Category:Founding Fathers of the United States CFD[edit]
Hello Dr. Submillimeter. The short answer is that I closed it as no consensus because that's what I felt the result should be after reading it at least half a dozen times over the last few days.
I do my very best not to count heads, not always easy, only to look at the arguments, so the fact that there was a 2:1 majority in favour of deletion was news to me. I found BrownHairedGirl's argument in favour of keeping persuasive (useful as a container, the main problem being duplicate categorisation of people in this and child categories), and it seemed to me that if that were fixed, Wimstead and Craig.Scott's arguments in favour of deletion would be resolved. My personal feelings are that we have far too many categories, and half (90% in the case of user cats) could be deleted with no loss of functionality. Maybe I'm overcompensating, but if the category could serve a useful purpose, it seems right to give it a chance. That's an argument that applies only once, and if it had been a second nomination, I'd have closed it differently. A no consensus close can always be renominated after a decent interval but deletion is rather final.
Anyway, if you find yourself a sympathetic admin (try Mike Selinker, VegaDark, or RobertG), they can reopen the CFD and close it as delete, if that's what they want. No need for deletion review. I shouldn't be closing these discussions anyway according to WP:DPR, but, as Rabbi Hillel didn't write on the subject of closing CFDs, "If not now, then when? If not me, then who?" I had thought that by helping out, the backlog might disappear, but all that seems to have happened is that those who would have closed the debates aren't doing it. The law of unintended consequences probably.
If you have a minute, take a look at the stuff I've closed lately. If I'm doing significantly worse than average, let me know. Angus McLellan(Talk) 11:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are using AWB now. Let me know if you have any example regular expression replacements that are useful there. I've not gotten around to figuring out the regexp syntax, so if you have examples that you use, that would be helpful. Thanks. WilliamKF 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information about the conposition of the galactic core that I added is documented in several other sources. If you just wanted to change the reference provided you should mention that in the article's talk page. uriel8 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When starting XfD discussions, please remember to give the creator a heads up as a courtesy. That being said, I had been debating with myself about starting that discussion (freemasons) for some time. Cheers and keep up the great work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: I have been guilty of this in the past. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm getting to be against organism categories by country. Rock Pigeon is currently in a few country categories, and House Mouse is in Fauna of Ireland. If we apply country categories completely consistently (the "completely" is there just for alliteration), each of those species would be in about 200 categories! I don't think that's a good method. I can see continent categories and correctly used endemic categories, especially for islands and lakes, and I can see lists of fauna and flora by country, but not country categories.
Please let me know if this question is revisited somewhere so I can contribute to the discussion. Thanks. —JerryFriedman 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you fixed most of the non-endemic bird pages. (I got a few that slipped by.) And I'm looking forward to supporting your proposal. —JerryFriedman 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just commented directly on your sandbox page, but I'll repeat that I think it would be a good idea to run Category:Fauna of Europe by region as a pilot in front of all others. I'm sure it will get a bigger response this time around. Regarding the others, I think we need to discuss (somewhere other than user talk) whether its best to partition Africa and N/C America. It's sensible, but if we do it, we loose the ability to use by continent as the parent and have to fall back on something like by region, which is vulnerable to re-population by country-sized categories. (It's also 2 more cats for boar, though that's not a big concern.) ×Meegs 12:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I just checked, and Wikispecies doesn't seem to use categories at all. Smart. ×Meegs 12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this, Dr. S. I'm going to mention it at WikiProject Birds, which might get some interested people to vote. Should it be publicized other places like that? —JerryFriedman 20:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I award this Barnstar to Dr. Submillimeter for excellent contributions to Wikipedia. —Quarl 2007-03-08
Dr. Submillimeter, have an award for your excellent work in astro articles and at CFD! (You're the first recipient of this barnstar!) —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-09 00:15Z
watched as an increasing number of my bookmarked articles appeared on my watchlist. It turned out that this was because Category:Sculptors who exhibited at the 3rd Sculpture International was being deleted. I was surprised to learn that this was happening because in the past when something like this was about to occur I, as the creator of the category and, I might add, most of the articles in it, was at least notified that this discussion and vote was happening. This is the second time that this has happened recently and by some astronomical coincidence (I'm sure you can do the math better that I can) you are involved in both. . Anyway this trend seems to me to be representative of the new wikipedian way, or perhaps it is just because the rest of wikipedia has caught up with my little niche, American sculpture. In any case I think that I am resigning from wikipedia, I am declaring most of my edits to be original research and opinion and let's see who can get them all deleted first. Carptrash 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, we have objective criteria to determining whether a story contains enough "real science" or "technical detail". Criteria hard as Hard science ;-) -- Q Original 14:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good definition for Hard science fiction is definition created by John W. Campbell, Jr.: (Hard) science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. (...) The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences." (Introduction, Analog 6, Garden City, New York, 1966) -- Q Original 16:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an argument does not hold water is not an attack on the person making it. I believe you are wrong to characterize it as such. By that logic, any expression of disagreement with the opinion of another would constitute a personal attack and that just isn't so. Otto4711 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would really be great if you could add the template {{cfd-article}} to the talk page of the main article that is connected to a Category you nominate as part of the Cfd process. As outlined on WP:CFD, this will give editors interested in that topic a better chance to participate in the cfd process. Thanks! UnitedStatesian 20:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Thanks for offering help. So, how to setup references correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedran8080 (talk • contribs) UTC 10:04, 14 March 2007
Why did you revert my changes? I changed the URL in the reference to go to the actual data sheet for the galaxy instead of to the front search page. I removed the duplicate categories, per WP:CAT which states:
In the "vertical" dimension, Wikipedia has traditionally been more frugal, placing articles only in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. Thus, if there is a Category:American film actors, John Wayne would go there and not in Category:Film actors or Category:American actors. However, there is a school of thought that argues that, because different users may be interested in different categories, and because placing articles in multiple categories takes up minimal additional space, in some cases one should place articles in all the categories that apply.
The generally accepted approach, not the later added one, is not to place an article in all vertical categories it belongs in. Particularly when it comes to categories that can grow as large as for something like galaxies, this approach has considerable merit.
The Mad Genius 07:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you reverted even my fix to the name of the reference work from "Results for" to "Results for NGC 5408". The Mad Genius 07:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to your comment on my talk page. I really wish you'd discuss this before reverting all my changes. Especially as you are also reverting other changes of mine at the same time. You are being, as you put it, unhelpful. The Mad Genius 07:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert however I did move back to the order suggested by MoS. I must admit it's been some time since I read the page closely and it's gotten more woolly (i.e. less strict) since the I last did. The ordering is per the section I indicated:
M86 (qualifier)
M86 something something (alphabetically sorted)
something something M86.
I reduced the textual descriptions to a minimum needed for navigation as opposed to browsing (per MOSDAB "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link."). Feel free to revert it back. Megapixie 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It does seem to have gotten rather loose of late. I prefer stricter guidelines for things like these. See you around. Megapixie 13:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the debate regarding whether or not to delete this category is over, but I think a lot of people are not understanding that the difference between radio and satellite is closer to that of broadcast television and cable twenty years ago. If you mentioned that someone was a television personality between 20-30 years ago, many people would not understand what you meant, as they did not have cable television. Similarly, mentioning XM or Sirius personalities as simply "radio personalities" would lead people to (naturally) think of terrestrial radio. Anyway...it's a moot point, because the discussion is closed. DestradoZero 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I hate to outvote people instead of reaching a consensus, but I'll certainly support future nominations of this kind. Thanks for doing the hard work! —JerryFriedman 22:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost really did fall out of my chair when I saw that you wrote this. Thank you for making this a good Friday. —ScouterSig 23:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you asking me to comment about? Or are you asking User:Radiant! to comment? If so, post on User:Radiant's talk page, not mine. KP Botany 08:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man cool down. Haha. I won't call it as a debate but rather a discussion. Well, I really do appreciate the amount of time and effort you have spent in helping the community to re-categorize the fauna by country categories. You and I are doing what we think is for the benefit of the community and not for individual purpose. I certainly would wish that you should join this discussion and create a new standardize method to categorize those species articles which could mount to more than 10,000 articles. Luffy487 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No, he's misrepresenting me. My statement was to indicate that repeated assertion from his side does not constitute proof, and he had started repeating himself on my talk page. >Radiant< 09:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do stick around the discussion. I'm sure we can ignore one person's fallacies and personal remarks, and still have a constructive debate. >Radiant< 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Telemachus and Mentor.JPGTHANK YOU for all of your help, advice, and especially patience with me and my pesky questions. Here is a picture of someone else who knows what they are doing (you) and a n00b (me). —ScouterSig 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been searching through Wikipedia for info on lists and categories, and the benefits/downsides to each; wow, this Wikipedia thing sure thought a lot of things through. :) I see that the most identifiable benefit of cats is that they are automatically/self-updating. If you can add some personal insight to what I have read as official wikipolicy to the whole situation, as well as the 'not paper' not applying to cats, I would appreciate some advice from someone who knows what they are doing. I've had a run-in with someone who, I belive, will no longer listen to anything I say on Wikipedia, as he deleted my apology, and am therefore focusing on why things happen. Thanks for your patience with me. —ScouterSig 02:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that all of edits you've recently made on sports announcers haven't made it so that their surnames is first and first name second. For example, Marv Albert should be formatted as Albert, Marv. TMC1982 08:30 p.m., 21 March 2007 (UTC)
You didn't exactly answer my question about why you ignored formatting surnames first and first/given names second while categorizing (which is the approiate way to do thing here). I didn't ask you about why categorizing announcers by network/program was eliminated. TMC1982 12:43 p.m., 22 March 2007 (UTC)
hi; you expressed some concerns regarding merging the space banners.. i believe i have address most of them with {{WPSpace}} - see User:Mlm42/test for its full range of options. i would like to know your thoughts on this new banner. cheers, Mlm42 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The unfortunate fact is, I didn't actually write most of the galactic tide article, and so can't claim much credit for it. I contacted the guy who did, who is eminently more qualified to answer your call than I, and he has done some preliminary research. However, he is very busy and he probably won't be able to do anything substantial for some time. Sorry. Serendipodous 12:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you fire up a bot and do a sort/purge or whatever it's called on Category:X-Men and Category:New Warriors? They are being used again to house member articles against consensus. List articles for both teams already exist. Thanks. Otto4711 01:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was going off of your comments in this CFD in which you indicated that the project did not want teams by member categories. Otto4711 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh? In what way is it a copyright violation. It was taken by Nasa, and I chose the correct licensing. Retiono Virginian 12:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was from that website. But I never meant to violate copyright, apologies. But It is an outerspace image and the chances are it is going to be took by Nasa, not some person with a camera. Retiono Virginian 12:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I never meant to copyright violate. But I thought it was Nasa because it was an outerspace picture, and I thought it could have only been took by Nasa due to the effect of the technology needed to take it. Please change the licensing, sorry about this. Retiono Virginian 12:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but anyway could I have the image deleted? Retiono Virginian 15:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the Peter T. King article and keeping it neutral and objective to the facts has inadvertently become a bit of a task for me. I was curious about your recent edit to it. Not challenging, just wondering. Fifty7 15:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, thanks. Fifty7 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that KP:Botany seems to have given up just about the same time you did. In fact, everyone seems to have given up. That either means no one is interested or it's time to revisit this topic. —JerryFriedman 04:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't give up, but when people won't answer questions, make accusations against you for asking them, then leave in a huff, I have to assume that there is something else going on, that I am not privvy to, and I don't want to get in the midst of it. I still want to know what the purpose is behind deleting categories in favor of lists. It was my bad to assume that since Dr. Sumillimeter and friends had decided to actively pursue deletion of categories of fauna by biogeographical region with a test case, they had a firm understanding of reasons for it that could simply be spit out when requested. I see no such articulation about why these categories should be deleted, just strange and pointless comments about animals living in one country living in the next, accusations of WP:POINT arguments in response to nothing remotely related to WP:POINT, and no ability to articulate why categories should be done away with in favor of lits. I still don't understand the purpose of categories versus lists. However, on the list-serve, I did get comments that lists were being done away with in favor of categories. So, I don't know what is going on, and those who proposed the deletion can't clearly explain what is going on, or aren't willing to for reasons I cannot know. What is it I should be continuing, being the target of overt hostility for asking hard questions that haven't been considered prior to extensive policy changes on Wikipedia, policies that other editors and admins seem not to know about or think are the opposite? KP Botany 05:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that you appear to be stopping your hard work because of conflict with a single unreasonable user. If he's being disruptive, perhaps this should be pointed out on the community sanction noticeboard? I'm not too happy about people who drive off others. >Radiant< 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dr Submillimeter. I tried to answer your question about the Mathieu groups at the the maths WikiProject, rather than here. I hope it helps. JPD (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to you on my talk page. Meanwhile, I have expanded the intro to Mathieu group slightly in response to your request. This is never going to be the place to explain what a finite simple group is, but I hope that by adding some links, at least the curious can find their way to some explanations. I leave it to you to decide whether the "too technical" template should remain (and hope others will improve upon my poor first effort). Geometry guy 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
