. However, I wish to delete my Son Dexter listing from Wikipedia, as I am retired and there are personal reasons for this I'm sure you'll understand. How can I go about this?

Regards, Son —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexfx69 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Births
Probably not. I do admit that the date information is sketchy at best on some of those pages, and i'm willing to go back up their birth dates if you think that there might be a bit more information out there on people. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Amy Leslie
Many thanks for your improvements in the article. I have found another source and have added more material.Schmausschmaus (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Thomas Raber


The article Thomas Raber has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Isabella-Jade Wiliams
Paul, would you take a look at my comments on the talk page of this article, and see what you think about it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Shihab Dehlvi
Thanks for informing me about removing the prod. I still doubt the notability, but since you've edited it, the article is somewhat readable so I'll spare it the deletion process. Chutznik (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Eliot
Hi Paul, would you mind not undoing the category work I did earlier? I'd like to keep all the Eliot material together. He wrote so little that it seems pointless to split the material up. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 07:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The categorisation of articles about individual works within the Category:Works by author hierarchy is standard Wikipedia procedure. Exceptions should not be made because of a single person's whim. If it has been discussed by a significant number of people and a consensus has been reached that in this case an exception is appropriate, that's one thing; but for anything less, the answer is "I will stop undoing your changes when your changes stop being inappropriate". —Paul A (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That way of categorizing is a frequent source of contention, because it leads to such precise categories that people have difficulty finding things. Had Eliot written a lot, then of course it would make sense to spread his work among several cats, but he wrote so little, does it not make sense to have everything on one category page, easy to find? To have one page with a small number of plays (only seven!), another with poems, a third generic "works by," containing almost nothing, and a fourth about the man and his associates doesn't seem to be the best way of doing things. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul to Paul
Greetings - just did a double take at an edit (on William Tyndale) that I thought for a moment was mine, so I've come to share the feeling of uncanniness. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories: broad vs. narrow
I see that you have changed the categories on a number of people categorized as "Bible translators", categorizing them instead as translators of the Bible into specific languages. For my research I often find the need to find people who are Bible translators regardless of the specific language into which they translated, so I really liked and used the old broad category. I can see the usefulness of your narrower idea, also. What about having our cake and eating it, too: why not allow people to be marked in both ways, as "Bible translators" and as "Translators of the Bible into X"? I won't do any changes yet; what do you think? Pete unseth (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First, I would like to point out that I didn't create the more specific "Translators of the Bible into X" categories; I was just moving articles into categories that already existed, some of them for as long as two years.


 * As to your question, "why not allow them to be marked both ways?", Wikipedia has a guideline on this, which is described at WP:SUBCAT. It describes two kinds of subcategory, one for which placing articles in both categories is recommended, and one for which it should not be done. According to my understanding of the guideline, "Translators of the Bible into X" is of the second kind.


 * By the way, you're not the first person to claim to me that putting articles into more precise categories makes them harder to find, but I've never understood how. Any article that is in a subcategory is also automatically in the parent category; if you go to the Category:Bible translators, links to all the subcategories are right there. —Paul A (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm
Does your surname have two zeds in it?Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nope. —Paul A (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

article on Nathan W. Levin
Hi Paul, thanks for editing my article on Nathan W. Levin. I created this article in honor of one of my mentors and I really worked on creating a detailed article. However, the picture seems to be still considered non-free and I still get the warning it will be deleted 12/23. I took this picture from a link which is linked in the article and I also refer to this webpage in the picture description. To my knowledge this webpage is a non-profit effort and the picture could be used in wiki w/o restrictions. May I ask you for your help/opinion on this topic?

JR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jraimann (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That you begin by saying "To my knowledge" suggests that you haven't actually asked the owner of the photograph whether it may be used, and are only assuming. This isn't good enough; Wikipedia has to be careful about copyrights and things, and it isn't safe to just assume that an image may be free to use. I suggest you review Image use policy and Image copyright tags to get a clearer idea of what Wikipedia means by a "non-free image" and about about what is required for an image to be usable on Wikipedia. —Paul A (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)