User talk:Sam/Archive 7

Category structure
I think your idea has merit; it worked fine for tagging cats as "self-reference" and such. I've created Category structure for central discussion on the topic; please participate. Yours, ( Radiant ) 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, we can just start doing it; I think the structure you suggested would work for that. Btw I'd like your opinion on the feature request I suggested at the bottom of WP:OC. ( Radiant ) 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD?
Hi Samuel,

Just wanted to note that Daffy(whatever) who was the editor causing CovenantD's 3RR has been indefblocked per ANI. Would you consider lifting CovenantD's block in light of that? Syrthiss 16:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lol I should read first...since it was you who indefblocked Daffy. In any case, despite CD violating the letter of the law my request still stands. Syrthiss 16:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. :) Syrthiss 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

DaffyDuck619
You said to turn to you for support - well, here I am. It appears that Daffy619 is continuing to edit Wikipedia in defiance of his indef block. As noted the IP's talk page, I am not the only editor to believe this is DaffyDuck619 nor is this the first time he's used the IP to violate a block. CovenantD 17:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Category overload
Please check out Category:Health awareness days, Category:Observances, Category:Public health education, Category:Annual activist events. I've tagged them to recategorise into Category:Awareness Days. Please advise. FrummerThanThou 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the categories you mentioned. I assume you are asking about how to get them posted on the categories for discussion log.  I can help you with that, but I think you should rethink this.  I don't see a major problem with the current categories.  There is some overlap, but I don't think the general category you propose is the place for all these articles.  Many of the articles the Category:Public health education are not "days", some of the Category:Observances are also not awareness days.  Also, Category:Awareness Days would qualify for a speedy delete because of mis-capitalization of "Days".  I think it might be OK to create Category:Awareness days and makeCategory:Health awareness days and Category:Annual activist events subcategories in it.  This does not require any community approval.  I don't think this category is needed as it will only contain 3 or so subcategories.  If you want to continue with a rename nomination, let me know and I help you with it, but probably not support it. – Samuel Wantman 20:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am open to your idea, which I think is desist from merging, prrclrly the actvsm. There is some overlapping going on. Public health education should go. I will be working on the category awareness days, if it should be renamed, so be it, the topic interests me at the moment and i plan to list all the awareness days. Whats your advice? frummer 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My advice is to remove the CfD tags from categories, read Categorization again if you haven't already, and then decide if you think there is still a problem. If so, come back here and tell me what it is, because I'm not understanding you.  Overlapping categorization is the norm, and it is not automatically a problem.  What do you mean when you say "public health education should go?".  It is a perfectly fine category, and articles about health awareness days should be put in that category.  It is important that you understand that there are multiple categorization hierarchies. – Samuel Wantman 06:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilogos
Also I thought you might be interested in my proposal for Wikipedia to use logo variations created by members of the wiki community to mark national and international awareness days, Remembrance Days, notable anniversaries, and observance days. Please comment on Village_pump_(proposals) and on my talk page. Thanks! FrummerThanThou 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New day transclude for WP:CFD
Hi there ... for the past few months I've been doing the new day transclude at WP:CFD. This isn't a big deal, since midnight UTC happens around 4pm my time. However, as of tomorrow morning I'm leaving on a trip for a couple of weeks, expect to be back on the 30th. I'll probably still be around from time to time, they have the internet, even in Denver ... but I don't think I'll be able to do the new date thing again until I return. And I thought I'd let a few people know in advance, so people aren't waiting around for me to do it, or wondering why I stopped. – ProveIt (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

convert
Hey.. I didn't edit List of largest suspension bridges! You can check the page history. However, I did create convert.

It hampers the simplicity of the conversion tool to add lots of optional parameters. For instance, there will eventually be a problem with US vs. UK spellings of conversions.. and like you said, over-linking. I'll go look at the parser functions that Wikimedia allows to see if there isn't a way to test if a link exists already on a page.. but that would get to be a horrendously complicated script.

Also, per the WP:MOS, you need to use sourced data first and converted data last. It's nice if you can get all the source data to be in the same units, however..

.. per creating an optional parameter at the end, it would end up getting into 1 US/UK spellings, 2 link or no link (perhaps first figure linked, second not, and vice versa), 3 whether or not either term is abbreviated. As you can see, that's already 3 basic parameters.. 5 if you include differentiating between the first and second value.

I wish there was a better way to do it. Cheers.. drumguy8800 C  T  08:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and code switches. I've already added a spelling option  (spelling = united states) if you'd like to use it. I've started coding an option for switching tenses (that is, "the 302 meter building" instead of "the 302 meters building." I'm considering adding   (link = on) so like you said, it only links if they ask it to.  drumguy8800  C  T  08:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:GGParkNorthWindmill.jpg
The new image is nice, and has a better grain appearance than the original color negative scan that I contributed., I think that a better procedure would be to make a new image and change the article appropriately. Replacement of an image might be appropriate for a realy bad image. I would also cross reference the images by including a thumb in each. That way information is not lost along the way (Prevent Information Entropy). Multiple images might be collected into a gallery at some future time, should a specific article be created for this particular structure - Leonard G. 18:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

German Categories
Hi Samuel,

I think comparing the two categorization strategies is a great idea. But I would rather prefer to discuss that on the German wiki pages. I'm afraid many German authors will not join the discussion, otherwise. Thanks – Sparti 07:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm an editor and admin on German Wikipedia. I started the WikiProjekt Kategorien, which is the German version of WP:CfD. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have about the way we use categories. sebmol 09:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am not admin in the German Wikipedia, but an active (and caring) user who recently launched a restructuring of the categories of space exploration. Do you have any specific questions? --Asdert 11:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

CovenantD
Greetings. I'm contacting you re: this poster as you have had recent dealings with him and know his history. Unfortunately, CovenantD is in violation of the 3RR rule again, this time with regard to an image on the Avengers page. Despite being advised as to the reasons for an image change - a change endorsed by at least three people - he has reverted three times in something like 15 minutes. I asked him to hold off as more discussion was required with no success. In fact, his response was quite belligerent. I think that if the standard of the comic-related articles in general is to improve, this "my way or the highway" attitude needs to stop.

Hope you can help.

Asgardian 23:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Asgardian is incorrect on several points. #1 I have not violated 3RR. #2 His new image has been endorsed by no other editors - in fact, at least one has stated a different preference. #3 He is the one who initially changed the image before discussion had played out. #4 If we're going to go into histories, Asgardian has a long list of complaints about his "my way or the highway" edits scattered all across the Comics Project pages, including at least one at the Admin's noticeboard in which a ban for this user was proposed. CovenantD 23:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take this up on your Discussion Page.

Asgardian 23:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. Both of you should be discussing this with each other (civilly) and not with me. I hope you will both read WP:ROWN. If you would BOTH like, I'd be happy to try and mediate this, but I think you should try discussions with each other first. – Samuel Wantman 23:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Samuel, I tried discussing things with Asgardian when he first started editing Wikipedia (and at various times since then). I pointed him to the general MoS, the Comics Project MoS, Comics Project exemplars, other discussion pages and countless other references that explained why many of his edits didn't meet Wikipedia standards. Others have attempted to discuss things with him, and as you can see from the first post to the Admin's noticeboard section about him, he has a tendency to dismiss these attempts or even delete them without comment. After a month or two it gets old, as it did with User:DaffyDuck619. When a respected admin like SteveBlock thinks there's a problem with an editor, there's most likely a problem. CovenantD 00:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note
You may want to read this, which appears to be the origin of John's opposition to VIE. Indeed the deletion he mentions was overturned, but that does not imply that deletions are or should be decided by vote count, and despite John's claim VIE was never actually an argument in the deletion. FYI, HTH.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

69.252.158.32
Thank you for your actions and your note regarding 69.252.158.32. It seems he has already returned as. He pretend that he is only a "friend of" 69.252.158.32. I think a look at his contributions pretty much demolishes that idea. – Antaeus Feldspar 06:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should mention, this is an editor who has been to these pages before, under the IP address of (I had almost forgotten about him, and had to look it up in the history of the pages once I realized it was the same one.) – Antaeus Feldspar 06:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Response
Checkuser seems to have changed since the last time I requested one, so yes, help would be useful. I think this could end up at arb, but avoiding that would be useful. Ta for the tip. Steve block Talk 21:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Your deleting of comments
I left this on Haiduc's page, and am copying it here: Thank you for clarifying that, Samuel, but I still strongly disagree with anybody removing another's comments on a talk-page if they are not vandalism. In fact, Wiki has a policy against that. I would appreciate it if you would discuss that sort of change with a user before doing it, and give them the opportunity to make the change (or not) themselves. Jeffpw 00:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The notice board is for notices and not for discussions. It has said that from the beginning (I created the board).  I don't want the notice board to be pages of discussion (like the admin notice boards).  It should just be links to the discussions that are happening elsewhere.  The page has been nominated for deletion in the past because people feel it might be pushing a POV.  For this reason I think it is very important that we make the postings brief and as uncontroversial as possible.  There is no need to comment and sign on most of the sections of the board.  The only reason there is any description in that section is to help direct people to the discussion.  Requests for comment can be a little longer, but they to, should point to where the discussion happens.  If anything gets posted with a POV slant, it is just begging someone to post a reply.  I don't want that happening, it will make the board much less effective.  I hope this explains where I was coming from when I edited the posting. – Samuel Wantman 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I didn't remove the comment from the talk page, I removed it from the project page. There is a big difference. – Samuel Wantman 00:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

2007
We need an admin to update and  ... I've already done – ProveIt (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Films considered the greatest ever
Hi Samuel. I had a question about the revert of my addition to the "Concert" section for Yanni Live at the Acropolis. Would this not be an acceptable addition to the article if I had an IMDb reference, and an AllMovieGuide references as well? . These references are acceptable according to the article "Film", so I'm wondering if what you mean is that the article pertains only to like "box office" films? Thanks, just wanting to clarify... Yanni Live at the Acropolis (1994), recorded live at the Herodes Atticus Theatre, Athens, Greece, on September 25, 1993. It has continuously remained on the charts since its release, selling more than seven million copies worldwide, earning more than 35 platinum and gold albums, and rose to become the #2 best-selling music video of all time. Cricket02 06:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Requested addition:
 * Thank you for the clarification. I understand.  Would you know if a more appropriate/similar place for this "video" information exists?  Cricket02 07:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Cats
Please see my talk page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of EJBanks...
Would you mind reviewing the contribution histories of EJBanks, Creepy Crawler, Dr. McGrew and Batman Fan? I think you'll conclude that they are the same person, based primarily on the types of categories each have created. The last three were eventually indef blocked as vandals for exactly this sort of behaviour. I've also asked Steve Block to look at it. CovenantD 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gwernol blocked EJBanks after I left you and Steve a note, so there's really nothing left to do at this time. If (when?) I spot another clone, may I bring it to your attention before it gets out of hand again? CovenantD 20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree that those small sub categories could go in Category:Film series. Most films are American which is why I thought it appropriate to break up a category. Its just several years down the line the American film catrgory will be huge!! I was only trying to help. I do actually think it is best to keep categories as simple as possible but it was only because I beleived American films and English language films categories o be too large pretty soon. And also there are far far more many films produced every year than video games!!! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think alll American films should be categorized as American films? Its just the category American silent films has many films most not in the main category. I think they should be categorized in both so people browsing can distinguish the earlier silent films from the rest but also see the films in the main list Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CatDiffuse template
I am willing to work on a language change to Template:CatDiffuse, if you are interested. Dr. Submillimeter 10:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

CatDiffuse
I think the best idea would be to check its whatlinkshere every now and then and make sure the tag only shows up in cats where it's appropriate. Frankly I don't think there's much point to the tag since most people don't read cat pages, just cat contents.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

wikistress
I saw your kind words on Jeffpw's talk page. Thanks for spreading the wikilove. You might not know GMS508; this is another editor, newer but a valuable contributor, who's been troubled by the same issue as Jeffpw. Could you lend a soft word or two at User talk:GMS508? &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  – 21:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Categorization
Hi Samuel, I appreciate your response regarding my vote at TfD. To my understanding, the categorization/article deletion process at German Wikipedia is quite different. Instead of there being a CfD area, they have created a de:Wikipedia:WikiProjekt Kategorien, where a group of members will decide.

Instead of there being a template asking that categories be diffused into subcats, there is often a message stating that no subcats should be created, like at de:Kategorie:Schauspieler (Category:Actors). Note the message Bitte im Unterschied zu allen anderen Wikipedias: Keine geographischen Unterkategorien wie erstellen., (lit. "Contrary to all other Wikipedias, please create no geographical subcategories such as Category:Actors from Vatican City.")

I saw at de:Kategorie:Säugetiere (Category:Mammals) the message in bold print Neue Kategorien sollten erst dann errichtet werden, wenn die Zahl der Artikel in einer bestehenden Kategorie die Zahl 100 überschreitet, um die Kategorienhierarchie so flach wie möglich zu halten. ("New categories should be first started when the number of articles in an existing category reaches over 100, in order to keep the category hierarchy as flat as possible.")

There definitely is a general convention at German Wikipedia to keep category structure as "flat" as possible, and the many users there seem to have an understanding that this method is expected.

If a too-specific category is created, the panel at WikiProjekt:Kategorien will usually decide to delete it. The English Wikipedia is more democratic in this regard.

I will try to answer any questions about German Wikipedia categorization that you may have. - Gilliam (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the WikiProjekt, I suppose that anyone can vote, but the same several voters appeared in the few days I looked at.


 * I'm not sure what you mean by controversial; the categories which they never have are those like the combination of religion and occupation, etc. The type of articles which are likely to get deleted/merged are those about a news story, such as a plane crash or the execution of Saddam Hussein. You'll never see a German article on such a specific event.  I think it's ironic that while English Wikipedia requests "This article is long.  Please create subarticles" when subarticles with very specific titles don't seem welcome at German Wikipedia.  However, the quality of the existing encyclopedia articles there seem to mostly have a very good quality, especially since references aren't required. - Gilliam  (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Disappeared image
Greetings:

I am requesting that you (as administrator) look into the disappearance of the image: Image:JellyfishAtMBA.jpg. I have displayed this on my user page since October 16th 2005 and it has gone to the bit bucket. While I can easily reload this, it seems strange to me that this should occur without notification (or even a viewable trail).

Incidentally, I need to manuver a large number images into Commons (while also putting them in PD, rather than cc-sa) and would need to delete the old copies on WP. I would need admin privilages to do this - would you care to wield the mop, or alternatively, nominate me as admin?

Thanks, - Leonard G. 05:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - a sidbar image still displays this as Image:Mastigias-papua.jpg. at 08:30, 2 January 2007 User:Shyam Bihari moved it to commons under a new name and updated my user page, but did not catch the second entry. Perhaps an automated tool would be in order. Other requests above still apply. - Leonard G. 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''re:" Insert on my talk page - this was just a convient place for the writer to park the text since it was related to the jellyfish images, now corrected on my page by inclusion of my text within a separate section -


 * re: admin stuff - I don't want to get into the admin arguments, only access to a few useful tools to support my current work on Wikipedia, which was my original motivation. - Leonard G. 03:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much
For your words of support on my talk page. The support I have received from the community during my period of Wikistress has been invaluable. Though I am still a bit tense, I am feeling much better now. Jeffpw 06:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ass to mouth
I see you redirected Ass to mouth to Oral-anal contact, which itself redirects to Anal-oral contact. However, that redirect is inappropriate becuase (1) it is a double-redirect and most importantly (2) "Ass to mouth" is not synonymous with either of those other two terms. Ass to mouth involves inserting something, usually a penis, into someones ass, and then into their mouth. There is no contact between ass and mouth. Please reconsider your creation of the redirect. Thank you, Johntex\talk 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for pointing out that A2M is mentioned at AOC. I looked at AOC for a section heading and didn't find one.  I overlooked that single sentence.  It certainly is not a good substitute for the article that was deleted.  The single sentence does not even explain what A2M is - it just says it is distinct from AOC.  I guess it will do for now, though. Thanks. Johntex\talk 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nazar ill'al-murd
Would you like for the neutrality project to take this article on? Nina Odell 21:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse - Proposed move
I want to thank you for your support of the proposed move. Would you please sign your vote? Also, I noticed that you seem to be fairly well-acquainted with Wikipedia's community of editors. I would like to know whether there are places other than the GLBT-related bulletin board that you created, where I could publicize this proposal. I feel pretty strongly about this issue and I would like to locate articulate individuals who can provide support. Thank you! Joie de Vivre 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please revisit and consider
Thanks for your endorsement on the proposal, but be advised per User:Tim! and User:Submillimeter's point, I've modified my proposal. re: See this summary, and my comments on clear documentation all along our project pages. This alternative is more consistent with normal category practices. For your convienience this is a direct link back into the discussion. Thanks // Fra nkB 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Invite
I invite you to review and participate in WP:∫, to bring order to Wikipedia. Cwolfsheep 06:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved your comments over to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Integration for better understanding. I appreciate the input: your idea is interesting, but requires "something" to adapt it to the existing framework, and I'm not sure what yet. Good luck in your efforts however. Cwolfsheep 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove It
One day I was trying to think up a good user name, and of course Eric was already taken. I wasn't sure I wanted to use my full name, and everything else I tried was taken. Then I remembered Dean Edell and his frequent complaint about how nutrition supplent companies aren't required to justify their claims ... His consistant challenge to them was Prove it. That reminded me of Wikepedia's insistance on verifyabilty and I thought it might make a good user name. It never occured to me that someone might read it as Pro Velt, I guess I'll have to change my signiture – Prove It (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Boo!

 * ).NinaOdell | Talk 15:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Category Tree to get lists
Regarding the CfD on template:Catdiff, I wonder if the comments I made here help? If the "show all articles" feature of Category Tree were implemented, generating a list would be easy. You could then sort the list alphabetically to get the index. I agree that having software do this would be best, and overcategorisation is still a problem, but diffusing large categories does seem best at the moment. Such 'index lists' could be put in the page history of the main category page and linked from said category page. I'll demonstrate for Category:School massacres. Carcharoth 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, that's done. The edits I made to do that are here. The result can be seen at Category:School massacres. What do you think? Carcharoth 15:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also done for Category:Earthquakes and Category:Anti-communists. I'll stop there for now, as I want some feedback on how acceptable this is, whether it is useful, and how it relates to the Intersection thing you and Rick proposed. Carcharoth 20:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also dropped off some comments at Wikipedia talk:Category types, using earthquakes as an example to illustrate the types. Carcharoth 10:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point about how my 'system' doesn't allow intersection. Actually, my 'system' is just a way for me to regenerate index lists from categories that have been diffused and diluted to the point of being useless. I wanted a list of all the earthquake articles, and this was the only way I could think of doing that. Under your system, an earthquake would appear in both the index category and the navigation categories. My system is basically just digging down a few levels and unifying the categories to create a list. This might be needed as a way to repopulate the index categories that have been diffused. In a well-organised system, the index category could be generated automatically by saying: list all the articles in the earthquake 'by country', 'by century' and 'by type' categories. At the moment, this generates false hits as some of these categories contain subcategories that are subject categories, such as Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

I actually want to start using those tags at Category types. Are they ready to go yet, or should I wait a bit longer? Carcharoth 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replied to your message on my talk page. Also, I have some comments at Wikipedia talk:Category intersection, inclusing one about DynamicPageList - I'm still unclear how that is different to the intersection proposals. Carcharoth 11:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring you
Actually, thinking about it. You have a tendency to ask difficult questions, and I can't make up a snap answer to those :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Talking of feeling ignored or ignoring someone... I found Samuel dropped a note off on my user page, instead of my talk page! I might not have found that for weeks! I must make my user page look less like a talk page! :-) Carcharoth 10:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

categories
So, do merged categories simply get deleted? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, OK, then we've been having miscommunication because delete and merge mean different things in CfD than AfD. I'll go change it now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, I'm deeply honoured. Give me time to finish the administrator's reading list and peer review Andrew Van de Kamp, and you can nominate me on January 19. That alright with you? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew has been peer reviewed and the list has been read. Nominate me wheever you want. Thankyou again for the offer. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

re: my essay
Actually it is X is a Y that is really at the heart of my essay as in a sense, I disagree with the assertion :)

If A is in article about X, a real world object or topic, then in most respects, the way we will categorise A would be the way we would categorise X, because A is any good it will contain all the information about X that is important. I would hope (!) that all the articles about the presidents of the United States would contain information about their presidencies, so there would never be the case where we would say: George Bush is the President, but his article doesn't mention the fact so we shall exclude him from the presidents category.

The section of WP:OC which deals with non-defining or trivial characteristics says "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic". I would argue that, if something cannot be easily left out of the biography then it is probably something, which if there are other articles which share this characteristic, would form the basis of a categorisation.

I agree that it is somewhat difficult to decide "where to draw the line", but not really that difficult if the basis for categorisation and inclusion is: does the article contain a substantial amount of information about the production in question? If the sole mention of the production is a line in the filmography list, that can be excluded.

Anyway, thank you for the feedback on my essay, I have other thoughts which I am still trying to work into it at this time. I'm quite sure I'm not about to persuade anyone overnight of my scepticism of X is a Y, but hopefully I won't be dismissed as one of the "huge community of editors working on TV articles that get upset" ;p Tim! 09:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Something like famous redheads is not a good idea for a category, because what would you say about the influence of the red hair? "Joe Bloggs has red hair." I would place that alongside the single line in the filmography.


 * The category versus list debate will be the next section in my essay when I have coralled my thoughts together slightly more, but will centre on the fact the categories imply that the articles within contain information about a topic, whereas a list gives no hint as to what you will find when you follow its links. Tim! 10:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we shouldn't say their hair colour, (unless there is an image), just that the amount one can say about it is limited. Also, other hair colours don't seem to receive this lauded treatment! Tim! 10:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be removed from the trivial characteristics section of OC then? Tim! 10:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But how many of the Cary Grant films merit more than just a name check in the article? And how many other articles about the film cast would contain information about the film itself? Probably only one or two of the lead actors in any given film would go into more detail than just "Joe Bloggs appeared in film", so the categorisation by single film in general doesn't work. With something like a long running series with a large cast, there will be multiple articles with non-trivial sections on their performance within that series. I think that information is worth categorising so it can be browsed. Tim! 11:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The list does not tell you whether there will be anything in the article about the film or tv series, whereas articles in the category, if suitably restricted, will contain information about the series. I would be very dissapointed if I was browsing for say, Star Trek, and I have to go through 30 articles before finding one which even mentions the series. The restricted category would not dissapoint me.


 * "Many actors had scores of notable films. Look at the categories for some famous film actors. Imagine them cluttered up with 20 or more notable film appearances." How many film actor articles contain detailed information about 20 different roles? Editorial judgement by the authors of any given article will select which roles are given in greater detail, and we will categorise those, iff there are other actor articles which also contain a similar amount of information. In general these conditions will not be met by single films, I believe. Tim! 11:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so, but lets leave it for now. Take care. Tim! 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Cast members
The category root is here. I don't think you should let my renaming stop you if you want to nominate them for deletion; if you wait for me it will take a couple of weeks, probably.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'd get consensus to delete in a group nomination. I think you should start small, with two or three cats that already have a very good list for them.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedians working
I have added a "" template to the article WikiProject Wikipedians working, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Xiner (talk, email) 18:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Wikipedians working
This is to inform you that the project page above of which you are a listed member is being considered for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working. Thank you. Badbilltucker 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

More thoughts on Category types
Actually, I'm having second thoughts about the design of the templates for category types. I agree totally with the concept, but I find the manual listing of parent cats, sub cats, and see also cats to be difficult to implement, and in any case would have to be updated if cats were renamed or moved around (to a different parent category, for instance). I think the templates should just stick to the non-bullet-pointed stuff. Incidentially, have you thought about using the tags to categorise the categories as "index categories", "navigational categories" etc? Or is that going to far? I suppose it would end up with Category:Subject index categories for politicians and Category:Subject index categories for scientists, and so on! Duplicating the current Category:Categories named after politicians and Category:Categories named after scientists. Carcharoth 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I note with some trepidation that Category:Categories named after American politicians already exists. Category:Categories named after musicians is an eponymous subcategory that seems out-of-control. I also note that Category:Works by artist is under Category:Categories named after artists, which seems wrong, so I might remove it from that category. Carcharoth 12:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful what you say
Please be careful what you say. I expected that my comment would lead to an intimidatory slur, but I made it anyway because I believe in free speech even on sensitive issues. Osomec 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I also believe in free speech, and was simply suggesting a way to convey the same idea in a fashion that would be less provocative. --Samuel Wantman 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Protocol question
Is it appropriate to comment on a user's vote in an RFA, or better not done? And do those who oversee RFAs check the status of those who are voting? I ask because someone has opposed Dev's nomination, but they have only been here a week, and already have been blocked and warned over various issues. I would like to comment on that, but don't want to violate protocols. And by the way, the user removed a support when he voted to oppose. I reinstated it and messaged the user about it. Jeffpw 14:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)