User talk:J'raxis/2004

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 2000 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 "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" 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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". 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)

Arab culture

J'raxis, I know you mean well, but please do not change comments made by users other than yourself (It is acceptable to remove negative comments or personal attacks). I specifically noted a red link to Arabic culture on the Arabic page, and I am, in fact, the person who added Arab culture to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts. Thank you for your understanding. --Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I wasn't sure if I should edit it or not—I generally avoid touching other people's user pages but since I cleaned up all the other stuff on Arabic culture's "What links here" page, I thought I should finish it up.

If we're going to have two pages around, with nothing actually written at either at the moment, I assume we'll eventually redirect Arabic culture to Arab culture. Perhaps it would be prudent to put the redirect in place now, so someone doesn't come along and create a page at the the first while someone else is writing a page for the second—although, having a redirect that goes to a currently unwritten page would be misleading and confusing. For these reasons I thought just converging the two at Arab culture would be best.

So what do you think should be done with it? Looking at the dates now, I see the entire situation only came about five days ago, so this will be resolved soon, I imagine.

— J’raxis 06:01, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were in the middle of cleaning up the pages. In that case, please change the link on the Arabic page to whatever you want. I just wasn't sure of the context of the changes, so I reverted back to the original ones. Now that I know you are trying to fix things, your change to Arab culture on the Arabic page sounds appropriate. Thanks for clearing that up for me. --Viriditas | Talk 07:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I tried to make the edit summary explain it without taking up too much space; if you look in my contribution history I made five changes virtually simultaneously all with the same edit summary so it makes it a little clearer what I was up to. Maybe in the future when I make multiple related changes, leaving an in-depth description on my talk page and just linking to that in each edit summary would make things clearer; I'm probably the only one looking at my contributions page.

I did edit the Arabic page. The only links remaining to Arabic culture now are here and on the other talk page. Whenever someone gets around to completing an Arab culture page, I guess making the other one redirect there is the smartest choice for now.

— J’raxis 07:47, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

Old Hungarian script categorization

I just saw your "compromise" categorization of the article and left it alone. I still have the opininion that en.wikipedia suffers from over-categorization, especially taking into account that neither technical support nor human consensus is available.

The drawback of deep hierarchies of categories and sparely populated categories rea, IMHO:

• Loss of easy overview and tracking of changing (the software should be able, some day, to display subctaegory members insidete the supercategory screen, by some criterion, but this support will be earliest in 1.5)
• Loss of definition strictness. You can control, that only alphabetic writing systems are categorized within Category:Alphabetic writing systems, but if this category is subdivided into N subcategories, perhaps even with depth > 1, other articles tend to be attracted into these subcats.

Just wanted to give 2 euro-cent.

Pjacobi 15:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In addition to category pages showing (in some sort of nested list structure, I presume) the articles within subcategories, if the category boxes on each page showed supercategories when an article was placed in a subcategory, I think that would avoid the second issue you mention. If the category box showed something like "Writing systems → Alphabetic writing systems → Runic alphabets," it would be much more clear what this "Runic alphabets" category was meant for.

— J’raxis (Talk) @ [[]] 21:30, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)