User talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2009/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!
Be bold!

Eberhard A

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


hahaha gay people were all happy lol lol


Matthew, regarding your recent edit at Canada, please review Wikipedia Style Manual. It advises that you shouldn't over-link, and you shouldn't link ordinary words like "soil". Just link to articles that readers would likely want to follow up on. After you've read this, perhaps you could reconsider those edits. Thanks. Kevintoronto 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i know a cow its u hahahahaha

Edit summary

Thank you for your categorisation work. I have a small request. Would you mind putting an edit summary, if an edit is not minor, or clicking the "minor edit" checkbox if it is a minor edit. Edit summaries serve a very useful purpose, they notify other people what you have changed and it can save us the trouble of actually taking the diffs to see what is going on. Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And a quick remark. If a math article is in a math category, it is kind of unnecessary to put it in Category:Mathematics too. This makes Category:Mathematics quite big. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov

will oblige on categorizing

i see your point now on how better to categorize articles, in particular with the calculus article. regards Mayumashu 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have been more diplomatic though. I hope the reversion in calculus did not make you too mad. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Finals" tournament

Hi Mayumashu, "finals tournament" is just not proper English. "Tournament finals" is, but it's also a bit over-complicating things. In fact, "final tournament" is correct, as opposed to "final match". Also, when you say "Euro 2004", you imply the final tournament, so no need to add the word there. Sorry to nitpick. --Dryazan 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mayumashu, I completely understand what you're talking about. The way "final" can refer to either the game or the tournament is confusing. However, "Finals tournament" makes NO SENSE in American English, whereas "Final tournament" can make sense in British English, as far as I know (and "Tournament finals" makes sense in both, but it also sounds a bit cludgy). While there's no need to push one time of English over another on Wikipedia, it just makes sense (for me, at least) to avoid a phrase which is gramatically incorrect for a larger percentage of Wikipedia's readers. And since RSSSF uses "Final tournament", and so did these pages for months without anything complaining, we should probably go with that. --Dryazan 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Japan Intro

Please explain why you changed this paragraph. Check the facts before changing things. As I wrote, there are a FEW island chains extending away from the mainland, but there NOT a few islands extending away from the mainland. Check how many islands there are in Okinawa. Not few (over 300). Also, mentioning Ryūkyū Islands and Okinawan islands in one sentence is also redundant because the Okinawan islands is part of the Ryūkyū islands. Change it back. Photojpn.org 04:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid getting it "straighter" compared to getting it "straight" is not enough. You introduced another misleading element by saying "some islands." I wouldn't call hundreds of islands "some." There is no need to quantify it. And your sentence "the lower portion of an island chain known as the Ryūkyū Islands, which comprise Okinawa prefecture," is too wordy and unnecessary.

The reason why I included Izu/Ogasawara is because the previous version implied that there was only one island chain (Okinawa) extending from the mainland. I wanted to affirm that that wasn't the case.

Please change it back to my original text. There was nothing wrong with it. Photojpn.org 23:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even fully understand your replies. "i resent being told i have my facts wrong when i had but one so." What does that mean? I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, but obviously you are not a very good writer. This matter is not even worth posting on the Japan discussion page. Photojpn.org 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Flags

Hello, the flags are where the players' home towns are, not where they are born. I used the Canadian Soccer website for this infor, and when it was not listed, I did an internet search. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diacritics

You can use the characters below the edit box - not as fast as typing but it still works. So for example the first five are ÁáÉéÍ. --Henrygb 10:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

footy terminology

Dear Forbsey, a quicky if i may - do Scots call an international (someone who plays for the national side), an internationist? i ve run into the term now a few times and saw where you used it when starting up the page for my favourite soccer player, Gary McAllister, that you used the term. i m wondering if it s a term particularly Scottish or what, as far as you know. appreciate the help, Mayumashu 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mayumashu. The term 'internationalist' is used by be personally but I wouldn't say that it was generally used by Scots. More people probably say 'international' when describing an international player but both terms are palatable. However feel free to change it if you feel that 'international' is more relavent in terms of common football jargon.
Forbsey 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Statlers

Yep, they were great, and I was a huge fan of their comedy. Rlquall 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nova Scotians by Occupation

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you have been using a lot of "Nova Scotian by occupation" type categorizations. While there is precedent for having a People from Nova Scotia cat, breaking it down by occupation is way way overdoing it. There was considerable debate even if occupations should have been broken down by nationality. I strongly recommend that you depopulate these categories (move to the appropriate Canadian by Occupation cats) and put them up for Categories for Deletion. Fawcett5 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you added the CfD notice to the categories, but didn't list them at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up for deletion, please re-add the tag and list it properly. Thanks. BTW, if you need help with this, I'll be happy to lend a hand. --Kbdank71 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Hi, I noticed you marked Category:American tennis coaches for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories and parents

I noticed you added Nova Scotia to Halifax Int. Airport. However, that article is already in Nova Scotia via the Airports-->Transport-->Nova Scotia route, and by policy we don't add articles to parents of cats that they are already in. Hope this clears this up. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • You have to dig a little bit, but here it is "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United/History of Manchester United

Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

  • Manchester United pre-1945
  • Manchester United 1945-1968
  • Manchester United 1968-1986
  • Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.


Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

For your information...

Blanking pages does not delete them; I'm refering to your blanking of a few redirects to Professional Tennis Championships, ie Hans Gildemeister. There is a procedure for deleting pages: WP:RfD, WP:IfD and WP:VfD. Please follow it next time. Thanks! humblefool® 03:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Bruce Barnes

Please do not blank articles without providing some rationale in their discussion page. To do otherwise is vandm at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up

Central Economy

Page 33 L16 of my Atlantic Canada Road Atlas First Edition by MapArt Publishing. I can scan it in for you if you want to see it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, alright I will scan it in. I have to install my scanner again, since I havent used it in a while. I reckon it's just an alternate name for economy, as I dont believe my atlas shows Economy. Best regards. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mmmkay, I wasnt able to get the software working, because my computer collapsed while I was trying to load it, but I did take a photograph of the page, which works just as fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:DSCN0355.JPG

Categories

Regarding your edits to Category:Cape Breton Island, I just wanted to clarify that Wikipedia actually has very explicit rules about how the category system is applied -- namely, an article should never be simultaneously filed in both a category and a subcategory of that same category. The rule is always that you file an article only in the narrowest appropriate categories that don't directly duplicate each other's informational purpose. In this case, the actual appropriate category is Category:Islands of Nova Scotia; since it's in there, it doesn't also go in "Islands of Canada", "Nova Scotia" or "Canada" since "Islands of Nova Scotia" is already part of the subcategory tree of all of those. This isn't just a matter of my own personal opinion, by the way -- it's actual Wikipedia policy regarding category management. Bearcat 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories and double spacing

I've noticed that while you've been adding cats and footers to articles, you've been double spacing between them and all the sections. This is not necessary, is non-standard and in truth, makes the article harder to read. Could you please refrain from inserting double spaces between sections? Thanks. Wyss 16:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you said you'll continue to insert double spacing into articles even though you're aware most do not contain it? Are you aware you're not following consensus? Wyss 09:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Double spacing is not a good idea, for several reasons. The most important one is that the convention (implicit or explicit, it doesn't matter) here is to use single spacing. Whether or not there is a rule that specifically prohibits it is irrelevant: by using double spacing you create more work for other editors, because they will feel compelled to clean up after you. So please try to follow the conventions and editing practices employed in the best articles on Wikipedia. Insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong is generally unwise and doing things your way could easily be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Re-adding blank lines is an especially bad idea.

"Whoever" this is that made the above reply, let me say that i have never i conveyed (explicitly nor implicitly, whichever) that others are wrong and i am right on the aesthetics of single versus double spacing between sections. the truth is i should not edit the way articles written by others are spaced nor should wiki editors (i m guessing you have this or a similar position) edit for so-called blank spaces. i ve been disruptive according to the policy you ve cited above ([[WP:POINT|disrupting ...), true. Ironically enough however, the first point the page makes is that there are inconsistencies through the encycl.. editing out double spacing for single spacing because of a consensus among editors and the like (not users at large) is equally disruptive. i will set my default style sheet as suggested by the user who s replied below and i wonder why you, my fellow pedantics, will do the same. - Mayumashu 04:16:59, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

The above was the first paragraph of my message. People remove extra blank spaces all the time. The reason is consistency: if I want more space, I can adjust it in my user stylesheet. But that only gives consistent results if the underlying text uses single spacing. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Other reasons why adding blank lines before section headings is bad are that it creates inconsitencies across the project and that it takes control over the layout away from readers. The latter is because you can easily adjust the layout of articles by using a custom CSS style sheet. If you prefer double spacing when reading articles, I suggest you modify the default style sheet according to your preferences. See m:Help:User style for further details. Cheers, --MarkSweep 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to edit User:Mayumashu/monobook.css. Try adding the following content (copy this from the rendered HTML page, not from the raw wikitext, though): 

 /* <pre><nowiki> */
   
 h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
   margin-top: 2em;
 }
 
 .firstHeading {
   margin-top: 0px;
 }

 /* </nowiki></pre> */

If you want more or less space, adjust the "margin-top" property. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sir Edward Knatchbull

Hello there. Edward Knatchbull belongs in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England because the baronetcy which he inherited was created in 1641. Why did you change the category? Mackensen (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Same thing with Robert Peel. The baronetcy was created in 1800, right before the Act of Union, which places it in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. Mackensen (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I shouldn't have removed the Natives of Lancashire category. That was my mistake. I'll restore it at once. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Argentine people

Please, bear in mind that Category:Argentine people should not be just categorised by their city/province of birth, but also by more important things such as Category:Argentine people by occupation. If the article has no other Argentine category, perhaps it would be better to give it a (id needed new) sub category of by occupation. thenks, Mariano 12:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Category change on Robert Clark (actor)

I'm curious as to why you changed one of the categories on the article Robert Clark (actor) from "People of Ontario" to "Toronto people". As the article states, Clark was born in Oakville, Ontario (which is in the Greater Toronto Area, but is not in Toronto itself), and then moved to Florida, and then back up to Ontario (but not to Toronto). I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever lived in the city of Toronto. Although I backed up my contributions to that article with references, I'm wondering if I got it wrong, and hope that you can clear this up for me. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't live anywhere near Toronto, and I'm not familiar with the geography of the area, so if you think the category should be changed back, then I won't object. Thanks for the information! Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Erroneous entry

As with the above entry i am requesting that you remove the name of Thomas Browne from your list of Cheshire people. Browne was born in London and lived in Norwich from 1637-1682. I am curious as to how you acquired this misinformation. Please remove entry. From reading the above entries this seems to be a persistent mistake of yours,is Wikipedia really about creating lists, or propogating mistakes. Please ammend.Norwikian

Category:Canadian linguists

I saw your changes to Category:Canadian linguists. Since you objected to the use of Template:Fooian scientist types, I've changed it back to Template:Fooian fooers. This moved Category:Canadian linguists back into Category:Linguists by nationality where it belongs, instead of Category:Linguists. I have a Template:Fooian social scientist types that is in use on Category:American linguists that could be a better pick than the fooers template. Would you mind me using that template? The problem with not putting Linguists under Scientists in the national subcategories is that not all national categories have a Social scientists subcat (e.g. Category:Canadian social scientists does not exist, but Category:Polish social scientists does).

Also, I don't think that Category:Canadian anthropologists is accurate, but I left it there. Not all linguists are anthropologists. Mike Dillon 17:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. take a look at Category:Canadian scientists. It already has a number of social scientist subcats under it: anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists. I think that linguists belongs there too until Category:Canadian social scientists exists. Mike Dillon 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've started a Category:Social scientists by nationality. Please add your new Category:Canadian social scientists to this category. Mike Dillon 17:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Canadian mathematics professors

Hi Mayumashu. I saw that you created this category. I just wonder why you think it was not enough to categorize those articles in Category:Canadian mathematicians. From what I know, most mathematicians are mathematics professors. And I think that the absolute majority of mathematics professors who are not serious mathematicians don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. So in my view, Category:Canadian mathematicians should have been enough for categorizing the notable Canadian mathematicians who are math professors. I wonder what you think. You can reply here, I will keep a watch on this page. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Oleg. I agree 200% with you, and would now like to do away with the math professor cat as well as all professor cats. i created it to form a link between Category:Canadian professors and Category:Canadian academics, but i ve since changed my mind about the matter. i think that being a prof (in itself) is NOT encyclopedically noteworthy and therefore that there should be no Category:Professors cat. anyone who happens to be a prof and encyclopedically noteworthy because of their research contributions should be catted as an academic, according to their field, shouldn t they. i would like to see Category:Professors done away with. i m considering doing away with all the canadian prof sub-cats, but it ll take a bit of work and there are other cat work (my little wiki activity now) i m working on. -Mayumashu 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, all you need to do is remove the mathematicians from there (put them in Category:Canadian mathematicians) and then put a speedy tag in the category, that is {{d}}. That will work because you created it. You can explain in the edit summary or on the category talk page that you don't find it useful anymore. Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Jack Hanna category

How is Jack Hanna's relationship to Knoxville more important than his relationship to Ohio? Category:People from Ohio isn't just for people who were born there (it's not called "Ohio natives"), and the only subnational place that he's notable in connection with is Ohio, as the director of the Columbus Zoo. His connection to Knoxville is merely trivia to us because he didn't do anything notable there. If he's going to be in a subnational category, Ohio is the only state with which his notability has a significant connection. Postdlf 03:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing people by city

I notice that you've created a few of these—why? What do you think is accomplished by categorizing individuals by cities? What do you think the ultimate effect will be? What are your criteria for including them in each city category? Simply having lived there at some time during their lives? Presently living there? Postdlf 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Categories "Natives of Split" and particularly "Natives of Sibenik-Knin" are pointless (the latter is a modern-day county, not a city, even). Please don't do it without prior discussion. --Joy [shallot] 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

formatting of stub notices

If you wish to make {{hoopsbio-stub}} indented, do it there, don't indent it in individual articles using it. --Joy [shallot] 07:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates for instructions.--Rmky87 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish Chicagoans

Hi there. If you are still interested Category:Irish Chicagoans is currently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 12 JW 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Edmond Lapierre

Just a minor note on a recent edit of yours -- the Canadian notice board discussed it long ago and decided that Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons should not itself contain any articles about individual members, past or present. People should only be filed in one or more appropriate subcategories, because the main category would just be too large and unwieldy otherwise. So the main category should contain only the subcategories and the list-of-members articles. Thanks. Bearcat 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page

You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page. See Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. "Assume goodwill" we are told. So I am going to assume this was an honest mistake on your part. Can I count on you fixing it? I'd like you to remove the entry from the AfD list. -- Geo Swan 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. When I wrote you I didn't see what attracted your attention. But afterwards I did.
I have been monitoring newspaper articles about the detainees in the US "war on terror". And, when I come across an article or two that have enough information in them to write an article I start an article, or contribute to their existing article, if they have one. I started the article on Omar Khadr. And in the last two months a whole bunch more. 48 so far.
Well. about three weeks ago I had an article I started nominated for AfD. Actually four of them at once. "Not notable", "Anti-American bias"... One of the four was deleted. As part of that discussion someone suggested a "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees". A good idea. I started it. It was nominated for deletion almost right away. It survived. Overwhelming keeps. Just a few deletes. One user cryptically said they had a "concern about sourcing". I made several attempts to learn what this persons concern was -- thinking that they were also going to assume good will.
Wrong. They misused the copyright violation procedure, submitteing it in bad faith I believe. I continued to be polite, until they started lying in the wikipedia copyright problems page. I became more blunt, and said I thought they were showing bad faith. They didn't respond directly. But they promptly nominated an article I had written about a US soldier, Jeffrey Waruch, who is under investigation for killing a young girl, and seriously wounding her sister and mother. Later today they nominated a second article I had written about a US soldier, Carolyn Wood, the officer who drafted the illegal interrogation procedures that caused so many problems in Iraq. I think this is not a coincidence.
Anyhow. I made copies of all those articles in my user space. But I overlooked that the links in those article would show up in the "what links here". And it would mess up the categories, etc. So I should tank you for triggering my understanding that I should surround my backup copies with a nowiki...
When you nominated my backup copy for AfD I did consider that there was a conspiracy to delete or suppress all content that showed the war on terror in a bad light. Lol. --- Geo Swan 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Osias Godin

People are not supposed to be simultaneously filed in parent categories and subcategories of the same parent. We do not file MPs directly in Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons; we file them in subcategories by their province and political party only. Bearcat 18:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...looks like you did this before I noted this above re: Edmond Lapierre; I just can't figure out why it wasn't showing up in the master category at the time. Bearcat 18:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Any mistakes i have made in filing MPs is merely accidental for i do a lot of filing and fully intend to file MPs by province. Apologies for my carelessness with the one or two you ve brought up. -Mayumashu 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Irish British category vote requested

Hi I noticed you voted to keep Scottish-Americans I would appreciate your help to retain Category:Irish British people, as I feel is perfectly valid to point out Irish people or people of near Irish descent who have contributed to life in Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales). Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks!! Arniep 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Would you consider voting for a rename Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain, Irish diaspora is a widely used phrase and doesn't place an indication of citizensip which the other name gave so I think this is acceptable. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks Arniep 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Manhattanites, etc.

Hi. When you add Category:Manhattanites, e.g. to a person who already has Category:People from New York City, you should delete the latter category, since Category:Manhattanites belongs to Category:People from New York City. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been - i apologize if i missed one.-Mayumashu 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Irish British eureka moment

Hi Mayumashu I think I've finally worked out the best solution to resolve the disagreement on this category. We should split this category into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Irelandor born to ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). I would appreciate if you could support the new proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop!

Please stop creating new categories for traditional counties of Scotland, and re-allocating people to them from modern council areas. This has already been a subject for debate at Cfd recently, when Category:Natives of Lanarkshire was deleted. Please raise the issue at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. We must come to a consensus on this one, because having two parallel systems is very confusing. It must be pointed out that traditional counties have not existed for 30 years, and the new council areas seem here to stay because no political party wants to change them.--Mais oui! 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

i m only relocating individuals who were dead long before there were coucil areas - it s far more confusing to have 19th century people in coucil area cats!! -Mayumashu 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish American actors

Hi, I noticed your vote on this. I just wondered whether you realised that this category contains many people in it have only one parent (or even grandparent in some cases) who was jewish, do not identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. I think it needs to be deleted because it doesn't make sense that a person who does not identify as wholly jewish could be described as a jewish american actor such as Carrie Fisher, Patricia Arquette, Robert Downey Jr., Michael Douglas. Arniep 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

it s a problem with all similar categories - the point does not warrant getting rid of the cat, just the pages you ve mentioned plus an explanation as to why you ve removed them as discussion on the page -Mayumashu 12:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thnks for your comment on the cfd page. People are being included in Jewish American categories not using the religious requirement that you have a jewish mother but regarding jewish as an ethnicity. So, even if only their father or grandfather was jewish they are being added to this category. It just seems totally non sensical to have people described as jewish american actors if they do not identify as jewish and are also of mixed ancestry like Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Michael Douglas, people like these should be in a category like Americans with Jewish ancestry to avoid these sorts of labelling problems, the same should be done for all the other ethnicity categories. Arniep 13:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

American geography by state

You agreed with me that Category:Hawaiian geography should be renamed Category:Geography of Hawaii. I have now nominated all the American states for renaming, and if you could find the time to vote in favour, I would be very grateful. CalJW 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Pat Lowther

We've been through the thing about Wikipedia's categorization rules before: Category:Vancouverites is already a subcategory of Category:People from British Columbia; accordingly, a person cannot be simultaneously filed in both categories. Bearcat 04:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

North Vancouver is a separate city and Category:Vancouverites is necessarily both for people of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver, thus the overlapping -Mayumashu 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
If you feel strongly that the possibility of confusion exists, the other alternative would be to put her in "People from British Columbia" instead of "Vancouverites"; the fundamental problem is that if you worked hard enough, you could find a reason for absolutely every article on Wikipedia to get exempted from the categorization rules. If a category scheme creates too many problems of this type, it doesn't mean we should allow exception after exception; it means the category is badly thought out and should be fundamentally restructured. Bearcat 04:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
having her in both is a perfectly fine exception to allow and there aren t that many (perhaps 5%) of pages catting people by their province/city of origin that have this kind of overlap. not everything is always black and white - shades of grey do exist - Mayumashu 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it really isn't; Wikipedia rules are quite explicit that we just don't simultaneously file an article in both a subcategory and a parent of that same subcategory. When it comes to categorization, a shade of grey just means the contrast needs to be sharpened. Categories should be defined and structured in such a way that "exemptions" are never even needed. Bearcat 07:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
then these so-called rules may need to further evolve to reflect realities that exist. there are other cases too. most states have a state writer's subcat. but if a writer happens to also be an actor too, then she or he should rightly appear in both the sub-cat for state writers and its parent cat for people from the state. the rules are but rules of thumb anyway and can be changed given a great enough collective will. User:Bearcat, i come across your edits and commits fairly often and i can tell you we re of different minds on many issues - i know we re not going to sway the other person to change their mind. to sort out the Vancouverite sub cat issue without an overlap, i ll go and start up sub-sub-cats for North Vancouver, New Westminister, Maple Ridge, and other small cities in the Greater Vancouver area despite feeling personally that they are rather smally populated to have cat for the time being - ideally though i d like to all cities eventually have a cat for its natives/inhabitants so now will suffice. i hope despite our differences no hard feelings at all. Regards, -Mayumashu 02:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

James Creelman

How funny that you're related. I'm actually just now reading a book called The Yellow Kids about Creelman and other contemporaries. It's fascinating stuff. Feel free to expand the stub if you can; I plan on expanding it quite a lot when I find time next. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Hi, sorry I missed your comment on my talk amidst the whole kerfuffle. I agree that sometimes it would be useful to have browse a whole category of many occupations like writers, artists, actors, singers without country specifity and much faster thanis currently possible. I think this would need a software change so maybe I or you could suggest it somewhere? Also Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:LGBT_criminals I would be very grateful if you could reconsider your vote as this category is meaningless as gay people have lived in many eras and countries with different laws (the same applies to Jewish criminals, Catholic criminals etc.). I don't think any blanket criminal category should exist unless it is just a parent cat for more specific crimes. Regards Arniep 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

cats for Alyn McCauley

Hi, just wondering if there's any particular reason for your change of [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|McCauley, Alyn]] to [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|Mccauley, Alyn]] (without capitalizing the second C). The C definitely is capitalized... Heck I just saw him playing a game against the Leafs last night on HNIC and his sweater definitely had it capitalized. (Very technically speaking, I suspect the first C should be in superscript, resulting in McCauley, but that's a minor detail).

The name after the pipe isn't displayed on the category page, so I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious if there's a rule I should know about. --Qviri 19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! --Qviri 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn

You goofed the AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn, putting the text inside your AfD for Horses Eat sugar. I'll fix it. Jamie 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NS Communities Project...

Would you like to join the Nova Scotia Wikipedia project I am about to start with PlasmaEast? We are planning on launching a NS Community templates for Counties, Towns/Municipalities, and HRM, similar to the template that started appearing this week on county pages Halifax County, Nova Scotia. Also, have a bi-weekly "Nova Scotia Project Page" to focus efforts. Interested?WayeMason 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

sure. templates is not really my interest but they look good to me Mayumashu 23:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Good! Templates are just my thing. I feel strongly that we could focus our work a bit and bring the whole Nova Scotia section to a higher standard. WayeMason 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has started on the talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia article, please head over there and watch the project page! WayeMason 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Canadian university and college chief executives

Hi Mayumashu,

I am in the process of merging the categories Category:Canadian university and college rectors, Category:Canadian university chancellors and presidents, and Category:Canadian university and college principals and vice-presidents into the new Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. I find it very confusing to have three categories for essentially the same position with just different names. I have also created the Category:Canadian university and college chancellors since this is more of an honorary position. Let me know if you have any issues with this.

--YUL89YYZ 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds great. i rather hastily created them without having sorted out the distinctions such as the one you mention of chancellors being rather ceremonial. appreciate that you mailed me on it too. best regards, Mayumashu 09:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dr.Ann Duggan

Hey, I was wondering if you can comment on this page since you have added to it. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ann_Duggan

Anakinskywalker 7:30, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

i simply added a category. i d have to say i don t think she s notable enough, so i ll refrain from voting. regards Mayumashu 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 18-Jan, you blanked Columbusites. Your edit summary stated that redirects to categories are inappropriate. While that's true, page blanking is also a bad idea. I've changed it to be a redirect to List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cinema in scotland

Have you seen this re-nomination at Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_28#Category:Cinema_of_Scotland_--.3E_Category:Scottish_actors_and_filmmakers--Mais oui! 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Hi Mayumashu. What was your logic for putting Category:Asian Canadians as a supercategory of Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada?

If you're referring to the idea that aboriginal peoples came across the Pacific from Asia, well, that's true, but it happened so long ago that classifying them as "Asians" doesn't make sense. By extending the same logic a few millenia backwards we might as well all be Africans. --Saforrest 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hi there. you re right. i checked to see when humans migrated into Europe and like you suggest it only happened recently, c.40 000 years ago compared to the migration of proto-Native Canadians, Americans, etc. which was 15 000 to 30 000 years ago. i think you ve raised a perfect point for changing the sub-catting i did. i ll change it and apologies for my not checking to see when the European migration occurred 222.228.97.207 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Would you please not apply redlinked categories to articles? Wikipedia has a rule about this — if you want to apply a category that doesn't already exist, you have to create the category immediately. You cannot leave red category links on articles under any circumstances. Bearcat 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish in GB cat vote

Hi, it would better to vote rename for this cat, otherwise someone would have to go through and change all the people in the cat by hand (the Irish in GB cat can then be recreated or just make the England Wales and Scot cats as sub cats of Irish emigrants). If the cat is renamed a bot will automatically change all the articles Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30#Category:People_of_Irish_descent_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Football Aid

I've noticed you did an edit on Owen Hargreaves back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. Kingjeff 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks but no, i m not a fan of his. took a peak though and his article looks a lot better than it did a year ago. just needs the stats table filled in Mayumashu 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Categories: Phoenixers and Tucsonans

I have proposed renaming this, for the express purpose that people from Phoenix, Arizona are not called Phoenixers at all. The proper usage, as attested in all local newspapers, is "Phoenician". However, this coincides with the adjective for residents of ancient Phoenicia as well. (Also see 1 2 3 4) The only people who refer to residents of Phoenix as Phoenixers are out-of-towners, and the vast majority of hits for "Phoenixers" on Google refer to clubs based in Britain.

Similarly, the proper term for a resident of Tucson, Arizona is not Tucsoner, but Tucsonan (see 1 2 3).

Both of these terms (Phoenician and Tucsonan) are widely attested in local media, whereas Phoenixer and Tucsoner are absent. I think this is pretty good grounds for speedy renaming.

Cheers! -- Miwa 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

Hi. I reverted your category blanking on Andrew Carnegie. It sounded from your edit summary that you were seeing the categories as redlinks or something, but they are valid categories as far as I can tell. If I read your summary wrong, feel free to explain more what you're trying to do. Thanks! :) --Syrthiss 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hi. no,　his category page Category:Andrew Carnegie already links or should link to these same category pages whose links i blanked. its just rather needless duplication Mayumashu 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I think from a categorization point of view, his article should have the categories applied to it. When his category (which is kind of odd in itself) has categories applied to it, that makes it a subcategory of those categories. So, I'd rather see Category:Steel Magnates point to Andrew Carnegie than Category:Andrew Carnegie because there are no other steel magnates that would go into the subcategory Category:Andrew Carnegie. Does that make sense? If so, I'll try to move some of those categories from the Category:Andrew Carnegie over to the article. While there is some duplication, it isn't complete. --Syrthiss 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
i agree that there is some oddity in it and think what you suggest doing here is good Mayumashu 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually non-straightforward category name changes

Hi there, I just lodged a "complaint" about the "nationals by ethnicity" category name changes which unfortunately happened before I was aware of the related discussion and vote. Please take a look at the comment, and feel free to respond, at the Norwegian Canadians category talk page. --Wernher 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:People from Oakland

Hi. Can you inform me as to why Category:People from Oakland was redirected to Category:Oaklanders? This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I could be wrong, but I don't think "Oaklander" is a word that is used by anyone other than the person who created this cat. —Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. the term 'Oaklanders' is used in like the fourth paragraph of the article Oakland, California, so it seems at least some people use the demonym. Mayumashu 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. As it turns out, the City of Oakland and the media (Oakland Tribune) use the term on their websites, but I don't think anyone from Oakland ever uses the term, nor have I ever heard someone from Oakland refer to themselves as an "Oaklander". —Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
interesting. i personally like using the demonyms because they tidy up page names but there is the issue of their dissuse amongst everyday folk. there was a vote on the issue of using demonyms for people of California sub-cat pages back in the autumn, which ended no consensus to change, hence the redirect as it is - to get a date for that vote and debate see the history of the Category:Oaklanders page (i checked and the debate occurred around 27 Nov. '05). best regards Mayumashu 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Robyn Regehr

As regards you saying there's no evidence he holds Brazilian citizenship... he was born in Brazil, and a quick Google on the subject says Brazil, like most countries, automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents' nationality.

That said, I haven't re-added the category you removed since I highly doubt he identifies himself as "Canadian-Brazilian". But just thought you should be aware that many countries grant citizenship by birth and unless he has renounced it Regehr is indeed a Brazillian citizen, as well as Canadian. --Legalizeit 08:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i would then prefer to have him listed as a Canadian-Brazilian and will restore the cat link as i think self-identication is too vague a way of determing the matter Mayumashu 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indianapolitans

I see you created Category:Indianapolitans. I have lived in Indianapolis for 28 years and have never heard the term "Indianapolitan". Where did that come from? --rogerd 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. it seems to be the most commonly used demonym to refer to people from Indy - a search gets 50 or so unique hits. demonyms allow the page names to be more concise as well as less "sterile" - the problem is though that demonyms are (i m now learning) not so commonly used in some (perhaps many) Ameican cities. go ahead and put it up name-change nomination if you feel "people from indianapolis" is a more appropriate way to name the page Mayumashu 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, before I do, I will do some more research. My wife, who was born here (I came after college), has also not heard the term. There is no need to act in haste. --rogerd 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

C. S. Lewis

Please don't remove categories like this. Both are accurate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

other categories links listed on this page (such as Category:Irish writers or Category:Natives of Belfast) are sub-categories for the supra-category Category:Irish people. it is conventional practice across the encyclopedia to not list supra-category links on article pages Mayumashu 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for th misunderstanding, but a more accurate edit summary would have avoided this; you wrote "removed improper cat link", which – in light of the current debate on the Talk page – didn't look as though you were merely pruning parent categories. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
that was for a second edit of my own goof - i had added an improper cat link, realized it later, and then edited it out. i made two edits and the first edit summary i gave, "removed supra cat link, ..." accurately describes my removing the category:Irish people link. (i see that the supra-cat link has been re-removed) Mayumashu 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Prospector categories

Someone created Category:Prospectors today and peopled it mainly with Australian gold rush prospectors. While poking around, I noticed you had previously created Category:Gold prospectors, with only William Barker (prospector) in it, who was also put in the new category. I made the Gold prospectors category a sub of the new one & categorized the new one under mining. I'm thinking of putting in four or five Klondike Gold Rush figures in one of the two categories, but before I do that, I'm wondering whether we should merge the two categories at this point, given the relatively small number of articles. What are your thoughts? Luigizanasi 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for asking. i guess merging given the small number of prospector bios out there would be the better choice, but i wouldn t be bothered the slightest either way. regards Mayumashu 11:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
After giving it some thought and poking around a bit more, I think we should keep both categories as they can both easily be populated a bunch of people who already have articles. Luigizanasi 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ken Babstock

Hi! Do you know that being from Newfoundland is incidental to Ken? Just wondering. --Robert Turner 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

hello. my point on the matter of "people from" category pages is that a person is not from a place he or she wasn t raised in. it s where a person is raised that contributes to how they become "shaped" as people. Mayumashu 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Your point is well taken, however that distinction seems a bit arbitrary. A person's birthplace can also shape them even if they are raised somewhere else. Giving a rather depressing example, suppose someone survived the bombing of Nagasaki as an infant, was raised in Toledo, and suffered from radiation sickness their whole life? Would they not be 'shaped' by their birthplace? I'm sure that any survey of biographical literature will reveal many other kinds of less dramatic but still significant 'birthplace-only' influences.
Perhaps most importantly, people are shaped by their internal imagery, which can crystallize around a tiny kernal of information. My point is that the statement "that he was born in Newfoundland is incidental - he was raised in Ontario and is therefore native to to there" has an authoritative tone to it which I am challenging. KB has travelled to - and written poems about - Newfoundland, and I don't think that's just by chance. --Robert Turner 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Northern Irish people

Hi. Please take a look at my comment on your rename nomination Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1#Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland. Thanks. --Mal 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Canadian musicians categorization effort

Hi, I notice you were responsible for creating and populating much of the structure under Category:Canadian musicians. Just thought that you may be interested to know that we're currently continuing to build on this structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. –Unint 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivisions

...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful.

could you maybe change your vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country

and let's discuss this on the project page

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms

first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. As Lorenz pointed out it seems important that we first find clear definitions of what all the terms mean. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Britons

I've nominated this category for deletion (or, possibly, renaming — though my preference is for deletion) at [[1]]. Please comment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

wp:point

why do you claim Category:Former country subdivisions was a point creation? such a cat simply did not exist. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i meant merely to vote for the renaming of the cat page and neither support nor refute the wp:point claim of that the user has made on the cats for deletion page. apologies for any misunderstanding. best regards Mayumashu 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see, best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Professors

I agree on the change from professors to academics, but please note that "faculty" as a collective for academic staff is only used in North America. Elsewhere "faculty" generally retains the traditional meaning of a subdivision of a university. As it also has this meaning in many American universities (e.g. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences), using it in a category name is not ideal. Uppland 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

then we should name the supra-cat Category:Academics by university. i nominate the change Mayumashu 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

University CFRs

Hi Mayumashu. Three things about your newest CFRs:

  1. I was preparing a mass renaming proposal similar to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#university category pages named with abbreviations .2F non-English for after my speedies went through. Mine was a subset of yours, though, so... good job!
  2. Regarding Category:Faculties by university in the United States, I'm still thinking about the proposed change, and its siblings', to Academics, but I think I like it. I do think I'd like its subcategories to remain faculty (singular), though. Is this compatible with your vision, or is that your next step?
  3. Though the cats in other countries are less standardized, Alumni, which includes graduates and non-grads, is dominant in Category:People by university in the United States. The exceptions are:
Bucknell should certainly be renamed, but I've been hesitant to decide whether to try to change the military academies. One nice property of unified alumni categories is that the the football player and other athlete categories (which can be extremely large) can serve as subcategories. A compromise might be to make alumni categories for the academies with grads and non-grad subcats. What do you think?

×Meegs

hi there. nice to see two people in near complete agreement!, as it seems we are. i just yesterday nominated 'Category:Faculties by university in the U.S.' (as well as Canada, and Mexico) be changed to "faculty", just as you point out. and yes, i d make "Fooian (uni.) graduates" cat pages sub-cats to "Fooian (uni. name) alumni pages". Mayumashu 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wow, we do agree on everything: I didn't read you first proposal well enough and though it called for all the country cats to go to academics. I will make an alumni supercat for the each of the military academy graduates cats, but I think I'll still CFR Bucknell. Cheers. ×Meegs 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Former country subdivsions

with respect to your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_11#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former country subdivisions

Why do you want to delete this cat? if you write per WAS but then say you don't follow his POINT claim, then only two WAS claims stay:

  • The term is non-standard, having one badly translated reference in one document.
  • The category itself is not notable, as these few articles are already categorized in their respective countries.
    • The cat grew and has now 7 articles and 14 cats in it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Year of birth and death categories

Please stop moving these to the top of category lists as they are patently not the most useful defining categories. Indeed they are the least useful unless the person in some trivial category which probably shouldn't exist. Osomec 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it is common practice to put years of births and deaths first - look at bios that have been feature articles Mayumashu 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

English professors and their ilk

I've noticed the professors --> academics CFD since several affected articles have popped up on my watchlist, and by and large I'm in favor of it. However, some of the people being moved from English professors to literary critics of English are not literary critics, but rather poets or fiction writers (Keorapetse Kgositsile, for example). In these cases the category should probably just be dropped. Is it too much to ask, since you proposed the CFD, that you go through this category and weed out some of the poets? I will try to do a bunch of them, though most likely not for a couple of days. Thanks. Chick Bowen 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Only partly related to the particular issue above, but last time the category was under discussion, I suggested to rename it Category:Anglists, as it would cover specialists both in English linguistics and English literature. Somebody did not recognize "anglist" as an English word, but as I pointed out, it is in the Concise Oxford Dictionary with that exact meaning. Uppland 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think from what s been said here then the best name would be Category:Literary academics of English. i don t feel anglist is prominent enough lexis to be of benefit to most users and i don t think mixing linguists and academics of literature is the way to go as in many if not most (but not all) cases the two kinds at a university are in separate academic departments. How about going with this? Mayumashu 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of these terms are good (I've been in the business for many years and I've never heard either), and I think the problem is that there's no such category of people. When we were calling English professors, i.e., teachers of English, that made sense, but if, given that being a professor is not in itself notable, we're converting the professors to academics, then we run up against a problem, because in the US at least writers who teach in English departments don't think of themselves as academics--they're just writers who teach in English departments. So I think the category should be left as it is, and the writers should be removed from it. Chick Bowen 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Historians of English literature for those fitting that description? Uppland 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
i say if they neither hold advanced degrees nor publish in academic (literary) journals, then writers included in the category should be removed - i ll take a look, the population of the page presently is small. at any rate, i ve put the name up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. i don t think that English professors should be described as 'historians' (although like all humanities specialists, they implicitly consider history and the history of literature in particular in their work) Mayumashu 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I ve rechecked wikipedia's literary criticism article and i think the original name i gave the page is indeed best. any who has taught literature in post-secondary education would qualify. again, i see an academic as an advanced degree holder who has publishs in academic journals or even who has published (even non-academically, in the case of some English profs) and teaches in post-secondary ed. as well, there are some other categories of "scholars" who are/were not academics that have been included through category page linking (theologians and amateur historians and astronomers come to mind). i think it s not perfect but English professors are literary critics and nearly all literary critics are, when "loosely" defined, academics Mayumashu 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll weigh in, for whatever what I say may be worth. It's true that all Engl. profs do literary criticism in their classrooms, as "english" above the introductory level is some form of literary exegesis. However, if I am known to the world at all, and if I pass down to posterity in any form, it will be with books and articles that are what we call "Scholarship." Now, that's vague. What it would be better called is literary history or, and this is the old term for it, Philology. On the other hand, I have a friend who never inks her fingers with old editions, never cares much about when politician X wrote Y and how Queen B's actions of 1739 might have influenced Author F's novel. Instead, she is concerned with the 'paradigms' and the ideology and the unconscious ideology and the structural fissures of Author F's work. She will be known to the world as a "literary critic," because how she is known to the world is her work in exploring the literary meaning. In the trade, she's called "a critic" and I'm called "a scholar," and "critics and scholars" are at a low-level war in the academy (for no good reason that I can see except ego and missionary zeal). No one will remember her for what she did in the classroom, nor me, at least from an encyclopedia's point of view. Similarly, some professors are also novelists and/or poets. Their fame (their "notability") is as a poet or novelist. There are overlaps, of course. Tolkein was a "scholar" and novelist, and CS Lewis was a "critic" and a novelist. There are even some people whose work in the classroom, training several generations of scholars or critics, overshadows their own works (such as Pottle up at Yale). Therefore, I would suggest categories of Philologist, Literary critic, Poet, and Novelist, and let each of these live as subcategories of Academic. After all, it's not the day job that gets you in an encyclopedia in a case like that, but the books and articles written. Geogre 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
very imformative input for me anyway, as i m not in the field. the only trouble i see is including novelists without post-sec teaching experience as academics, which they are not. then maybe my withdrawn nomination should be restarted - i prefer a descriptive name that is accurate even if it s not a commonly referred to one (ie. Category:Academics of English literature should be used to house what was "Cat:English Profs")

Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia

Hi! I noticed you are from Nova Scotia and you have edited on the Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia page. I have done a couple of articles, Thomas Caulfield, and Matthew Henry Richey (not very well) and done a bit of link repair. If you know of anyone interested in the contents of that page, I would be interested in making contact. Thanks! Stormbay 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. i don t unfortunately. my interest is in linking bios to category pages and it all starts with nova scotians and canadians, naturally, being native to there, but i m all over the place really. quite sure the best place to ask would be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia page. Best regards, Mayumashu 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

double level categories

I notice you are effectively reverting my work in removing double level categories in American ethnic and national origins. The Wiki rule, as I understand it, is that double level categories should not be used. If an article is in category x, and category x in category y, then the article should not also be in category y. For example, the 'German Americans' category is in 'European American' category and the 'European American' category is in the 'American ethnic and national origin' category. Nothing else is needed. There is also a Wiki rule that a category with too many subcategories should have intermediate categories created (such as European Americans, Asian Americans) if there is a logical grouping present. Please explain what you are doing here. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

hi there. the problem is ethnic identification can be double-levelled. i would argue the rule is a rule of thumb and that by giving the continental ethnic groups prominence by listing them first, then putting the national sub-national groups in the list proper, you achieve a ethnicity list that better represents reality Mayumashu 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asserting, nor why 'continental ethnic groups', whatever those are, should be treated in any way differently than other groups. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I do not see that your changes meet the duplication rules. Thanks Hmains 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I see and understand what you are doing, I just do not agree with it, nor do I see that this has been done with other categories. This should have been discussed on the talk page first and consensus obtained to do or not do this. Thanks Hmains 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

some if not quite a few "European Americans" for instance identify more with being "Italian American" say or "Swedish American" than European American. add to this that the word "national" is in the name of the cat page ie. "American people by ethnic or national origin", not American people by continental or pan-national origin". so just because few category pages are in the manner does not mean that there shouldn t be ones that are (as the wikipedia page on catting considers a few, though of a different sort admittedly) Mayumashu 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Scottish monarchs

Hi Mayumashu, I saw you helped me with the Scottish Catholics category, enriching it and expanding it, so I'm asking you one question now: I had added some Scottish monarchs who were Roman Catholics, and now I can only see Bonnie Prince Charlie there... The House of Stuart (as we all know) was almost entirely Catholic, I think we should add their members in the page, and I was going to do it before the page switched on to "Scottish Roman Catholics" and the various "James of Scotland" (also Mary Queen of Scots!) disappeared. Please, answer to my question as soon as you can. BTW, I do have Scottish relatives, and they're...Protestant to boot, so I really have no other aim rather than historical and cultural development Gianmaria Framarin 18:37 2 June 2006

Jack Donohue

Hello! Stumbled upon the article and thought it needed a big rewrite....I started and then noticed in the history that it is only 2 days old!!! (Amazing for someone like Mr. Donohue).... Would you like to continue this or shall I? I have added (cut and paste) alot of info from which you/I/we can rewrite into a good article. Let me know. Didn't mean to step on your toes. KsprayDad 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

go for you. i just wanted to get something started and, for as it sounds like you d agree, the man is deserving of a write-up here. i actually don t have any special info on him, i just took the basics from a couple bios that come up from a net search. Best regards, Mayumashu 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

duplicative emigrant/descent categories

In Category:People by ethnic or national descent, there are mostly sub-categories named 'People of Foo descent'. In Category:Emigrants by nationality, there are mostly sub-categories named 'Foo emigrants'. Looking down further into these sub-categories, they are both populated with sub-sub-categories named 'Foo Goo', where 'Foo' is the origin country and 'Goo' is the destination country. Examples: see Category:People of Canadian descent and Category:Canadian emigrants, having Category:Canadian Americans, Category:Canadian Australians, etc. Sometimes, in the matching sub-categories, the sub-sub-categories are the same; more often, there is partial or even no overlap.

Something is wrong here. There should be either be categories named 'People of Foo descent' or 'Foo emigrants', but not both. Which is it? Thanks Hmains 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree that this is an 'either or' choice and that both kinds cannot exist with one a sub-category of the other but given that all fooian emigrants are of fooian descent then the later cat pages are more important. i agree though that the present set-up and cat page linking is in disarray. the problem is we can t easily at all use the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page to change one kind over to the other because many voters will vote to delete rather than rename and things will either end in stalemate or even possibly in deletion with a lot of work lost. part of the problem i created when i created a number of Fooian emigrants cat pages without realizing that many people listed in the North American pages are second or greater generation, not emigrants. Mayumashu 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can work on sorting things out if we agree on the direction. I think the the Descent categories should remain and be fully populated and the Emigrant categories should be depopulated so they disappear. What you think? Thanks Hmains 03:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
i d support that. best regards, Mayumashu 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks Hmains 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Marcheline Bertrand

Marcheline Bertrand was born in Waukeegan,Illinois in 1950 and mostly raised by her grandparents, who ran a bowling allee there. There is little reliable information available on her parents, though we know that her father was French-Canadian and her mother of Iroquois/Six Nations heritage.

Marcheline's life path is sketchy from her middle/late teenage years. She may have first gone California (there is a report of a Social Security Card issued in her name during the late sixties) and then to New York to work as a young model and struggling actress.

Dance capitalization

I noticed that you listed yourself as a linguist. There is currently a dispute at the Lindy Hop article the Dance WikiProject about the capitalization of dances that could use the expertise of a linguist. If you think you might be able to help, we would certainly appreciate your comments. Thanks! --Cswrye 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Philippine people by ethnic/national origin categories

please see what one editor has done to all these categories and my comments on this in the 'Category for Deletion' talk page and the 'Village pump' page. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

sour loser vandalizes. i reverted a few back, but presumably the same user emptied all of the sub-cats of their bio links. Mayumashu 13:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that the editor is actually a new administrator! In any case, I examined every article and reverted nearly everything he did. Now look at my and his talk pages so you can see he is proposing a "comprise": to wait a week and he will delete everything again. I have no resources to find fact; I just work on copyedits and categories. Thanks Hmains

i commend you on the hard work and hope he doesn t do what he may, as you ve suggested. if some of the ethnic links are too distant and therefore obscure then they should be discussed and handled on a one by one basis, but that was utter vandalism and the user should have their admin. status revoked, shouldn t (s)he. best regards, Mayumashu 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed incorrect category

I reverted your addition of category:Deaths by firearm to category:Duelling fatalities. Somewhere around 1/4 of the current entries were sword duels, and there are many more that can and should be added. I hope you agree that it would be rather odd to list a 12th Century judicial duel between mailed knights as a death by firearm. That is why I removed the category some time ago. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

sword duels, of course - apologize for the daft oversight. Regards, Mayumashu 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
NP, someone had made the oversight before you, and the problem didn't really dawn on me until I noticed Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun was classed as a death by firearm. This is the famous sword-duel that involved such severe and repeated injuries to both combatants (neither would yield) so that nearly all subsequent duels were by pistols. I took death-by-firearm cat out of duelling-fatalities and then went to some effort to add it individually to those bios where warranted. In some cases, this involved research to confirm which type of duel. Now, I watch the cat. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
splitting them up into two sub-cats would avoid having to "keep vigil" but its nice to show what s not a large number as one list, isn t it. i readded the death-by-firearm link i d removed from the bio i was looking at, btw. Mayumashu 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also thought about splitting, but there aren't nearly enough articles yet. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:People by political orientation

Could you weigh in on the purpose you created this category for, please? There seems to be confusion as to what it's really about. — ChristTrekker 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Theory/Philosophy

Have you considered beginning a stub or article on the various aspects of "political theory"? Your comment regarding political philosophy and its relation to political theory peaked my interest.--Quoth the Raven 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

afraid i don t follow - sure this was me? Mayumashu 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

John Gardner

I tried to search Google for an Australian tennis player named John Gardner, and I was unable to find any (my search on Google). Can you provide any source or article about him? - grubber 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

go to the ATP official site and enter Gardner in the search box in the upper right of the page - he ll come up Mayumashu 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't seem very notable. Even that site is severely lacking in information. There is no picture, no information about him, very little about his record. The Google search I mentioned before did not return any pages about him that I could see. I'm tempted to remove the reference on the dab page until there is enough info out there to justify a wiki-entry. What do you think? - grubber 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
he s as notable as a large number of players with pages now Brian Vahaly, Tommy Ho, Eric Amend, Eric Fromm. He doesn t have a picture and info because of the era he played in, which should not be reason for exclusion on wikipedia. He reached the second round of the U.S. Open in '71 and players who haven t done this have pages, so he d pass notability (perhaps unfortunately) Mayumashu 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tennis Wikiproject

I see you've made a large number of edits to tennis-related articles over the past few days. If you're interested, I've recently started a Tennis Wikiproject --Dantheox 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. i may in the weeks ahead look into joining but am about to become busier for the next while. best regards, Mayumashu 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:African American football players

Hi Mayumashu. I would not work too hard populating the category. It was just deleted a few months ago (here), and very likely will be again. Sorry to have to bring the bad news. Best regards ×Meegs 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Figured something was up that it didn t already exist. so why isn t there this? sure, 80% or whatever of all football players are Black, but the same is true for basketball players and it exists. anyway, i ll see what the reasons were from the link you ve given - cheers. Mayumashu 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
actually, i don t see why it was deleted with a 2-2 vote. but, yeah, i ll hold off populating it like you suggest Mayumashu 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the basketball cat nearly went down earlier this week. It's only a matter of time, if you ask me. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm tempted to mass nominate all of the similar cats just to get it over with, and to prevent people from wasting effort in the meantime. Best ×Meegs 08:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i saw that later. I don t really care either way either I guess - i kind of like having ethnicity cats but can understand the argument against too and kind of like sub-catting huge ethnicity cat page lists but can understand the argument that doing so is to list trivia. but at some point most humanities data collection is trivia, it seems to me. anyroad, thanks for pointing out what s been happening and saving me from wasting time. Mayumashu 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Canadian football players

Do you really think this category is needed? It seems redundant and it looks sort of dumb. How about "Canadian Canadian football players playing in the Canadian Football League born in Canada." I'd suggest DELETING it. Mundster 18:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

we disagree Mayumashu 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I must agree strongly with Mundster: this category is redundant. The assumption should be that "Canadian football players" are Canadian, not unlike the assumption taken with Category:American football players. Please see my earlier comments at Category talk:Canadian Football League. heqs 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your thing about ethnic categories can go too far. The way I see it, heck, you are adding to Wikipedia and seem to be doing no harm, other than burdening the category system with junk, so knock yourself out. But, recently I edited the Bob O'Billovich entry when I read he had "Serb bloodlines." Say what? No evidence was provided. So, when does fun with ethnic categories stop and become "ethnic profiling," which I find replusive, but at the least, is utterly useless. Who cares if Dallas Smith is of Scottosh origin. He is Canadian.Mundster 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Marie Ellard

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Marie Ellard, 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 Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard. 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. Argyriou (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Japanese name ordering

Some of your recent edits have violated the Japanese article manual of style which states that people born before 1868 should be named "last first". If you want to discuss that, please bring it up on the MOS talk page, and don't do a mass movement of articles like that. Also, the nihongo template is not just for names which are in the reversed order. It can be used for any Japanese word, to indicate the kanji, etc. and in general, should not be removed from any article unless the kanji is superfluous (ie, if it is kanji for a word which is linked to another article, etc). Neier 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sincere apologies - I realized the pre-Meiji / post-Meiji births split after doing some edits and will revert the erroneous edits i made. regards Mayumashu 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I took care of a few this morning, until I hit Tōgō Heihachirō, which had to have some admin help to sort out. That's when I gave up and went to the office. Neier 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please also revert Manjiro Inagaki back to Inagaki Manjiro. This may also need an admistrator's assistance to avoid loss of the edit history page! --MChew 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--MChew 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Flockhart

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you moved Ron Flockhart to Ron Flockhart (auto racing). Would you mind updating all the pages that linked to it as well? Thanks. DH85868993 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the list Mayumashu 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done them for you. Cheers. DH85868993 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
righto - thanks Mayumashu 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Danny Graham

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mayumashu 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comments

There is a request for comments on the Robert Latimer page; please see Talk:Robert Latimer#Request for comments. Rosemary Amey 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Mayumashu 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your edit at Wojtek Wolski

Regarding your edit summary at Wojtek Wolski (diff): I have no idea if Wolski has dual citizenship (not sure if Poland has jus soli law a.k.a. citizenship via birth) but he definitely has Canadian citizenship (requirement to play on Team Canada). Just wondering, do YOU know if Poland has jus soli law? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

no idea. someone put him in Category:Polish ice hockey players and since it doesn t seem that he s ever played for Poland, i wondered this aloud. if he s not played for Poland nor a dual citizen, he shouldn t be on this cat page (despite his name and birth), should he. regards Mayumashu 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Americans

I agree with the work you are doing in this cat. If you need assistance, let me know. Kevlar67 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Feel free to pitch in if you want - I going at it in alphabetical order so if you wanted to why not sort from Z in reverse order and we d meet somewhere in the middle. I intend to do the same thing for all subcategories of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin, in the end having for instance Category:Brazilian immigrants to Canada a sub-cat of Category:Canadians of Brazilian descent, doing away with all "Fooian(-)Hooian" category names which people cannot agree on if they should be spelled with a hyphen or not and more importantly which suggest a common identity of the ethnic group within the country which may not exist, and is therefore misleading. Attributing descent simply as descent is on the other hand factual when sources are given. Mayumashu 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful, though. What information do we want to convey exactly? Ukrainian speaking Canadian immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian empire are Ukrainian Canadians, even if the best legal description of them is "Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada" (a category I intend to create, BTW). WP should convey both legal status but also cultural affiliation. Kevlar67 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Such immigrants would be listed under both Category:Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada and Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent, wouldn t they. exactly, WP should convey both sets of info - and where they overlap, one becomes a sub-set of the other - Category:Ukrainian immigrants to Canada as a *sub-set linked to Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent. It s going to take a lot of work to see it through though Mayumashu 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but the challenge is to convey both sets of information in a way that readers and also other editors will understand, otherwise they will undo all your hard work. Here's a question for you: would "Canadians of Fooian decent", "Fooian immigrants to Canada", and "Fooian expatriates in Canada" have one common category they could be found under? I'm worried that trying to get rid of Fooian Hooians will meet with too much resistance, afterall, there are lost of WP articles that these cats are based around, and people will be hesitant to change them. Kevlar67 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry User:Kevlar for not replying earlier. I ve been busy revamping the pages for Canadian ethnic and national origin. When I get this finished, I ll tackle the same pages for other countries where I ll feel it least likely to encouter resistance - the key is to change enough pages without one going to a WP:Pages for discussion and then to do a block rename once the majority of pages are named as we d like them to be. to be honest, category delete/rename users do not seem too interested in these cat pages. they d like to see them deleted but are too reluctant to try a block deletion as deleting them as a whole has not been accomplished in the past. so i think i can get enough changed over - we ll see! Mayumashu 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nate DiCasmirro

Just wondering if you can explain your reason(s) for deleting the biographical information I added about Nate DiCasmirro's hockey career. It's not liked it was inaccurate or wasn't sourced. Also, your category change is based on an unsourced assumption, that he holds U.S. citizenship. I haven't found anything that he says he does. Categorizing articles based on assumptions doesn't seem like a very good idea. I look forward to your response. Cheers!--Vbd | (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry - will undo the damage Mayumashu 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
went to the page - does your info tell you if he also holds American citizenship or ever played for the States? if neither s the case then he shouldn t be characterized as an American player Mayumashu 02:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and searched for a source that confirms that he is a U.S. citizen. I have added the reference.--Vbd | (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Michael J. Fox

Please see discussion page.--Vbd | (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


Boyce Richardson

Huh? Let's see: Ian Billcliff (Ian Shaw Billcliff (born October 26, 1972 in Williams Lake, British Columbia) is a 'Canadian of New Zealand Origin' but Boyce Richardson is an immigrant from New Zealand? Go figure! Why the nit-picking? Let's just go with 'New Zealand Canadians' shall we? (Actually I'd prefer Kiwi-Canucks, myself!) Macadavy 09:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Macadavy

we could but it s better this way both to have a comprehensive list of immigrants and to avoid any possible implication that all people listed as "(New Zealand) Canadian" say belong to a "Kiwi Canuck" community with particularly shared values. many may in fact do but how can this be known in most cases? simply stating ethnicity or citizenship as fact is better reflected "of origin" or "of descent" naming, the way i see it Mayumashu 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Blanking page in my userspace

Please do not blank articles in my userspace, as you did to User:SigPig/Bruce Carruthers. I consider it vandalism, especially given your edit summary "(some kind of nonsense page - blanked)". The information is a stub being worked on about the founder of the Canadian Corps of Signals, and is verifiable as well as cited; while a stub, it is far from nonsense. If you have some kind of problem with items in my userspace, I would appreciate the common courtesy that you take it up with me first on my talk page. You seem to have been here long enough to know better about processes and procedures. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. The page is linked to the encyclopedia proper through it s category page links and as it looked like a WP:BIO page but was also a user page, I wrongly thought it was some kind of nonsensical blend of two kinds of pages, as I thought i had encountered this phenomenom here a few years ago. At any rate, I ve resurrected the Bruce Carruthers bio page. Mayumashu 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bill White redirect

Hi there. I noticed you redirected Bill White (politician) to William A. White. These are two completely separate people, although they are father and son. I reverted the page back to its pre-redirect form. What was your reason for the redirect?Abebenjoe 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hey there. oops! thanks for the spot and apologies! Mayumashu 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadians of Armenian descent move

Hello Mayumashu, I saw your move of Armenians of Canada to Canadians of Armenian descent move. While I see the logic behind the move, I must disagree with it because this was in accordance with other Armenian diaspora articles. What do you think? - Fedayee 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Yeah, I know it goes against the convention as it now but I m in the process of changing all relevant article and category pages to this more logically naming and this is going to take weeks. Could we change other Armenian diaspora articles over to this naming? Or we could change the one I changed back. However, I do intend to change all pages for all diaspora over time. It just makes no sense to call every third or fourth generation Canadian of Armenian descent Armenian(-)Canadian for we can t know how much they identify themselves as such as the naming suggests a sense of common identity. We can however know simply (in verifiable cases of course) if they have the lineage or not, and the naming I m proposing reflects this Mayumashu 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadians of Indian descent move

It may be a logical move, but it might have been polite to at least mention moving Indo-Canadian to Canadians of Indian descent before doing so. One problem might be the double meaning of "Indian" in Canada, which was solved by the prior title, but is now somewhat ambiguous. Usually, these moves are proposed and discussed first, for just this reason. - TheMightyQuill 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind why you have decided to rename many articles, such as Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent, since it covers everyone with that heritage, but I to have to agree with TheMightyQuill, the double meaning associated with the term Indian within Canada is why People of Indian descent in Canada are referred to as Indo-Canadian.

The purpose of a redirect as well, from the redirect page help page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Redirect#How_do_I_change_a_redirect.3F is as follows:

"Purposes of a redirect 

   * Allow access in the case that a pagename is provided:
         o which is an alternative term for the subject
         o which is a term for a subtopic (in this case one may use a redirect to a section)
         o which uses alternative capitalization and hyphenation
         o which uses alternative spelling
         o which has a common misspelling"

Since the terms Chinese Canadian, Indo Canadian, Filipino Canadian etc. are the terms that are in common usage within Canada, such as in the media and scholarly articles, they should serve as the main title of the article because this is the main title people are familiar with searching with. It is not incorrect to create a page called "Canadian of xxxx descent" since it is an alternative, but because it is not the common term, it should not take precedence over the widely used term. Instead, Canadian of Indian descent should be redirected to Indo-Canadian, and so forth for the respective articles such as Canadian of Chinese descent, instead the current redirect, which is the other way around.


- Parihav 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Ontarians

While it's true that not all Franco-Ontarians are of French descent, not all Franco-Ontarians are francophone, either, so Category:Francophone Canadians is problematic for the exact same reason that Category:French Canadians is. Can you think of an alternative way to handle this? Bearcat 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

no, not without having a Category:Franco-Ontarians of non-French descent, which I m sure no one would want including me. one improvement would be having Category:Franco-Ontarians include just francophone Ontarians and linking it to a Category:People of Franco-Ontarian descent for anglophones with Francophone parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents from Ontario - I did this for Category:Acadians and Category:People of Acadian descent recently. so I take it from this that "Franco-Ontarian" is used quite liberally and perhaps differently by different people, unlike in the case of Acadians. Mayumashu 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

English-Canadians

Same comments as those re Indo-Canadians and Franco-Ontarians. The article on English Canadians is about more than 'Canadians of English Descent'. I, for example, consider myself English-Canadian under the most generally used meaning of the term, but have virtually no actual English ancestry. There are French-Canadians of Irish ancestry. The Scots-Irish include more than Irish of Scottish ancestry. The approach you seem to be taking makes sense when one is dealing with recently arrived groups ("Swedes of Ethiopian Ancestry") but becomes much less accurate when there has been movement from one point of origin to another over several generations and the population in the new homelands have begun to intermingle with the local population or have been in the new location for so long that they have developed or are beginning to develop their own sense of self-identification. I don't think that this relabelling (as logical as it may seem in the abstract) is really going to work in all cases, and shouldn't be carried out without some discussion. The problem may be a lack of nomenclature for these relatively new populations. "Québécois" or "Acadian" work well to distinguish some populations, but "Franco-Ontarians" or "English-Canadians" don't yet have such descriptors. People just don't always fit into neat categories. Corlyon 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Corlyon

I admit that the page I renamed from English-Canadian and Indo-Canadian should be reverted to reflect colloquial use and I will in the next two days contact an administrator to see about getting it done. The category pages are (or certainly should be) a whole different story reflecting ancestry based on lineage and not self-identity (far too unconfirmable, POV), colloquial use ("English-Canadian" to a non-North American would not mean the same thing if anything at all), or what generation one is removed from the country of one's ancestors. Regards Mayumashu 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mayamushu. The move back still hasn't happened, leaving Wikipedia with the anomaly of having an article on "French Canadians" but not "English Canadians". I don't think we would want to see the articles on "Acadians" and "Quebecois" tossed into a generic article on "Canadians of French Descent", so there must be some consideration given to discussions of people who are associated by affinities other than pure lineage. CheersCorlyon 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon


Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15#People_by_Italian_provinces

It looks like there was an error in the original nomination, and as a result the natives of the Province of Pavia got added to the Category:People from the Province of Parma. I guess you'll have to sort them out by hand. It's not too bad, there's only 37 of them. -- Prove It (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

oops! will get on it shortly - thanks! Mayumashu 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Elisha Cuthbert

Please stop adding Category:Canadians of European descent to the Elisha Cuthbert article without a reliable source. It is considered original research. If you feel other categories violate the original research guideline, be bold and remove them from the article. --Kevin Walter 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you are being way too pedantic in denying she s of European descent - there s even pictures on the page to back this "claim" up - are they not reliable? be reasonable Mayumashu 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Northern Irish Immigrants to Canada

Hi there. Can you be careful when adding this category to articles as not everyone is eligible to be in it that you have added it to. There have been several cases where you have added it to people who cannot possibly have been described as Northern Irish immigrants as they either moved, or died, before the establishment of Northern Ireland. In those cases they should be in the Irish immigrants, not Northern Irish immigrants. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

true enough - shall move them over. Thanks Mayumashu 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's okay, I've already done so, just letting you know the whats and whys. Keep up the good work. Ben W Bell talk 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Wilson (writer, horticulturist)

I've move this page back to its original title. Wilson didn't - as you stated in your edit summary - write (only) on horticulture, he wrote on many issues and anyway, was known equally as a writer and landscaper/gardener (these activities were, in fact, intertwined). Make sense? Pinkville 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

alright Mayumashu 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Belkin

Greetings. You ask "did he acquire Mexican citizenship?" yes, he did! I would not consider him an English Mexican or a Russian Mexican as noted in the categories.. A Mexican of Russian descent-yes! Best, --Healkids 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I m in the process of listing Canadians of fooian descent and Fooian Canadians separately as they are two different things, aren t they. Regards Mayumashu 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Intersection by location

Hi. I wanted to point out to you a new overcategorization guideline. It calls into question the appropriateness of some categories that you have created, such as Category:Alberta actors or Category:Nova Scotia actors. Before emptying these and similar categories, I thought I would check in with you first. --Vbd (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

don t mind seeing these go. and appreciative of the notice Mayumashu 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Page moves

It would have been nice if you posted a comment on the talk pages, or better yet, used WP:RM for all these Foovian Canadian pages you're moving. IMO your stated reason "moved Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent: page describes Canadians of full AND PARTIAL Chinese ancestry" is very weak. For example, people of partial Chinese descent may still identify as "Chinese Canadian", there is nothing inherent in the term which implies that they are of full Chinese descent. Also WP:NC(CN). cab 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

these pages should not be based on self-identication - few people proclaim their identification to the point that a citeable source can be found. I think that someone of partial identity who does profess such self-identity where citeable should be included, point taken. this is however something inherent to some including me in the term that does suggest dual citizenship (see below on this page), full ancestry, or self-identification, and some people with fooian ancestry are none of these. the renaming is an improvement on all of what is described on the page, I m certain of this. where a source is available, however, I agree with you that self-identification should be a criterion for inclusion of an individual being refered to as "Fooian Canadian", regardless of the extent of the ancestry. Mayumashu 11:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To comment further and ask for your opinion: I'm personally not very much in favour of the "Fooian-nationality" naming scheme either (mainly because, except in the cases where the name is well known, as in Chinese Americans, it's unclear as to which is the country and which is the ethnicity, and generates endless debates about which should come first; e.g. Talk:Malaysian Chinese). However, I don't think the "Fooians of Bar descent" naming scheme comes closer to making the page title match the content that should be in the page; the main problem is that the title seems to exclude people of Bar descent living in Fooland who aren't Fooian citizens. My guess is that when someone goes to the "Chinese American" page, they might be interested in finding information about issues of Chinese immigrants (who are often represented and assisted by activist group with names like "Organisation of Chinese Americans"); they probably don't care about people of 1/8th Chinese descent like Lisa See.
Hi. then, the page should be "People in Canada of Chinese descent", to include expatriates (who are not technically Canadian, give immigrants prominence, and mention to people like Keanu Reeves Mayumashu 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was personally in favour of a naming scheme like "Ethnic Barians in Fooland", but the "Ethnic Barian" terminology caused a major ruckus (see Talk:Japanese diaspora). So lately I've just been using "Bar people in Fooland" (e.g. Japanese people in North Korea, Vietnamese people in Russia). Any better ideas? cab 08:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. "People of Fooian descent in Barland" is the best I can think of 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Indian Americans

There is a debate on whether there should be subcats for ethnicities in the maincat. As you were a contributor to the above mentioned cat, I would like to know your views here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil Americans.Bakaman 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

afraid I have to agree with keeping it. it does mean some people having two cat links. but there aren t too many supra-natural ethnic groups - Arabs, Basques, Huquenots, Kurds, Jews, Polynesians Mayumashu 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:People by ethnic or national origin

Hi. I know you've done a lot of work on revamping the sub-cat Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you!

I started to draft a proposal that would apply your paradigm to the many other similar sub-cats of Category:People by ethnic or national origin, but I ran into a problem. I don't understand the distinction you have made between "Canadians of American descent" and "American Canadians." The former is for Canadians who have one American parent or grandparent; the latter is for those who have two American parents, right? This seems like a false distinction -- the difference between one or both parents. Can you articulate your reasoning? Also, when I was trying to figure out how this all worked, I looked for a discussion of the changes you have made but couldn't find any. Was there one? Cheers!--Vbd (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Fooian Canadians are of full Fooian descent as I ve set up this scheme, where as Canadians of Fooian descent is of partial descent. One parent therefore means "partial descent" whereas two equates "full descent" (not a perfect distinction but wholly workable). In the case of America-Canada this does seem rather a petty distinction to make but it is in keeping with the scheme as a whole as saying someone whose of 1/4 Scottish ancestry from 100 years ago is somehow "Scottish Canadian" (suggesting one is both, in rather equal proportations) is more nonsensical. No discussion took place. I don t think a lot of users care much about having these categories whereas it is my pet interest (human migration). Mayumashu 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I see what you are getting at. Well, I guess it would have been overkill to call the cat. "Canadians of partial Scottish descent." ;-) And your example that someone who is 1/4 Scottish should not be categorized as "Scottish American" makes sense. But consider your example the other way around. It is not nonsensical to say that someone who has two Scottish parents is "of Scottish descent." And a person who has two Scottish grandparents is also "of Scottish descent." Why not put them both in the "Canadians of Scottish descent" category" (rather than the "Scottish Canadian" category)? My inclination is to lump the partial and full descent together (Foo-ians of Goo-ian descent), and keep the "Foo-ian Goo-ian" cat. for the dual citizenship cases we so offer encounter, especially between Canada and the U.S.
that was my actual original intention, to lump them together, but then I thought and still think the one parent / two parent division is significant. of course, someone with two Scottish parents is of Scottish descent and as such "Fooian Canadians is a (*prominently put) sub-category of "Canadians of Fooian descent", with an explanation is given on each page. Dual citizens fall under immigrants, a prominent sub-cat of Fooian Canadian" Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that a lot of users don't care about these categories. Check out the debate about Nicole Kidman here, here, and here. This debate has been going on for more than a year, and continues even after having been through mediation! The mere use of the word "Australian" to describe her in the lead paragraph now merits not one but two footnotes.
this makes sense in that she is a dual citizen - American by birth with Australian parents and Australian by nationality with American national origins (nationality) (Mel Gibson too) Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the problem with these labels is the blurring between citizenship and "national origin." To me, the word "descent" neatly makes that distinction possible. That's why I was thinking about proposing that your paradigm be applied across the board, but stopped when I realized that your paradigm wasn't quite what I thought it was.--Vbd (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I m in whole-hearted agreement on this main point, that descent is the better terminology to use of the parent level of category pages. I wouldn t mind that much to see all partial and full descent go together, but my sense is that there will be a lot of users who will want to keep the "Fooian-nationality" scheme. the scheme I ve been setting out to have allows for these users to keep these pages as sub-categories. Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably go ahead and propose a major overhaul and see how it goes. You are right that people think in terms of "Italian Americans" or "Scottish Canadians" as representing ethnic or national origins, but I don't know if that is true in other places. I'd just like to come up with a schema that works for categorizing people by nationality versus citizenship. But I may need to think about this a little more. --Vbd (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is largely limited North America. But I think the overall scheme now does hold "nationality" ("origin of cultural heritage") over citizenship in how we list people by occupation where people are listed both by where they have worked as nationals or expats and their nationality. Look forward to seeing how the proposal goes, regards! Mayumashu 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of high school dropouts

A tag has been placed on List of high school dropouts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how List of high school dropouts is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:List of high school dropouts saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sharon Bruneau

I'm not sure that "Anglophone Canadians of French Canadian descent" is a relevant category; Sharon is Metis, from Timmins, and like other Metis from that area French may be her first language; she speaks flawless English, but I'm not sure that she can be so easily sorted into "Anglophone Canada", or for that matter of French-Canadian descent; the French-name side of her may be entirely Metis, albeit francophone, but note "Frenchb-Canadian" tends to refer to the quebecois ethnicity, not to francophonesn general (though it's supposed to). I don't know exactly, but she's around town, so I'll ask her if I run into her; but I think trying to label people according to their hyphenated Canadian category is kinda dehumanizing; we are not our ethnic pedigrees. In Sharon's case I added the Metis tag because I know she's a Metis-card holder (like Kevin O'Toole (bodybuilder)), but I wouldn't assume that she's "Anglophone Canadian of French Canadian descent", and I'm not sure branding Canadians with their ethnic classification is all that valid of a pasttime, although typically Canadian in its own way. As is the assumption taht someone born outside of Quebec is "Anglophone Canadian of French descent" when there's a good chance their maternal language actually was French (as throughout Northern Ontario and in some of the West).Skookum1 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what info I could on Timmins and could not find that there was a Francophone community and assumed (apparently correctly) that she's anglophone, although as you say without hearing it from her, despite Timmins' profile, it can t be known if she is francophone or not. And you mention that she and Kevin O'Toole are Metis cardholders - I ll undo an edit I made there. Thanks for the info, Mayumashu 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Kevin's card I've seen in person and it's on his personal website somewhere; he's pretty proud of it; Sharon's I was just told about, though, but she'd probably respond to the query if I emailed her (she'll like having her photos up here, even if they're older). As for the francophone/anglophone thing I'll ask her that at the same time; other Metis I know from northern Ontario do have accents and French is their primary (household) language, but not all; "Anglophones of French-Canadian descent" would seem to be exclusive even of Metis anglophones, since Metis are (nearly always) of French descent. i.e. because she's Metis she's inherently of French descent, so isn't hte other category redundant (as well as possibly mistaken). Kevin should definitely be in Category:Canadians of Irish descent, as he's also as much that as he is Metis - I gather the distinction (?) with Category:Irish Canadians is the latter are born in Ireland - ?.Skookum1 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
it s not redundant 'cause there were also a fair number of Scots, evidently some Irish, and I believe some English too who were into fur trading and whose descendants became Metis - I ve got the category page now linked to Category:Canadians of European descent. Yeah, it seems to be to make better sense to call someone whose half, quarter or less Irish say someone of Irish descent, then "Irish Canadian". in truth, there aren t really rules though as to how we refer to people of ancestry other than that of the country of their citizenship - it s about what seems to make sense to the person, isnt it. and due to a lack of convention, I ve been changing over the names of pages to reflect a less-assuming naming scheme. Mayumashu 07:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian of English descent — clarification

Was it your intention that Canadian of English descent be moved back to English-Canadian, as the current text would suggest, or to English Canadian, as you actually stated in your move request? I realise that this question comes about a week later than it should have, but once I have an answer I can get on with shifting the article over. --Stemonitis 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don t know and that s mostly because I don t care either way which is used, as I find using term either with or without the hyphen to mean anglophone Canadian to be utterly disagreeable. (I happen to be an English teacher and can tell you for what it s worth that "English Canadian" is in fact the grammatical correct expression as "English-Canadian" with a hyphen is a compound adjective, not a noun. again though this is about describing proper colloquial usage and not grammar, I acknowledge) Mayumashu 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is now a page titled "Canadians of English Descent" (recently created containing references to persons of English background) and a page titled "Canadian of English Descent" (the former page on English Canadians that you renamed). I missed the vote on moving the article back to its original title English Canadians, and most people who were opposed, seem to have been opposed because they also thought that there should be an article on Canadians of "English" ethnic background. (And now there is). See the recent discussion on the talk page. But "Canadian of English Descent" can't be moved to "English Canadian" because apparently there is already an article called English Canadian (but there isn't because that term now redirects to English Canada), which references "English Canadians" which redirects to itself. Could you please sort this out as I don't know how to undo the loop linking English Canada and English Canadians. Thanks very much.Corlyon 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
I put in a request two weeks ago to have this reverted - I ll see what info I can get on its status Mayumashu 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
understand now what s going on. resubmitted request Mayumashu 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Jordin Tootoo

I just noticed this edit. Yes he was born in Manitoba but he grew up in Rankin. I don't know at what age he returned to Rankin but he was there before the age of three and that I found a reference for. Now as a guess, and it's nothing I could add to the article right now, I suspect that his mother had to go to Churchill to have him. Very few Arctic communities are set up to deal with births and the mothers were sent to different places, Yellowknife, Churchill and MOntreal. This still happens today, an example would be both of my grandchildren were born in Yellowknife but are considered to be from Nunavut. Also he self-identifies as an Inuk. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I became reaware of what you are saying with the relocation, but I wasn t aware it was for childbirth and mistakenly assumed in this case that Jordin Tootoo grew up in Churchill. I think based on what you re saying that he should definitely belong to Category:Inuit people and Category:Nunavut sportspeople, even without a link to the source. Best regards Mayumashu 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. You did the correct thing as now the sources are there which is better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Inuit people

You do know that there's not actually any such thing as "American Inuit", right? They're called Inupiat or Yupik. Bearcat 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Inuit says Inupiat and Yupik are. Is it wrong? Mayumashu 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of tricky to explain — they are all related peoples, but the Alaskan groups don't self-identify as Inuit; as similar as their culture is in some respects, the Yupik are actually of a different descent group. Canadian Inuit do tend to use "Inuit" as the umbrella term for all three groups, but the Inupiat and Yupik don't — believe it or not, the Yupik actually still prefer Eskimo as the umbrella term. It would probably be best to go for Yupik and Inupiat categories instead of Inuit for the American groups. Bearcat 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see - thanks. I ll follow your advice Mayumashu 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Inupiat page uses Inuit not Eskimo as a descriptor - I ll leave what I ve done and let any concerned user put up the cat page for renaming Mayumashu 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

English(-)Canadians

I just happened to still have "watch" on your page re our previous exchange, and happened to notice this; I've sometimes weighed in on the E-C pages, to summarize the titles; I'm both of English ancestry (1/4, although some of that includes "Shonfeld" which obviously isn't) and also of the camp usually described as "English Canadians" by dint of being an anglophone Canadian. But coming from the West, I do have to say that "anglophone Canadian" has alwasy smacked of "federally-correct language" and, er, kind of smacks of being a French-ism to many; so even if they're Ukrainian Canadians or German Canadians they're likely to say they're English Canadian, and will resonate on the term "English Canada", though not in the monolithic sense meant by that phrases context in Quebec/national politics. The part of Canada where English is spoken, Canadians who speak English, is what is meant by the usage, whatever the grammatical correctness of the construction (Wiki seems to avoid them, ie. hyphenated Cdn/Am ethnonyms, but not always). I find it disagreeable, too, for all I've just said; I only mean it in the linguistic sense and not the ethnic sense, even though I'm part-English (also Norwegian, Irish, French-from-France); but the sense I find it disareeable is the need to divide Canadians up by either nationality or ethnicity; I'm just a Canadian; it's only apposite to the French and the anglo-franco division of the country/s identity (if "division" is the right word - how's "dialectic"?) that I'm English Canadian, not in any other sense; other than that I'm just Canadian, and I know lots of people who'd say the same thing, despite a palette of ethnicities in their family tree (and with or without speaking any inherited language). It's the classification of people that I'm wary of, unless their ethnicity is a marker of their identity; there's a tendency (which I've taken part in) to look up people by their ethnic origin and then add "Irish Canadian" or "Norwegian Canadian" or "Scottish Canadian" on the basis of that; but ethnicity is also about self-identification; I suppose the cats have emerged because "Irish Canadian" can mean something different than "Canadian of Irish descent". Which brings us back around to this page: I'd say there's a fundamental difference, and with this one ethnonym in particular (English Canadian) there's a big need for a separate article because of the variable meanings, vs. the much more precise Canadians of English descent.Skookum1 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought a page with more accurate meaning was necessary too and created it a few days ago. I really think too that an "Irish Canadian" is of full (or near-full + self-identification) Irish ancestry whereas "Canadian of Irish descent" allows for those who are 1/4 or any percentage Irish to qualify, and that s why I ve been changing over Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin pages. It s interesting, what you say of how being in Western Canada plays a role in how the term "English-Canadian" is used for the reasons you ve said - I really think something of this deserves mention on the page English-Canadian. By the way, is the hyphenated version more prominent in the West? Mayumashu 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Descent" name changes

While I agreed with what you were doing with the categories, I have to say I oppose the changes to the articles. Articles are supposed to use the most common terms. Google "Irish Canadian" versus "Irish of Canadian descent". It’s not our job to change usage to make it more specific, we are only supposed to report what already exists. Kevlar67 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is changing usage and believe using "Canadian of Irish descent" to name the page in fact better describes reality. The page cites census stats that ask participants to report their ethnicity from a list that reads "Irish" - the term "Irish Canadian" does not appear on the form. Of course, census data could be removed from the page, but why insist on this - why not have these pages serve both purposes - describing those who are Irish Canadian and those who are of Irish descent. Perhaps separate paragraphs should be on the page to describe what are two different things Mayumashu 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I ve taken a look of the google hits for "Irish Canadian" and see nothing in them that changes my mind of this. I think the page Canadians of Irish descent uses "Irish(-)Canadian" appropriately in reference to what it describes of 19th century Irish throughout what became Canada. Again, I don t disagree that colloquial usage should be described, but it should be used to name a page unless there s unanimity for the name being unequivocal in what it s refering to, and this is not the case with these pages Mayumashu 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14, subcategories of Canadian ice hockey people

Hello. The votes to rename "people" to "personnel" were miscounted, I believe. I count 2 in favour and 2 opposed. Could I request a recount? Best regards, Mayumashu 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:CFD is a discussion, not a vote. And in closing, an admin attempts to determine consensus from the discussion, if such exists.
That aside, I count 5, possibly 6 if I count the nominator, who oppose "people", and prefer personnel, with 2 specifically opposing.
I hope this helps clarify. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask : ) - jc37 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah. I can see that the nominator and one other user do suggest personnel to people in light of what you say that it is not a hard vote, but a discussion. sorry for the misunderstanding

Discussion?

I thought you might be interested in the discussion I started at Wikipedia Talk:Overcategorization#Categorising by national descent, origin, nationality, etc.. Please feel free to let others know. --Vbd (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Applaud the work to get this started, Vbd. Will check it out for sure. Best regards, Mayumashu 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Murray

Hi; saw your move from George Matheson Murray to George Murray (British Columbia) which I think was inappropriate and also out-of-style for the other entries on the George Murray disambiguation page. Forbes George Vernon was known as Forbes Vernon, John Andrew Mara was known as J.A. Mara - but Wiki article-naming guidelines go with the full name; exceptions are when there's an appellation, as with George's wife Ma, or as in Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown, who was known as "Volcanic Brown" and never as Robert/Bob. Anyway, I'd suggest a move back; the "(British Columbia)" part should only be used if there were two George Matheson Murrays; otherwise it's enough to simply use his full name, which doesn't require any paranthetical designation to go with it.Skookum1 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's moved back. There is now way that George Murray (British Columbia) is correct. Look at George Murray. It could possibly have been George Murray (politician) but not with a place name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I had a middle name for GMM I didn't bother with that when I created the article; and there are other George Murray politicians, although the Nova Scotia premier has a full name article anyway (I think, or a "[Premier)" dab?). BTW are what I did on Margaret Lally "Ma" Murray and Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown wikistylistic, or should they ust have been Margaret Lally Murray and Robert Allan Brown?Skookum1 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I d say inserting the nickname is fine, as you ve done, and support any move to have this set in naming guidelines. Yeah, on second thought, including a person's middle name as a means of "disambiguating" isn t that bad an idea. Best regards, Mayumashu 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
When it's available, as often it's not, and some people don't have middle names. Ma Murray's was actually Theresa - Lally is her maiden name, so it helps to bear in mind that women's middle names might be previous married or maiden names, as can also be the case with men (well, not maiden names, but you get the idea).Skookum1 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

I notice that you have renamed several baseball player bio articles from "XXX XXX (baseball player)" to "XXX XXXX (baseball)". I have put up an RFC here to consult the other members of the Players task force of WikiProject Baseball to decide how best to disambiguate baseball players (ie. using "(baseball)" or "(baseball player)". I'd like to get your input on the matter, too. Cheers, Caknuck 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments and expanded the scope of the discussion, so please take a look and give any suggestions or feedback you see fit. Thanks, Caknuck 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with a Request for Comments on Halifax, Nova Scotia

Hello fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nova_Scotia member. I have recently lodged a Request for Comments on the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia page. I and several other editors have had a running dispute with user Lonewolf BC. The RFC is This is a dispute about whether it is accurate to continue to refer to the area of or approximately coinciding with the boundaries of the City of Halifax, which became a part of the rural/urban Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, as a city.

Basically, as I say on the RFC, we all agree that this is no longer a City, but to use former City's boundaries when describing the current urban area as a "city" (note the lower case) is at best arbitrary and at worst a fabrication. The city is now a continuous area that wraps the harbour, from Portuguese Cove (outside of the city of Halifax to the west and south) to Cole Harbour (outside of the former City of Dartmouth to the east). People now refer to the entire urban area of Halifax Regional Municipality as 'the city' and 'Halifax'.

Anyway, the bottom line is at least five people have tried to change the wording of the intro since January, and every time this one user changes it back. I have tried to come up with compromise wording, and he won't dialog. Right now wikipedia says HRM and Halifax are the capital of Nova Scotia. This article is now factually incorrect, in my opinion, and I need your help, please chime in. WayeMason 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Checked it out and see what you mean - the user's language use suggests rather high education yet (s)he isn t getting what is a wholly basic concept, that a city can become a former city within a newly formed larger entity officially called to a "regional municipality" but commonly referred to as a city - and therefore the city of Halifax is of ten years ago HRM. Presumably, HRM refers to itself (officially) as a city - if it doesn t than I d say this user could have a reason for saying some of what he says (but it doesn t seem that this is the argument he s taken up). If even they refer to themselves as a city, than I d say administrative help is in order to somehow block this user from editing on this matter. Regards, Mayumashu 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

HRM and all things

I have not been able to find anything in the legislation on the Canlii website saying that we have a capital at all. It is inferred not legislated! Ha! The question is, why say Halifax, Nova Scotia is the capital? Why not "the town of Halifax" which is the original name? Or "Downtown Halifax"? Or the "Capital District". I am just leaving it lie for a while, he refuses to respond to my proposals on his talk page I am going to float them on the Halifax talk page and we can vote it. WayeMason 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Mayumashu 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for fun, I reverted the introduction to your version of 11:14, 8 April 2007. If he changes it again, he will have committed a violation of the 3RR. Lets see what happens now. WayeMason 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I somehow doubt given what s transpired on this so far that he d abide by this convention, but let s see as you say. Another small but interesting thing, if you search "capital of Nova Scotia" on yahoo, HRM s official site comes up second on the list. A cache of this though does not turn up the quotation on the website's home page. Mayumashu 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Got it! this could be a legitimate sourch for saying HRM is the capital - [2] stated explicitly in the first paragraph Mayumashu 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
After you found yours, I found this, which also helps our case![1] I reverted the page again to your version. If he changes it again, we need to escalate this to an admin. WayeMason 10:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
ARG. Anyway, I think this is the next step. Will you support this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct WayeMason 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category name

Hello. I saw that you've created Category:Swiss international footballers. Following the convention of other similar categories in Category:Football (soccer) players by national team, I've renamed it Category:Switzerland international footballers. The former category now redirects to the later category. Feel free to add players to the new category. Thanks! Chanheigeorge 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. A google search brings up more hits for "Swiss". same for "Canadian" over "Canada". otherwise the noun is used more for describing internationals, from what I can make of it. Mayumashu 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the rationale of using "Switzerland" instead of "Swiss" is that it is more accurate. "Switzerland international footballers" mean footballers who've played international matches for Switzerland, while "Swiss international footballers" may mean a Swiss footballer who've played international matches (potentially for another team). Chanheigeorge 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. And the thing too with doing google searches is that it turns up misuses of language and well as proper use, and therefore should not be a final word at all on what use should be used. At some point the Canadian page should be changed over too, using your rationale to make the case. Mayumashu 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Blum (hockey player)

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Blum (hockey player), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is not the athletes proper name. Correct article is at Jonathon Blum.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nurmsook 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

further explanation please?

You redirected Ainsworth Dyer, and Marc Léger to Tarnak Farm incident. But you didn't leave any explanation for why you did so. You didn't leave an explanation on Talk:Ainsworth Dyer, Talk:Marc Léger or Talk:Tarnak Farm incident. Nor did you choose the less desirable path of putting your explanation in the edit summary.

So, please offer your explanation for these edits. Geo Swan 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn t a memorial and the one page suffices to explain what happened. of course, revert if you wish Mayumashu 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia isn't a memorial. And it isn't a hagiography. Very unfortunately some wikipedians seem to feel that they can remove material that, in their judgement, reflects poorly on their favorite nation, religion, political cause, or the policies of their favourite politician.
IMO, Wikipedians who feel entitled to remove material they don't like, which complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, just beause it doesn't present their favorite nation, religion, cause or hero in a favorable light, represent a serious problem.
I've encountered wikipedians who seem unaware that this kind of suppression is a violation of policy from both sides of the controversial GWOT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Admirers of the Tablighi movement wanted to remove coverage of the US allegations against the movement, on the grounds the allegations lacked credibility. This is not our call to make. I felt the criticism merited coverage, without regard to its credibility, or lack thereof, given the source.
At the time the admirers of the Tablighi movement keep excising coverage of the US allegations those paragraphs were the only portions of the article that had any reference at all.
I think it was a mistake for you to perform the merge without discussing it first -- a possible misreading of WP:BOLD perhaps. I was hoping you could offer a better justification than the one you did.
  1. I'd like to recommend more caution, because WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground.
  2. I'd like to recommend you consider making more of an effort to discuss your concerns on the appropriate talk pages.
  3. I'd like to recommend you consider making more of an effort to explain potentially controversial edits more fully, at the time.
Cheers! Geo Swan 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Was lazy and apologise. Best regards Mayumashu 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I suspect that you need to read WP:V and WP:NOR. Edit summaries like "Ulster-Scottish descent?" or "a Jew?" lead me to believe you're simply adding these ethnicity categories based on people's last names, rather than based on WP:RS that state they have that ancestry. Every piece of content on Wikipedia needs to be directly backed by a reputable source. If the Wikipedia article on a person says they are of Scottish descent, there must be a source that says so, not an editor's assumption. Mad Jack 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You re right - I ll take a look at the policy you ve linked up here. Thanks Mayumashu 11:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Category:Canadians of European descent

Please don't recreate Category:Canadians of European descent again. It has been deleted per consensus at WP:CFD. Thanks. --Kbdank71 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don t the people who voted to delete it because they don t like having cat pages for people by ethnicity nominate to have them all deleted instead of just one that renders the schema incomplete? Anyway, I ll do as you say for the time being Mayumashu 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mc/Mac

Why have you been changing the categories for various people from McX to MacX? JMiall₰ 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw other users doing it and it seemed a useful thing to do to improve navigatiion with lists of names on category pages, especially for pages listing Scots. I don t mind keeping them separate either though as long as there is consistency, which is what I was at last night with the list of Irish footballers. The question is also should a Mcx and a McX be separated or not? And the name Magill for instance presents a problem. Maybe in the end they should all be kept separate and a policy guideline put in place to support this. Mayumashu 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I wasn't aware of this. We have an article that mentions this at Collation. And MOS stuff gets mentioned here and several times on this page, this page and on some people's talk pages. So it looks like it has been brought up before, quite a few people seem to prefer this but there is not an overwhelming consensus and it hasn't made it into a policy yet. As per one of the comments on one of those pages I'd be tempted to try to get consensus on all these related issues, put something into the MOS mentioning it so people know what to do (even if the consensus is not to sort McXs as MacXs) and then if necessary get a bot to change all the names. JMiall₰ 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Quebec

Hi Mayamushu, you created this Category:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec. I know there is not now a Governor of Quebec, but I think there might have been before 1791 as Hector Theophilus de Cramahé was Lieutenant-Governor from 1771-1782 and he was often described as deputy to Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Why the renames?== You added "Canadians of (insert ethnic group) descent". Why not "Asian Canadian" only? Instead of "Canadians of Asian ancestry". Why doesn't Wikipedia have "Canadians of European ancestry" or "Canadians of African ancestry"? Are you a genealogist or what?

Canadians of Spanish descent

You will have to monitor this article and similar others better as some Spanish vigilante (User:Spain21) nostalgic about the imperial days thinks he could just impose his own names on Spanish-descended ethnic groups.

Thanks for the tip, but I m so active here now - busy. Mayumashu 15:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Michael Meeks

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Michael Meeks, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

national origin/immigrants and national descent/emigrants

I see how you tried to separate immigrants/emigrants from the national origin/national descent categories (which were to include both immigrants/emigrants and their descendants). I suggest this is too complicated and leads to the confused merge proposals going on at CfD. I think that the immigrant/emigrant categories should either be collapsed into their national origin/national descent categories or made the immigrant/emigrant categories be made subcats of the national origin/national descent categories at every level. Hmains 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sports in Saskatchewan

Can you improve/edit/update this newly created article please? Sports in Saskatchewan I see you have started the Sandra Schmirler curling article. TXS SriMesh | talk 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Crosby

It seems that you have incorrectly submitted your AfD, so I have attempted to correct it for you. — Wenli (reply here) 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that. thanks! Mayumashu 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Subcats of Category:African American sportspeople

The edit histories show that you are the creator of several subcategories which have been nominated for merging into Category:African American sportspeople.

Seven subcategories are being considered for merging into Category:African American sportspeople in accordance with Wikipedia's category discussion policy. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page.

This CFD began on October 27, so don't delay if you wish to participate in the discussion. Cgingold 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Category for discussion nomination

I have nominated Category:People from Cardston municipal district, a category you created, for renaming. See the discussion HERE. Ubi Terrarum 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CSL

If you want to split one page into two seperate pages, the only way I know of doing it is by cut/paste. If you split the page, I recommend moveing the information on the current league to Canadian Soccer League (active league) where it previously lived and moving the current CSL page to a new name. I also request a history merge for Canadian Soccer League at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen so please don't move anything until that is complete.

Also, I tried moving the original Vancouver Whitecaps page to Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) as well as the talk pages but it wouldn't let me. Could you also move Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps to Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) to keep the talk page with the original article.-- Cmjc80 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

British Basketball League players

Hi, I have noticed you have changed the nationalities of many of the BBL players to England/Scotland/Northern Ireland etc. As the league is under the banner of BRITISH Basketball League, and the national team plays as GREAT BRITAIN, I think that it is more suitable to display the Union Jack flag for nationality rather than to segregate them into England and Scotland etc. This is also the way it reads on the official BBL website, as British and not English/Scottish. As I have done most of the pages related to British basketball, I think that this is the best and most ideal way. I appreciate the politics regarding the identities of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people, but as this is the BRITISH Basketball League, it should display the British flag. Cheers! HappyFace (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the name of the league has anything to do with it. it is useful to know each player's home nation as they do play for their home nation for the Commonwealth games for instance. how about a compromise with the home nation's flag in brackets after the Union Jack? Mayumashu (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

American Hockey League players

Hi why did you change all those AHL player categories without mentioning it first? Right now we have a huge half completed mess for a simple change that really doesn't provide any benefit. The proper thing to do is file a WP:CFD. There's a bot that will perform all the tedious work if the proposal is actually agreed upon. Thanks ccwaters (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. The player categories are now a huge mess for a change that doesn't really help anything. When making changes of this magnitude you really should consult WP:CFD or in this case WP:HOCKEY. -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I respectively disagree that the change doesn t help. European clubs change divisions and even leagues, so players should be listed both by club as well as competition (ie. league). Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And if you would have brought your opinion to WP:HOCKEY you would see that we had recently devised a way to handle this. -Djsasso (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, where on the page - couldn t see a heading that looked the likely one Mayumashu (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't been implemented yet because it was a pretty recent discussion. But its at the Swedish ice hockey task force section of the wikiproject. I don't have a problem with having a by club category. But I do object to putting it between the league and the team category when it will end up the only thing in the league players category in most cases. My only point is that major recatting like this should always be brought up at the applicable projects. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
okay, thanks. Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Mari Saris

A tag has been placed on Mari Saris requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:DATE for correct formatting instructions

I have modified your edits to Jack de Heer so that they are compliant with the guidelines set out in WP:DATE. Please note that, per these guidelines, places of birth and death are not to be entangled within the lifespan of the individual. Thank you and Cheers, CP 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall henceforth comply Mayumashu (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ice hockey categories

To be honest, I'm not sure if I like what I am seeing here. You seem to be setting up a new structure of categories... but I don't feel it is fully adequate. My big problem is your usage of the broad word "Amateur". I would like to personally like to suggest a different approach to you that removes this word:

  • Category: Ice hockey
  • Category: Ice hockey teams
  • Category: Professional ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Senior ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Collegiate ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Junior ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players

The usage of the term "Amateur" is quite skewed in Ice hockey. A lot of junior leagues are not considered amateur, some are (but only arbitrarily). Senior leagues and pro leagues have been known to jump back and forth from "amateur status". I hope you find what I am saying agreeable and we can hopefully fix this. DMighton (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

right. don t mind if it goes then. regards Mayumashu (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I d prefer to have it but I m probably in the minority Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Amateur" is best described as an obsolete term when describing levels of hockey. That is my feeling on it anyway. These days the term only establishes whether or not a player is eligible for NCAA participation. DMighton (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian people by lifestyle

I have nominated Category:Canadian people by lifestyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Under-20 sportspeople

I have nominated Category:Under-20 sportspeople (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Western Hockey League (minor pro) players

Thanks for expanding the subcategories for WHL (minor pro) players. Can you think of any other significant minor leagues that deserve such a category? I do not want to get too specefic as they would just call for deletion. Keep up the good work, I will continue to populate the categories. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ve been cleaning up category links for players one player at a time, jumping around (having fun!) and as I go I ve been adding these pages for players by league using hockeydb and eurohockey.net. But to answer your question, I m not that familiar with the history of leagues, just doing it as I m going Mayumashu (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding Categories

You might want to be carefull when you add categories to pages. A page should not be in both the parent category and the sub category. It is fine for them to be in two differnet sub categories but pages should never be in a parent category and a sub category at the same time. For example you have been adding Category:Ice hockey centres onto player pages that already have the category Category:Canadian ice hockey centres. This is a nono as it causes category clutter and defeats the purpose of having sub categories. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Molnar

I added one of the football player infoboxes. Do you know of more information? I also added a citation template for references and removed the error tag from the page. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland Vann

This article also received a tag for improvement for references. An infobox and inline citation template were filled in for references so that the tag could be removed. Please have a peek to save your articles from bother by tags. Kind Regards...SriMesh | talk 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Steve Molnar / Cleveland Vann we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Steve Smiths

Just one question about your moves of the Steve Smith ice hockey players ... Why? They were both born in 1963 and they were both defencemen, so adding those facts to the disambiguation term adds nothing and does not help. Snocrates 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. because the change I made follows a (near) convention for naming bio pages, step by step - first step to disambig, state occupational field - ice hockey - second step - state year of birth - or - state occupation within occupation field. for both of them all this is the same (ice hockey defenceman b. 1963). next step, nationality(=citizenship), again the same, so finally add on place of birth. I know the way it was provided of more concise statement of disambig. in the title of the page, but not a more concise disambig. I prefer use of convention even if occasionally it results in lengthiness. Mayumashu (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Something to be aware of is there was already a decision on how these players were to be named by the hockey project. We had found the way that created the least amount of issues. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If several users concluded that the way it was is better, then I would suggest a revert. Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion referred to by Djsasso did not follow the conventions. We don't use full names when the person wasn't known by that name. He also committed a no-no by moving the pages in the middle of a formal move proposal, and somehow managed to reverse the talk pages in some of the links by forwarding the pages to the wrong ones! Snocrates 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your page moves

Mate I don't understand some of your page moves. For example you moved Jimmy Allan (cricketer) to Jimmy Allan (cricket) when WikiProject Cricket's naming conventions clearly state that for when someone of the same name already exists then (cricketer) will be used. You've also reverted some pages of Australian rules footballers when again, those that contribute to the project are in agreement that (footballer) is to be used. Please don't moving these pages without discussing it with the relevent Projects in the future. Thankyou. Crickettragic (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

i did them in hopes of starting an eventual change across all sports and occupations with disambiguation naming convention. there are a few now, tennis players and ice hockey players are John Smith (tennis) and John Smith (ice hockey) (and not John Smith (tennis player) and John Smith (hockey player)) the advantages are that a number of formal players become coaches, managers, etc. and second, its often (but not always) provides for a bit more concise naming. I guess I need to do what you suggest first and go through the various project groups talk pages. Mayumashu (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Award

A Barnstar!
The Red Maple Leaf Award
For your long running contributions to Canada related topics, I offer you this red maple leaf. --Qyd (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


wow - thanks!

Tallulah Bankhead

Hi Mayumashu, I am wondering why you put Tallulah Bankhead under European Americans? How many generations of a family should be born in the US before they are just considered Americans? Poodle Girl (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Americans of English descent category

Hi there. You recently added the Category:Americans of English descent to Ronald Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The category appears to be empty, however, and was previously deleted. Per the deletion discussion, the cat was merged into Category:English Americans. Just a heads up: you might want to change the ones you added back to the deleted cat and change them instead to the other cat. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

didn t realize it had been deleted. thanks Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chinese Americans

Regarding this edit [3] (which you'll notice User:HongQiGong has further changed) ... I appreciate the need for some standardisation in category definitions, but as you go off on your campaign for which there's been no canvassing to gain the opinions of editors who work on related articles, you're promoting new definitions of commonly-used terms which doesn't actually match with how those terms are used in the real world. This is not the first time I've seen you doing this either --- your moves of many xyz-Canadian articles last year did not have wide support (as can be seen by how many of them were put up for WP:RM and moved back to their common titles, or simply moved back without discussion by editors who came along and found your names to be very strange), but again you forge ahead without talking. This goes beyond boldness into reckless unilateralism, and frustrates other editors. So again, would you mind stopping what you're doing and initiate some discussion with other editors who work in this space? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans as well as talk pages of individual articles would probably be a good place to start. Thank you. cab (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I admit now that my move to rename Fooian Canadian to Canadians of Fooian descent was rash. I was prompted to do so by the inclusion of data that in part describes, and reference to the wikipedia pages for, individuals who are of partial Fooian origin, but think now that the wording of how this info is included on the page can be wholly done with the proper wording (which I havent attempted btw and do not intend to for now). I promise you that I will not attempt to rename Chinese American or any Fooian American page. I simply wish to not have people of less than 50% Fooian ancestry described as "Fooian-Fooian". This is admittedly an arbritary distinction but so is any description any of us choice to settle on. Again about the Fooian Canadian page change attempts, I apologize for my rashness. Mayumashu (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vietnamese Americans

Please take it easy on blanking Vietnamese Americans categories, okay? A little discussion first at WikiProject Vietnam would be very good. Most Vietnamese who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years are U.S. citizens. Please refrain from such large-scale changes without first making an appearance and discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Poe

Are you sure Edgar Allan Poe wasn't Scots-Irish? It seems like that claim was sourced to reference #4, but I don't have access to that book at the moment. I've started a discussion at the Poe talk page, if you want to go there. Zagalejo^^^ 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People for Assyrian descent

I have nominated Category:People for Assyrian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic origins

When writing about individuals' ethnic origins, please bear in mind that many common adjectives for ethnic groups, including English, French, German, and many others, are ambiguous because they could refer to languages and/or political entities as well as to ethnic groups. The specific titles linked above, and many similar ones, are disambiguation pages, and you should avoid creating links to these pages. Instead, please try to link to the appropriate article about the ethnic group, such as English people, Germans, etc. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Russ (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the tip/reminder Mayumashu (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Americans of English descent

Hi Mayumashu, can you advise what category a person should be put in if their great grandparent was born in England even though they may also have other English ancestry further back on other lines? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gustav. I ve been (re)categorizing people with less than half Fooian ancestry as Category:People of Fooian descent and those with more than half as Category:Fooian People. so, regarding the particular case you ve asked about here, the person would have 1/8 English ancestry from their great grandparent, meaning that s(he) would need the equivalent of 3 other English great grandparents (for instance, 6 great, great English grandparents) to reach 1/2 to be classified as, for the sake of categorization here, "English American". when unsure, according to the scheme I m suggesting (by my attempt to revamp) if English American proof, that is 1/2 ancestry / national origin, cannot be provided, then the person in question should be placed under American of English descent. Mayumashu (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Irish of Greek descent

A tag has been placed on Irish of Greek descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to foo-american lists

I do not agree with the renaming you have been making to foo-American lists such as List of Swiss Americans to List of Americans with Swiss ancestry. In the US, f00-Americans always encompasses both the original immigrants and their descendants and no distinction is made in the language. Nor do I why such a distinction need to be placed in WP since it would be an artificial imposition that does not exist in the real world and I do not see what good purpose it would serve. I do not agree with the similar changes you have made to the articles in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin for the same reasons. These articles are difficult enough to keep them from being deleted by the anti-Ethnic deletionists and to keep them maintained properly than to complicate things as you have done with the Canadian articles and seem now intent on doing to the US articles. Please refrain from this activity and change them back to what they were before you started. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hmains. I ll no longer try to rename any of the List of Fooian Americans to List of Americans with Fooian ancestry, as you like. There were a few more I had done and I ll revert them back. Mayumashu (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


No content in Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

diaspora categories

The 'foo diaspora' categories are designed to have articles about the fact that people have left one country and moved to another. One subcat of the 'foo disapora' category is the 'people of foo descent' which conains the actual people who have moved. And this is is a proper subset of disapora which is inclusive of all migrants. Hmains (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The way I see now is that 'Foo diaspora' would have two subsets 'People of foo descent' and 'Foo expatriates', as it's true isn't it that diaspora is a broad term that includes both immigrants (that is, people who have become naturalized citizens of a second or different country) and expatriates who migrate but do not immigrate. I know I had linked 'Fooian Canadians' and a few 'Fooian Americans' to Foo diaspora, but see now that that is too restrictive an application Mayumashu (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Diaspora includes all people who have moved from one country to another country for whatever reason and for whatever length of time. This is shown in the diaspora article as well as in numerous 'foo diaspora]] articles so you are correct that both immigrant and expatriate categories belong. I have made corrections everywhere I found they were needed. Hmains (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay Hmains. Best regards Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta

You created Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta. A discussion is underway regarding the deletion of this category.[4] As the creator of the category, please feel free to provide your opinion. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:New Zealand expatriates

Category:New Zealand expatriates, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –-gadfium 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, for Category:Britons of New Zealand descent, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 29#Category:Britons of New Zealand descent.-gadfium 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Owen Hargreaves

He's still an english footballer irregardless of citizenship. He plays for England thus making him an english footballer. However, the category that you put in is still correct. There should be both. Kingjeff (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He s an England international footballer (thru nat. team respresentation) and a Canadian one thru nationality. English footballers have 'English nationality' (ie. British citizenship and choose their home nation as England). But I m not bothered if you want to revert Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hockey player cats

Hi, I thought you'd be interested to know that you're not alone in your views on those oddball nationality categories that were added to some of the hockey players. I came across them yesterday while I was looking through Category:Ice hockey players by country, and ended up removing those cats from 8 or 9 articles -- my edit summaries said they were "silly & misleading". (And I'm seriously considering taking a bunch of (now-empty) sub-cats to CFD for deletion.) Anyway, after looking through the edit histories I discovered that I wasn't the first editor to remove them. Hopefully it will stick now, seeing as it's not just one editor's POV! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. I tried a couple times taking on the hockey crowd and gave up (for the time being). I ll keep an eye on them now to see if/when you put the sub-cats up for CFD and vote along with your nomination. all the best Mayumashu (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

immigrants/emigrants

I know you are interested in people who move so I will ask you. What is the use/purpose of the Category:Immigrants and Category:Emigrants and all their subcats when we have the more fully populated descent, origin and expatriate categories? Should we undertake to examine all the articles in the immigrant and emigrant cats and: 1) make sure they are properly placed in their descent, origin or expatriate; 2) remove them from the immigrant/emigrant cats? Hmains (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I ve added many if not most to these articles to these cat pages - I personally don t want to remove articles from them, Hmains. i think they are useful firstly simply in the information they provide (as any cat page useful) and secondly and more to the point here in reducing category page link clutter at the bottom of article pages as "Immigrants to Booian" (or "Naturalized citizens of Fooian") and "Fooian Booian" links are replaced by "Fooian immigrants to Booian" Mayumashu (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Taking just the Canadians who moved to the US, I see nothing but category clutter, unsustainable in the long run. There are currently four categories involved with purpose/scope that you appear to have invented but which I do not see support for in the categories of the other 200 some countries or in the natural language.

In the natural language, immigrants are anyone who moved from Canada to the US (1st generation), maybe not expatriates. Americans of Canadian descent may indeed mean the 2nd and so on generations of the first generation, but nowhere in the natural language is this term used to refer to partial descent. That seems to be your invention and not supportable. Canadian Americans is the style that the US uses to refer to all people who are now in America, whether citizens or not, whether first generation or whatever generation. As far as usefuless, I only see a use for two categories: 'Canadian Americans' and 'Canadian expatriates in the United States' Anything beyond that lacks the data in articles to determine the facts and, any any case, who cares? What WP useful purpose served by the two extra categories: none. What category clutter is there on articles: none; either the person is a Canadian American or a Canadian expatirate in the US. Hmains (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

my personal preference is only for having the first three - having the fourth is a compromise for me for, as you ve indicated, the term "Canadian American" is in relatively common use. But this common use is restricted to the U.S. and a lesser extent in Canada. Hmains, my argument, to be explicit, is that Fooian of Booian descent is more neutral a naming (irregardless of whether one is using American, British, or whatever English variant, from whichever country) that moreover circumvents discussion as to whether a person of 1/4 or 1/8 ancestry 1, 2, 5, or 10 generations ago qualifies - all cases qualify Mayumashu (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think, it is well established in WP that terms such as 'Canadian American' will be used. What you are doing is creating an excess of categories that have no obvious purpose to WP and are just an invitation to the ethnic deletionists to attack. Categories in this case should be limited to 'Canadian Americans' and 'Canadian expatriates in the United States' There is usually enough information in articles to place people in these categories; there is not enough to split the people into four categories. Such categorization is just guessing and has no place in WP. Accordingly, I plan to move all the articles to just these two types of articles Hmains (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav emigrants

Category:Yugoslav emigrants, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav immigrants to Canada

Category:Yugoslav immigrants to Canada, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav ice hockey players

Category:Yugoslav ice hockey players, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the repetitiveness of these — just trying to be comprehensive ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Réunion

You made alterations to the Réunion article, noting "since 2003 a region and not a department". You'll see that someone reverted your changes. In fact, Réunion is both. France is divided into both regions and departments, with each region comprising one or more departments. Réunion has been a department since 1946 and a region since 1974, according to a page outlining Réunion's history, which also affirms, "Form of state: Département d'Outre-Mer (DOM) (Overseas Department) of France, with additional status as a région (region) of France." The other three overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana) are likewise regions as well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. The article was not at all clear on that it was both but your explanation certainly is - cheers. Regards, Mayumashu (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Please note that categories aren't like article links — you're not allowed to add an article or a category to categories that don't exist (e.g. Category:Caribbean Canadians, Category:Jamaican diaspora). You have to either create the category immediately, or don't use it at all. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of racing driver articles

Hi Mayumashu. Please don't rename any more racing driver articles without discussing it with the relevant WikiProjects (WP:MOTOR, WP:F1, WP:AUSMOTOR, etc) first. Currently you're introducing a lot of redirects for no (apparent) good reason. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's to have a univerisally named disambiguation term. "auto racing" for people involved in auto racing either "motor racing" or "motorsport" for people involved in both auto and motorbike racing, and "motorsport" for those involved in even more general endeavours in motorsport. I ll do as you ask for for now. Mayumashu (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably best to raise it just at WP:MOTOR first, to keep all the discussion in one place. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section to the existing discussion on this topic at WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I note from earlier sections in your talk page that you've attempted this with numerous other sports before and been pulled up several times. Maybe now you'll stop trying this? --Falcadore (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you will suggest this at the applicable WikiProject in the future. It saves everyone work in the long run if consensus decides that it is not acceptable/unneeded. Royalbroil 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how are those reversions going from all the race driver pages you moved? Have you moved them all back yet or are you trying this on with another sport like golf? How about you fix your messes first before creating a new one? --Falcadore (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

just did one golf article to test those waters. yeah, the discussion at WP:MOTOR on this is for the status quo (I mean for it the way it was, with "racing driver"), isn t it. right thenMayumashu (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Italian footballers

Please stop adding footballer of Italian descent to Category:Italian footballers, the Category:Italian footballers for the people born in Italy and/or played for Italian national football team. Matthew_hk tc 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven t been. I ve added Uruguyan footballers with dual Uruguayan-Italian citizenship, but not just any Uruguayan footballer of Italian descent Mayumashu (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:revert to "racing driver" it is, isn t it

Hi Mayumashu. I wasn't sure whether the consensus was to revert the articles to "racing driver", or to revert them to whatever they were called before you changed them, i.e. thereby fixing all the links. You might want to seek clarification at WT:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't revert to something that it was not previously. Alan Jones can't be reverted to (racing driver) because he was not (racing driver). The definition of the word revert is to restore to previous. I don't see that as an issue at all.
And if you don't revert but choose another term, then that is still going to leave behind masses of double and triple redirects to clean up. Revert removes those redirects. --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Upon reading it again, it's clear that the consensus is for you to revert the articles to their previous names. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done them all for you (except the ones which had already been reverted by other people, or where the new name was as good or better than the old one). If you plan to move other articles in future, please take care to preserve any accented characters, unlike what you did with Gonzalo Rodríguez (racing driver) and Marcel Fässler (racer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Congo-Kinshasa diaspora

Category:Congo-Kinshasa diaspora, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – I've also nominated related "Congo-Kinshasa" categories that you've created — I won't pain you by including this notice for each one of them, because there are quite a few of them and this would get redundant really fast. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Roy Smith

Hi Mayumashu. Regarding Roy Smith (auto racing): If you go to the article and click on the heading "What Links Here" (on the left side of the article page), you will see that many other articles link to the old Roy Smith (racecar driver) page. You may want to change all those other articles to link to your new title. Thanks, Lester 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lester. I m not sure but it s likely that I ll revert this chance unless you feel that it should stand - please look here two entries above (and also another a bit further up) on this page and aslo on the talk on whether to have a universal 'disambig tag' or not for motorsport bios at WP:MOTOR. Mayumashu (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I didn't notice all the prior discussions. I guess it's better to wait for the article name to settle before changing the links. Bye, Lester 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People from Provost municipal district

Category:People from Provost municipal district, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced categories

Please do not add categories of ethnic or national descent in biographical articles, as you did here and here, unless there is information in the article that backs up the category and has a citation to a reliable source. As with all information on Wikipedia, categories must be verified with reliable sources, especially biographical articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I have to source that they are white too (ie. of European ancestry)? the more obvious something is, the more unlikely it is that it s going to be stated in (the) writing (of sth published). The idea of sourcing is the support views that contain a degree of controversy - the Michael J Fox edit does not. I grant you that it is possible that McAdams is not her paternal ancestors real surname, that it was acquired at sometime as an anglicized one to replace another; however, given that this is the more unlikely, the burden of "proof" (ie. of providing a reliable source) should be on the person who disputes that her surname is indeed that of her ancestor's Mayumashu (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"degree of controversy - the Michael J Fox edit does not": I think you are assuming ancestry based on last name only. That is simply wrong. Last names can be deceiving and subject to a lot of modifications over the decades and centuries. People have sworn that my last name is French (and have even argued with me about it), but my ancestors are from Germany. You need evidence that Fox has ancestry from the British Isles. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. An editor cannot assume an unknown (that's original research). It must be sourced. What is your evidence, besides his name, that Fox has ancestry from the British Isles?
"the burden of "proof" (ie. of providing a reliable source) should be on the person who disputes that her surname is indeed that of her ancestor's": Again, you're simply wrong. The burden of proof for verfication of the accuracy of an edit by citing a reliable source is on the person who adds the edit. Now, if I remove something that is properly sourced, then it's my burden of proof. But if you add something that isn't already there, it's your burden of proof. If any other encyclopedia operated on the assumption that anything can be added unless a reader challenges it, that encyclopedia would be the laughing stock of the world.
"Would I have to source that they are white": I don't think I've ever seen any bio article with the simple category of "White" or "Caucasian". But even if there were, you cannot assume anything by a person's last name or the way they look. Just as one example, look at G. K. Butterfield, whose parents were both African-Americans, who has always self-identified as African-American, and who is a member of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucas.
No offense, but frankly I'm quite surprised that you are editing this way after being here for over three years. These are fundamental Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


None taken. Yeah, if I reconsider the wikipolicy on WP:OR original research in connection with deductive genealogical work from near common knowledge (within well-done genealogy) and unpublished sources (Canada doesn t have the same history of fairly widespread anglicizing of Slavic and other 'less easy to pronounce' surnames; then that I have a good source for Fox not being Jewish and two poor ones for his being British Isles either Scottish, one source, or Irish, the other) is improper on wikip, and appropriately. my pet hobby here is tidying up category page links on biography pages, so instead of adding the links that I deduce to be (most likely) true, I ll go about severing those that have not been properly sourced (ie. provided with a published source). now, if I could convince some users that category links should be listed alphabetically at the bottom of pages (with the exception of ones such as Category:George Washington and Category:Michael Jordan), because it is (too) POV to presume knowledge of order of importance of them when users implicity accept their fundamental importance via WP:Categories for discussion, then I d be wholly straighten out, I think. Thank you too. Mayumashu (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Immigrants by nationality

Category:Immigrants by nationality, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:African American baseball players

Hello, Mayumashu -- Would you be kind enough to have a look at my response in the CFD for Category:African American baseball players? I'm hoping you will reconsider and withdraw your nomination. Thank you. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:Black Canadian sportspeople

A tag has been placed on Category:Black Canadian sportspeople, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

discrimination

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Category:Black Canadian sportspeople|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 200.121.212.61 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Le Haut-Richelieu

It's spelled with a regular hyphen, not an em-dash. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Expatriate footballers in England

I have nominated Category:Expatriate footballers in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Naming style in article

Want to add your opinion on naming styles? Talk:Hollywood_blacklist needs more opinions about whether a style unique to this page should be used or not used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

El-Din Hilaly

El-Din Hilaly was born in Egypt - why have you changed category on his page from"Egyptian Australians" to "Arab Australians"? I also ask why you did this with a misleading edit summ.? Your edit summ reads "(+cat)". If your edit was an error please correct it. Otherwise please supply source for Hilaly being "Arab Australian". SmithBlue (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven t. I changed the cat link from Egyptian Australian to Egyptian immigrant to Australia, and added Arab Australian as well as one other, if I remember right. Sorry for the vague edit summary though Mayumashu (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cat: Australians of British descent

You have created a category " Australians of British descent" into which you have placed Craig Johnston. This article makes no such statement. Please give a source showing that Craig Johnston is of British descent. I have concerns as to the notability of the category you have created and will raise them at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. SmithBlue (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnston played for one of the British home nations (England, his choice) in international football, and to do so (at the time) required having a British grandparent. (now it requires receiving citizenship) as for the "notability of the cat page", if you mean the legitimacy, it just needs to be filled in / merged with Category:British Australians. "of British descent" is a better name as it is more inclusive (and therefore easier to keep), as it can include both British immigrants (people who are in a true sense British) as well as those who are Australian (of any number of generations) with British ancestry. Regards Mayumashu (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are saying that if Johnston only had Boertrekker forebearers and had his own British passport he would have been prevented from playing? SmithBlue (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
of course he could through residency requirements (the three, five years or whathaveyou) leading to naturalisation. point taken - although the likelihooed of Afrikaner forebearers picking up the surname Johnston, or that his footballer dad was aborigine or Eastern European (that the surname was again acquired) seems remote to nil, a (good) source is necessary to uphold one's edits Mayumashu (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is more inclusive. But as roughly 70% of Australians are of British descent, somewhere if you go back five or six generations, it also makes the distinction meaningless. If you make something vague enough, for example, 'of primate descent' would include 100% of the worlds human population, and does not teach us a thing. Without a boundary the category is relatively meaningless. --Falcadore (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that last comment (by Mayumashu 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)) but probably come to the opposite conclusion as to who needs to provide the cite in the first place. (Humour)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 29 has a on-going discusion on this category. Please come and convince me to change my opinion. (Not humour) SmithBlue (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I think it best that we take this to WP:NOR/N. Please come over and put your view of this. I'll put a diff to our discusion above but leave you to put your own version on the page. SmithBlue (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Didnt realise you'd removed Craig Johnston from cat. thanks. SmithBlue (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Expatriate Players

I believe you have incorrectly categorises dozens of expatriate footballers. For example foreign players who played in Spain should be categorised as La Liga players and not as Spanish players. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

hello. Yeah, I was a little unsure about how best to link them. La Liga doesn t cover all pro football in Spain, does it? if not, there would be the odd article page on a player who s played in Spain but not in La Liga. relinking them then to Category:Football in Spain is the other choice

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul James (rugby player)

Moved back as that is the standard for a rugby union player.Londo06 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Hi there. I notice you have moved Neil Roberts (footballer) to Neil Roberts (Welsh footballer). I'm going to go through the pages which link to the former and redirect them to the new page. Just a quick note, that if you move any pages in the future, it might be best for you to correct the internal links. Peanut4 (talk)

Problem with categorization

Hello -- I see that you've done a lot of good work with the ethnic and/or national categorization of people. You've done an excellent job so far, and those of us who work with all of the ethnic or national categories appreciate your work; however, I'd like to point out an error that you and another few editors have repeatedly made in regards to Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. You and these other editors seem to be removing that category from the MAIN categories dealing with, for example, Category:Chinese Americans or Category:German-Americans, and placing the category in the much smaller and less developed SUBCATEGORIES which only contain American people of PARTIAL descent, for example Category:Americans of Chinese descent or Category:Americans of German descent. It's pretty clear that Category:American people by ethnic or national origin should be placed in the MAIN CATEGORY of a given ethnic or nationality category (e.g., in Category:Chinese Americans) and not in the SUBCATEGORY (e.g., Category:Americans of Chinese descent). I'm going to start fixing some of these and hope that you will do the same. Thanks. --Wassermann (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree respectively however, that Fooian Americans is / should be the main category, as you describe it and Americans of Fooian descent is the subcat. someone who is of full descent is by default also of partial descent and not vice-versa. Also, the partial descent categories should over time become the ones with most people linked to them since more Americans are of more than one ethnicity than one. Personally, I d like to see partial and full together in Cat:Americans of Fooian descent]], but sense that many users are partial (no pun intended) to the Cat:Fooian American naming scheme. But to describe someone with a quarter of fooian ancestry as Fooian American seems just wrong Mayumashu (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Japanese city naming

Here are links to the discussion about this issue. [5] [6] [7] [8] I wasn't involved in all of them but you can see there is extensive discussion already. I think the current naming style should be changed to something like Fukuoka (city) rather than Fukuoka, Fukuoka but you should be aware that many of the people who prefer disambiguation using the U.S. style are still around. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Irish of Iraqi descent

I have nominated Category:Irish of Iraqi descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Iraqi-Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

naming convention for Canadian places

Re. page moves to un-disambiguated titles, please be aware of Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide regarding naming conventions for Canadian settlements. Thank you. --Qyd (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Race/ethnicity cats

After a long while of trying to see how they can work and be useful have come to the conclusion that they cannot work and are not useful. First, it presupposes that those of different race/ethnicities are different in a defining respect, which is really racism in disguise. For if someone were to try to articulate how one ethnicity differs from another such sweeping generalities will offend some, be over inclusive and also under inclusive, and generally of little use to any one. Second, there is no measure: is being X% Fooian get you in the Fooian- type categories, where X-1% doesn't; and how, pray tell, is someone who is one percent more or less Fooian distinct for such difference. Third, how far removed does one need to be from Fooland - immigrants? first-generation? second-generation? It's difficult to put a NPOV limit on the issue, and if one subscribes to the Out of Africa hypothesis, then we are all African- somethings and the distinction is again rendered meaningless. Fourth, in Fooian-Booians categories, why if Fooian is so uniform a group to categorize them then allow XYZ-Fooians? shouldn't we be having XYZ-Fooian-Booians, like the great American-French category up for debate: where is the French-American-French and the German-American-French, as American is homogeneous. I am Mexican-American, but alas some of my ancestors were no doubt from Spain (and many of them may have ancestors from Italy as Rome ruled Spain for hundreds of years or from North Africa and more remotely Arabia), others descendents of those who crossed from Siberia 20,000 years ago, does that make me Asian-American? European-American? Arab-American? Because we cannot with NPOV and objectively categorize these people (remember BLP) categories, they should all go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • A lack of sources? There are more than 20 in Recent African origin of modern humans, so if WP is not concerned with how being Fooian-Booian matters, only that there is a source for it - as you contend - shall we add African ancestry categories to all biographies based on the citations in the article that describe the descent, rather than pretend it's not so, and perpetuate the concept that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents." (see Loving v. Virginia) Racial classification ignores our unity and perpetuates racism. Yes, we are miles apart. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ethnicity/race articles as you describe it are not reflective of (assumed) "shared cultural experience, as seen in linguistic and to a lesser extent religious aspects to culture" as you claim. Someone who hates people of, for exmaple, Irish, Jewish, Spanish, or German descent is a racist whether any of those groups are "races" or "ethnicities" in some scientific parlance. What cultural experiences should we expect all people of certain races/ethnicities share? Is Barack Obama's experience - the son of an African father who voluntarily came to the US and married a white woman who were equal in their marriage - the same as the descendents of Africans stolen from their homes, made slaves, raped by masters, and subject to unequal treatment afterward? Hmmmm... that's a leap of illogic. What cultural experiences do Tom Cruise, Ellen DeGeneres, Cameron Diaz, Paris Hilton share (all being Americans of German descent) that their next door neighbors didn't share? The sheer uselessness of this is manifest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomasz Radzinski

Hi there MAYUMASHU, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Thank you for the corrections in this POLISH FOOTBALLER's article. If i inserted some teams he actually never played for, it was because of FOOTBALLDATABASE.COM link (if you check it out you will see, for instance, reference to TORONTO LYNX), i was just trying to help. So were you, GOOD WORK!

From Portugal, have a pleasant weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

no, his record is confusing, probably mostly cause Canadian soccer teams change names, leagues, come and go so often. I looked into it pretty carefully, so I think I ve got it right now. Regards Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete category renaming nomination

On May 8, you added the template {{cfr}} to Category:American-Irish people, but you did not list this nomination on WP:CFD for comment. I therefore have relisted the nomination, and you might want to add your reasons for nominating it on the discussion page. --Russ (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

People vs. Peoples

Hi Mayumashu, when a category is for individual people, like Category:Akkadian people it should be classified under "Ancient people", not "Ancient peoples", which is for the whole groups (like Category:Akkadian Empire). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this as flawed then. There is no such thing as an ancient person, unless one wishes to be rather unsympathetic to someone aged. Mayumashu (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't my field, so I don't make decisions about this, but I think it's only unsympathetic to call an elderly person ancient, not people who lived in antiquity - I assume there's also a classical people category, etc.

Nouns vs. Adjectives.

Mayumashu, Categories should be nouns, not adjectives i.e. "Amorites", not "Amorite". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also don't take out the carriage returns - it makes the categories unreadable for other editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - what about Category:Aztec? Sorry if I took out the carriage returns, it wasn t at all intentional. And sign your comments, please - type ~ four times Mayumashu (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the category Aztec, and I would have used "Aztecs" if I did. Categorystuff (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Category Amorite people

The Category:Amorite people is for notable Amorite people, not for the "Amorites" umbrella category. Categorystuff (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

these namings are synonymous. Category:Amorite would serve as a better named page to serve as an umbrella Mayumashu (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The group is called the "Amorites", and there's no reason to change an existing category with a perfectly good name to a synonymous adjective. Categorystuff (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Gutium people

Could you change that to read "Gutian people". "Gutium" is the state; "Gutian" is the adjective. Thanks Categorystuff (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

you re right - will do Mayumashu (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Immigrants

Hi!

You're working a lot on the ethnic/national categories, so maybe you can help me: Should categories like Category:German immigrants to the United States be categorized as subcats of the several ethnic/national categories or not? Problem: Not all immigrants became naturalized citizens and there seems to be an difference between expatriates (see for example Category:German expatriates in the United States) and non-naturalized immigrants. We have Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, Category:German immigrants to the United States and Category:German-Americans. A naturalized German immigrant like Eberhard Anheuser would have to be listed in all these three categories (the immigrant category was a former subcat of Category:German-Americans, so all those articles have to be transferred to German-Americans too, a lot of work). Maybe we should create just one category like Category:Naturalized German immigrants to the United States as a subcat of those three categories. What do you think?

Greetings, --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wulf Isebrand. I started up many if not most immigrant cat pages from two years to a year ago especially, about when I realized just what you ve mentioned, that some immigrants become naturalized citizens but indeed many do not. I sense that nearly all contributors feel that there are too many kinds of cat pages, ones for expats, immigrants, naturalised citizens, and ethnicity. I think now, although as yet I haven t began any work in this direction, that the immigrant cateogry pages should be scrapped and upmerged into expatriate category pages. I would recommend therefore that there be, eventually, a Category:German naturalized citizens of the United States, which would be a sub-category of a Category:Americans of German descent as well as the sub-cat page Category:German expatriates in the United States. At any rate, with having the 3 types of cat pages, ones for expats, naturalized citizens, and people of descent, there should not need to be any listing of an article to more than one cat page, because the three cat pages would interlink with one another. So, I agree with you that we should have a 'Naturalized German immigrants to the United States' but, again, I would use the name it "German naturalized citizens of the United States' Mayumashu (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadians taken hostage

Category:Canadians taken hostage, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

CPSL/CSL

Hi I was working to clean up the links to the Canadian Soccer League disambiguation page and noticed you were the one to do the page moves on it. I was wondering what you thought of this idea: keep the 1983 page where it is, move Canadian Soccer League to Canadian Soccer League (disambiguation), then move Canadian Soccer League (current) to Canadian Soccer League. As far as I can tell, the current CSL has the most links to it and appears to be the most likely search if a person was searching for the CSL. What do you think? Metros (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I got things confused on the two disambiguation pages (the one for the CSL and the one for the CPSL). Metros (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

Hi. You probably did not know, but this is unnaceptable per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate canvassing. In the future, please abide by these guidelines. Thank you. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I didn t know. Thanks for letting me about. Mayumashu (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Kaliningrad

It seems that you forgot to add this to the actual list of CfD nominations. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would ask you to reconsider doing so (the main reason why I pointed out that Kaliningrad is missing an entry is because I wanted to oppose). "Kaliningrad" and "Kaliningrad Oblast" are two different entities, and since the latter should never be referred to as simply "Kaliningrad" (without any qualifiers such as "Oblast", "province", "region", etc.), there should not be any ambiguity and hence no need to disambiguate the city. Same goes for all other federal subjects you intend to nominate (unless, of course, they conflict with something else besides the federal subjects for which they serve as administrative centers—cf. Kirov, Kirov Oblast). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. You are, of course, welcome to go ahead with the nom; I just wanted to save you time on doing something that is unlikely to succeed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Irish categories

I have removed Dean Kiely from Category:Irish people of English descent. Kiely is English-born and is already in Category:English people of Irish descent. Please could you explain exactly what Category:Naturalised citizens of Ireland is for? There is no evidence of Kiely ever becoming an Irish citizen or living in Ireland, even if he has represented them at international level. --Jameboy (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ishmael Miller

What evidence do you have that Ishmael Miller is of "Black African descent"? (as opposed to West Indian or whatever) If your assertion is correct then I would like to add such information about his background into the article, so please could you let me know your source? Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete CfD?

eg Category:Latino Australians? - CfD isn't reached through link--Matilda talk 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think for future ref you should prepare the CfD before completing the tagging--Matilda talk 20:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
you re right - shall do then Mayumashu (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly is going on - I had tagged most of the Australian ethnic categories and I am seeing them wnder across my watchlist and i see 'cfr' and when i go to the pink boxes - they arent really leading to anywhere - is there a summary somewhere of why and what is happening? Apart from a talk item from Matilda - I would be completely in the dark - isnt there some sort of procedure to go by - if you are going to tag a whole category collection - shouldnt you actually explain somewhere and link properly to either a point for discussions or explanation? SatuSuro 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - that is the broader picture - no problems - but my issues is that theses sort of things happen at project level - where no forewarning occurs and inadequate explanation to the project occurs - which is what has happened here - some eds simply are not up to the global precedents that might have been set - I am of the opinion it takes a few minutes at a project noticeboard to explain - just one message - and I still dont see why adequate links arent made in the pink boxes regrdless of whether its a foregon conclusion or not - cheers SatuSuro 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mayumashu, its now been an hour and half since you acknowledged a CfD entry was required, but you've continued to tag yet more categories, and the entry is still not there. There's now several dozen tagged categories with dead-end links for a CfD discussion. This is not how things are done. I'll give you another 60 minutes or so and then will revert your tagging. In future, please write up your argument before tagging. Moondyne 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I still don t see where it says that for a 'mass nomination' the tagging can t be done first, but your the third concerned contributor, so i ll oblige Mayumashu (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The point was, it appeared you'd walked away and had been doing other general editing which IMO was impolite to others. Moondyne 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A number of them (eg. Category:French Australians) are pointing to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 19, rather than Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 20 which I presume was your intention. Would you mind rectifying please. Moondyne 02:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

People by city in Alberta

Please do not oppose the categories and do not participate in the categories Category:People from Leduc (city), Alberta and Category:People from Camrose (city), Alberta. The Leduc and Camrose categories doesn't need the word city in brackets. The categories are titled Category:Leduc, Alberta and Leduc, Alberta are also titled for the main article for an example. And the main article Camrose, Alberta is titled without using the word city in brackets and it doesn't need to disambiguate. These 2 Alberta categories has to be renamed in order to match the titles. Steam5 (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fiji Indian diaspora and so on

I've left some further comments at the aborted CFD. I don't think your suggestion to rename the category was too bad actually - if you look carefully its overwhelming use is for things related to people of Indian descent in Fiji, and the bits which genuinely are related to people of Fiji Indian origin who have since emigrated elsewhere probably barely merits a category anyway and would have sat fairly happily in a category named to indicate it was about Fiji Indians in general. While renaming it was definitely not an awful idea, creating both categories was probably a better idea. However, while Category:Nonresident Fiji Indians and the main article Fiji Indian diaspora do belong under Category:Fiji Indian diaspora, hardly anything else should be there - now you've created the new category for where that lot should have been, could you ship it across, otherwise the situation is going to be even more messy than before! Regards, TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity 01:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:People from Nara

Hello, you tagged Category:People from Nara for renaming, but it does not seem that it was ever listed on one of the daily WP:CFD daily pages. I've untagged it for now. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That s right, I was going to nominate, got into a talk about doing it, and didn t get back to it to cancel it. Thanks Mayumashu (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A Final Word on 'Finals'

Hello,
I've noticed your recent edits on the Men's Singles Wimbledon '08 page around the use of 'Final Eight' and 'Final Rounds' instead of 'Finals', and I've also seen your exchanges with other wiki editors on the History page.
I hear your argument about 'Finals' being possibly confusing, but I still believe it is not, and we should stick to it. 'Finals' is a perfectly correct english word, with a clear definition. According to my dictionary, it is a sport related term meaning 'Last few games' or 'Final phases of a tournament'. It describes precisely the section the word stands for on wikipedia tennis draws, and there is nothing confusing about it.
Now, understand that I'm not totally against your idea of 'Final Rounds', but I believe that before taking a unilateral decision that eventually affects the consistency of thousands and thousands of wikipedia tennis draws, you should perhaps address the issue at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis, and gather some opinions before making the mass changes (or worse, partial mass changes). Cheers, Plafond (talk) 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ian Baird‎

I note that you reverted my re-ordering of the categories - your edit summary "presuming that order to be one that describes greater to lesser importance is POV - alphabetical order does not presume POV" is not in accordance with the guidelines at Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization which quite clearly state that "Both the alphabet and importance are used to order categories currently" and "categories should be ordered so that someone reading the article can use them to understand the subject". On this basis, my order preference is to show birth/death date & place of birth first, followed by categories referring to the occupation generally e.g. football manager with the categories for teams managed immediately after that. To me, that meets the requirement of helping users "to understand the subject", which an alphabetical list does not. There is certainly nothing POV about it. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I object to some other re-ordering I've found as well. Please stop. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Lloyd

Would you be able to help out expand this article Maurice Lloyd football player as it is marked with a proposed deletion of this article? I noticed you had created Steve Molnar I added a reference. The article was created by a new user to wikipedia. SriMesh | talk 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don t have any particle CFL source or info to help but I have lent my vote to keep - ridiculous that someone would vote to delete without looking into what the CFL is, that it isn t some minor pro outfit Mayumashu (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

People by Japanese city categories

I've noticed that you've created several categories within Category:People by city in Japan(one for Sendai and several for Osaka suburbs). I've been work hard to populate not only those cats but also all the other ones, excluding the one for Tokyo. The main reason I've ignored that one(which doubles as a prefectural one)is because it may be bloated enough to require diffusion(if not subcats for any or all of the special wards, there should be one for Western Tokyo). Some of the other urbanized prefecture cats could use diffusion as well. There are quite a few Japanese cities(not just designated ones)that could use their own 'People from' categories as they have at least 20 natives apiece(with biographical articles in English Wikipedia for that purpose). Good job, keep it up... Ranma9617 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts, please?

I recently closed the Polish-Americans CFD as "merge". I've now been asked this:

what category is to be used for naturalized immigrants from Poland? The article Beata Pozniak is one that has been changed. She's a Polish actress who moved to the US in the 1990s and got her citizenship later. So it's incorrect to list her of being of Polish descent. She isn't of descent, she is Polish, just a naturalized citizen. Is there a more accurate category to be used here? Otherwise I'll need to remove the category from the article as misleading per WP:BLP.

I've pointed in the direction of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, but can you help further? Or is the answer that Pozniak is of Polish descent since she is Polish, and we don't need different categories for "degrees of Polish-ness"? Regards, BencherliteTalk 07:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Open/Canada Masters

Hi, I saw your recent move of the 2000 Canada Masters page to 2000 Canadian Open (tennis), but I fail to understand it. The choice of having 'Masters' in the title has nothing to do with the official name of the event, but has to do with the Series of which it was part of. And whereas I do get your point in changing the names of the '94 and '95 events since the 'Masters Series' didn't exist at that time, the 2000 event was already part of the 'Tennis Masters Series' and therefore it is just as correct to have 'Masters' in the 2000 article's name as it is for the 2001, 2002 and 2003 events. (There were some comments here on the naming of the Masters events.) I'm going to wait for your answer, before changing again the page's title. Cheers, --Plafond (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen your modifications to the Canada Masters tournaments. Understand that what I've said above is only for the 2000 event - of course, the 1999 event and the previous ones will not be named 'Canada Masters'. --Plafond (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, but on the other hand, the 2008 event that starts today is more often referred to in the media, and on the ATP website, as the Rogers Cup, and yet it is named 'Canada Masters' on Wikipedia - a proof that we don't always use the most common name. And perhaps if the 2000 article had been created in 2000, we would have still decided to use 'Masters' in the title to reflect the event's then recent inclusion in a new 'Masters Series'. (It will be interesting to see what the events will be called next year - 'Canada 1000 Series', 'Canada 1000' ?) Anyway, I'm not entirely opposed to your idea since your reasoning makes sense, but I still believe that having 'Masters' in the title is better to emphasise the fact the Series already existed at that time - perhaps we should address the issue on the WikiProject Tennis discussion ? --Plafond (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Jersey Criminals

Hi there. I notice you've just created a category: Jersey criminals under the Criminals by Nationality category. Isn't this misnamed since Jersey isn't a nationality but the nationality should be British? Jersey isn't a country in its own right to confer nationality. Just thought I'd strike up a conversation on it. Canterbury Tail talk 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin

Hi there!

I just had an idea regarding the naming problem at Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. We could keep the established “Fooian Booian” sheme, not as categories for persons, but for the different ethnic/ancestry groups (as subcats of Category:Ethnic groups in the United States), while the “Booians of Fooian descent” categories are used exclusively for individual persons. There are already sucats like Category:German American history or Category:Mexican American culture, which were not created as categories for persons. What do you think, could this be the solution?

Regards, --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Place of birth missing

Hi. Please take note that Category:Place of birth missing should be placed on the talk page and not in the article. So, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Alonso&diff=228723026&oldid=228278855 this edit' of yours is partially wrong. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Football club cats

Hi there. Just a quick note to let you know that categories for football clubs should be done in chronological order not alphabetical order. Peanut4 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hello Mayumashu, my friend. I have proposed the alternative renames to "people of X descent" categories of Iran and Lebanon you recently put to CFR. As we figured it out last time somewhere on CFR, my points deal with specific situation of some minorities. That some minorities are just "Y" living in "X", not "X of Y descent". P.S. I agree with rest of your proposals as you defined them. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Armenian-Lebanese people

In my opinion, the best name for the category is Lebanese Armenians. It is a direct translation of what they call themselves - Լիբանանահայ - Lipanan (Lebanon) + a + hay (Armenian). This can be applied to the rest of the categories as well. For example: Syrian Armenians, Turkish Armenians, etc. The subcategory X people of Armenian descent should be kept to categorize those who are of mixed ancestry. Hakob (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the Armenian language, the term Ամերիկահայ (America + hay, American Armenian) is used to refer to Armenian-Americans. Same goes for British Armenians. So I guess those terms are acceptable after all. I have created the Category:Turkish Armenians which I hope will serve as a template for all the other People of Armenian descent/origin categories. Hakob (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Hakob (talk) 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Category redirects to empty non-existing targets

You have created or edited a number of empty categories with a {{category redirect}} that redirects to empty non-existent categories. The categories are Category:British Mozambicans, Category:Chinese Mozambicans, Category:Mexican Koreans, Category:Spanish Koreans, Category:Istrian people and Category:Italians in Croatia. Why do you create such category redirect pages when there are no pages that categorise to those redirect categories, nor to their non-existing targets?

The reason I noticed this is that some days ago we added error detection in the {{category redirect}} template. You can read about that and see which category redirect pages are reported as strange at CAT:CATREDFIX. We cleaned out most of the cases on that page today. But as you can see some of the tricky cases that got left are your categories.

(Please respond here since I am now watching your talk page.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I emptied these pages of the page link that populated them (eg. Chinese Mozambicans etc.) to the appropriate category page (Category:Ethnic groups in Mozambique etc.) I ve tried to figure out the procedure for deleting empty cat pages but wasn t able to, so left them as a redirect, knowing that they would either be found (as they were listed under 'Cat:WP redirected cat pages' or would one day link pages conventionally named, so I redirected to that name. I know how to nominate pages at WP:Cats for discussion and could list them there, but know that there is some procedure for cat pages that have been empty for something like four days, but, as I say, I couldn t figure out how and where to list such pages (as a speedy nomination of sorts, I believe) Mayumashu (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that was a tricky one. I had to look around a little to find out how to nominate a category for speedy deletion. (I am a bit new as administrator so...)
First of all the rules at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD) doesn't exactly cover this case. (That is, an empty category that is redirected to an empty non-existent category.) I should probably bring that up for discussion on the talk page of WP:CSD. It is a redirect to an empty page so CSD R1 kind of applies. But I think the wise thing to do is to also apply the rule from CSD C1, that is to wait four days to see if the category stays empty and then delete it. (Even though CSD C1 says it doesn't apply to redirects.) So this case is kind of CSD C1+R1. Thankfully we are allowed to be bold and use our brains when the rules don't fit.
At the bottom of WP:CSD there are several templates to choose from, to get the page listed for speedy deletion and thus get an admin to come and take a look:
  • {{db|Your reason}} – I like this one since we feed an explanation text as parameter.
  • {{db-r1}} – Speedy delete because redirect to non-existent page.
  • {{db-c1}} – Category that has been empty for at least four days.
Since I am not clear about if this case is CSD R1 or C1 then I would use {{db|Your reason}} with an explanation like: "Empty category that is redirected to an empty non-existent category. Been empty for more than four days."
Of course, now that you have answered me I will take care of the deletion of those categories, so now you don't need to do anything.
And a related thing: I have seen that you do a lot of category rename and clean-up work. I think I saw on some talk page that you said it was messy to nominate big batches of categories for deletion. I don't see what case there would be when you need to nominate a big batch at once, since it is so simple to tag each category page with {{db|Your reason}}. Anyway, if there is such a case then we do have a simple solution for that. Whenever you need the assistance of an admin you only need to call us by using the {{editprotected}} template. And look at its instructions at Template:Editprotected#Edits affecting several pages. As you see if you want edits (or in this case deletions) to be done to many pages, then simply add the {{editprotected}} template to some talk page and write an explanation there what needs to be done and add a list of links to the pages that need to be handled. This saves a lot of work for both you and the admin. In this case you can for instance place the "{{editprotected}} + explanation + link list" on your own talk page or perhaps better on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion to allow others to comment.
Of course, you should only use this method for very obvious non-controversial cases. Otherwise you should tag each category with the {{db|Your reason}} since then it will show on the watchlist of those that created those category pages. After all, tagging with that template isn't much work. And if even more doubt then bring it up at WP:CFD.
By the way, at the bottom of WP:CFD there is a procedure for speedy renaming that you might have good use for.
--David Göthberg (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

'Russians in Estonia' vs 'Estonian Russians'

The problem with the Estonian Russians is that one is not sure if it is a Russian in Estonia or an Estonian in Russia. You may be more familiar than I am with the politics etc of post-Soviet nationalities, or perhpas I should say post-Stalinist - since, I think, the people were moved around in his time. I merely observed a minefield and tried to steer you away from it:

  • In the Middle East, religious minorities have been an endogamous community for so long that they are almost an ethnicity.
  • In former USSR, there are a lot of people who were left stranded away from their homeland as a result of the actions of the Soviet system
These people need treating differently from the emigrant categories on which you have eben doing sterling work. You might try "Estonians of Russian extraction" in this case, as fairly close to your descent categories, but I think they regard thesleves as Russians who have been stranded beyond the Russian boirder. The Armenian, Georgian, Assyrian etc cases are more difficult since many of these people have not been near the country in question in many generations: it is merely a reliogious denominations. That is not to trivialise the issue, which is a very significant characteristics. How about "Syrians of Armenian religion" or "Syrians from the Armenian minority". Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent"

I haven't been active for the last month, so I missed your CFD on Trinidadian ethnic groups. I was just trying to figure why, you believed that "Afro-Trinidadians" should be replaced by something incredibly cumbersome like "Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent" "per naming convention"? If so, doesn't that also mean "per naming convention", that "Cat:African Americans" should be renamed "Cat:United States people of Black African descent"?

In addition, why replace an ethnic group cat with a descent cat? That seems like an invitation to OR. Guettarda (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm...regarding this...no. Your summary is completely wrong on the facts. To begin with

  • You really shouldn't use Wikipedia as a reliable source, especially when the article utterly lacks sources. The Afro-Trinidadian people article is pretty bad and very slanted. Don't take it seriously...it's an advocacy piece.
  • There are six census categories in TT - Indian, African, Mixed, White, Chinese or Other. A little over 40% of the people self-identify into the first group. Almost 40% self-identify into the second group. About 18% self-identify as Mixed. The remainder self-identify into one of the last three groups.

[W]hat differentiates an Afro-Trinidadian from an Indo-Trinidadian with people of mixed Black-Indian (which apparently half or more of all Trinidadians) appears to be (from looking at what is said at Afro-Trinidadian people) how Black African-looking or how Desi-looking a person is and not the culture they have/subscribe to (their religion, food, dialect, other customs)

  • No. That's so wrong that I don't even know where to start.
    • Indo-Trinidadians are overwhelmingly Indian. Most families can identify which ancestors came from India. Granted, there's probably more white, Chinese, "Spanish" and Carib ancestry in the Indo-Trini population than most people realise. Less African ancestry, for a variety of reasons; mixed African-Indian people (a) tend to identify as a distinct group, (b) tend not to be readily accepted by either Afro-Trinis or Indo-Trinis and (c) are a large enough group to exist as a distinct group (in a way that Indian-white, Indian-Chinese, Indian-"Spanish" and Indian-Carib would not). Indo-Trinis are distinctive specifically in the cultural terms you mentions - religion, food, and other customs. Dialect would be a harder case to make, but there are more words in their vocabulary that have Hindi origins.
    • Afro-Trinidadians have more diverse ancestry than Indo-Trinis, but they are a distinct group that can be identified by more than the simple fact of African ancestry. Afro-Trinidadians are a distinct ethnic group. The border between Afro-Trinis and Mixed Trinis is a bit fuzzier. In part it's based on self-identification, in part it's based on rejection by other groups. What it isn't based on is "the way you look". People may classify others based on the way they look.
    • Finally, ethnic group identification says an awful lot about the way people vote. Despite repeated attempts by politicians to forge ideological political movements, people vote "race"...not descent category mind you, but rather, ethnic group identification.

[T]hat such a name is not suitable for describing both Trinidadians and Tobagonians together

  • Again, this is a solution looking for a problem.
    • We are supposed to be descriptive, we aren't supposed to rename ethnic groups to fit our sensibilities. Indo-Trinidadian, Afro-Trinidadian (or some variant thereon) and (Afro-)Tobagonian reflects the usage that's out there, both in popular and academic usage.
    • Tobagonians are a distinct group with their own customs, culture and dialect. Tobagonian Creole English, for example, is classified as a Lesser Antillean creole; Trinidadian Creole English isn't. Like Grenadians, Vincentians, Bajans, etc., second generation Tobagonians in Trinidad integrate. Tobagonians are overwhelmingly African - until the 1980s there was only a handful of Indians in Tobago, and they self-identified as Trinis, not Tobagonians. That might be changing, but as far as I know, no one has documented this. Tobagonians, of course, still differentiate between people who locals, who have been there for generations, and Trinidadians, regardless of race.

The new name is bulkier, but straightforward in meaning

  • No, it isn't straightforward. A good friend of mine is white Trinidadian, "French Creole" - fundamentally, a group descendant from the French plantation owners who settled in Trinidad in the 1780s. While Trinidad whites self-identify as white, some of them have non-white ancestry. As my friend said - her grandmother knew all the families, which ones were really white and which ones were "passing". In some cases that's easy to figure out which is which, because some of these families were gens de color libre when they settled in Trinidad, 200 years ago. If we categorise people by descent, then we could classify some white Trinis into "Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent". This sort of categorisation has already been rejected elsewhere in Wikipedia - quite rightly. It isn't our job to place people based on some level of blood quantum. On the other hand, it is appropriate to report self-identified membership of ethnic groups.

Still, of course, most notable Trinidadian's membership as either Afro-Trinidadian or Indo Trinidadian (or other), is not controversial and so I would support having Category:Afro-Trinidadians and ;Category:Afro-Tobagonians as sub-cats of 'Cat:T&T people of Black African descent'

  • All ethnic groups in Trinidad include at least some people who have some ancestry in other groups. This means that, done properly, Cat:Afro-Trinis, Cat:Indo-Trinis, Cat:Mixed Trinis, Cat:White Trinis and Cat:Chinese Trinis would all be subcats of Cat:Trinidad and Tobago people of Black African descent, Cat:Trinidad and Tobago people of Indian descent, Cat:Trinidad and Tobago people of European descent, Cat:Trinidad and Tobago people of Chinese descent and Cat:Trinidad and Tobago people of Amerindian descent. In other words, they're redundant with Category:Trinidad and Tobago people by ethnic or national origin.

If you really want to get a handle on it, I would recommend Yelvington's 'Trinidad Ethnicity' (the chapter titles are themselves informative) - it isn't perfect, but it gets it more right than wrong. Guettarda (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

CFD

Hello. I have voted for renaming except the Italian minority in Slovenia (another autochtonic minority with special status), to which I have proposed alternative name. - Darwinek (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Pool players

Please don't move any more articles from Firstname Lastname (pool player) to Fistname Lastname (pocket billiards). This violates the naming conventions. Hockey and a few other sports' WikiProjects have been ignoring them for a long time (and recently got them changed to make exceptions for them), but the general rule is to prefer the shortest, simplest disambiguator for a person that is a description of the person not of a field or activity. Allen Hopkins (pool player) is a person; Allen Hopkins (pocket billiards) could mean anything - a player, an equipment company, even a strangely-named game). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States

An article that you have been involved in editing, Burial of Jennifer Rosanne States, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Rosanne States. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Eastmain (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Categorization and subcategories

Hi Mayumashu - per WP:SUBCAT, "articles belonging to a subcategory should not be placed in the parent category also"; accordingly, I've undone a couple of your categorizations ([9],[10]). Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Carruthers

I see you're a past editor of the Bruce Carruthers page. Just to let you know that I've created a proper bio page at Wallace Bruce Matthews Carruthers. Please feel free to comment there or on my talk page if you have questions/concerns.J Costello (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Steve Smith (British-born ice hockey player)

I have nominated Steve Smith (British-born ice hockey player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Steve Smith (Canadian-born ice hockey player)

I have nominated Steve Smith (Canadian-born ice hockey player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English expatriates in the United States

I have nominated Category:English expatriates in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:British expatriates in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Rodhullandemu 01:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Afghan Pashtun people

You created a wierd category, "Afghan" is nationality and Pashtun people is ethnicity. Pashtuns are not just limited to Afghanistan, large bumber of them live in Pakistan and some live in other countries. You may delete your creation of category.--Flyingspirits (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That s the point. This page lists Pashtun people who are Afghan. I created it to fill the Category:Afghan people by ethnic or national origin. Mayumashu (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:2008 ATP Challenger Series tournaments

Hmmm the reason I did that was that I based it on Template:ATP Challenger Series tournaments, so I was simply perpetuating the lackings of that other template. Quick research suggests that both templates contain all the tournaments up to some point in June, and as Template:ATP Challenger Series tournaments was originally created in March to cover all the challengers being held in 2008 (I changed it to just a general all the challengers template), then that could be why it didn't include any later ones - because they weren't announced yet.

So sorry about that, feel free to fix my mistake! But notice there's also Template:ATP Challenger Tretorn Serie+ tournaments and Template:2008 ATP Challenger Tretorn Serie+ tournaments - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation people

Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation people, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Category:African American basketball players

A tag has been placed on Category:African American basketball players, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Re-created category which was previously deleted

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on [[Talk:Category:African American basketball players|the article's talk page]] explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Thomas.macmillan (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument for deletion of the basketball players and not baseball players is the distinct history of African Americans in Baseball, with the Negro league, Jackie Robinson and all that as compared to the sport of basketball, where African Americans are preponderant in nearly every league in the U.S. If you want to contest the deletion, feel free to bring it up.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Will you notify me when you bring it up for discussion? BTW, you should probably read this before nominating it.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I need to take it to WP:DR apparently. Mayumashu (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD vs. DRV

Hi; do you want me to close this CfD since you've taken the issue to DRV? I think that would be best ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I d like to keep it open, given a choice, as a way for users to see that the DRV nomination has been made Mayumashu (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, that's a good idea. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Categories in footballer bio articles

Hi, noticed you adding cats to various footballer articles and changing the category ordering. Just thought I'd mention that consensus at WP:FOOTY is to order the cats by who he is, what he did, who he did it for, with all clubs together in chrono order, followed by managerial positions if any in chrono order, and miscellaneous stuff at the end. This seems more helpful to the general reader, along the lines of the answer to this FAQ, that "categories should be ordered so that someone reading the article can use them to understand the subject". Also, you added the non-existent Category:The Football League managers, to Dave Mackay (footballer born 1934). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you added Category:Birmingham City F.C. players, which doesn't apply to Mr Mackay, removed Category:Birmingham City F.C. managers and Category:Derby County F.C. players which do apply, and duplicated Category:Scottish footballers. Perhaps you could take a little longer to check your changes before saving them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That was pretty sloppy of me - apologies and thanks for the edit of my edit. As for the cat page link ordering, the general (but not absolute) wikipedia wide view, as you likely know, is to order cat page links alphabetically as it removes POV from the discussion entirely Mayumashu (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I do know that, to be honest. Having nothing better to do, I just had a look at November's featured articles, which might be expected to reflect a generally-held view. Of the 33, 10 (give or take a minor miscount) have the cats in alpha order, 22 don't, and one has only one category link. Doesn't bother me personally which way it's done, except that where there's a reason for things being done a particular way, I tend to go with that, unless it breaches MoS, obviously. And no problem re the 'sloppy' edit - we all doze off from time to time :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I should, in light of what your mini-research reveals, qualify what I said, of users who care that the cat page links are given any order at all. Your mini-research into the featured article is revealing - I suspect a lot of users just don t really care how the cat page links are ordered, but I might be wrong about that (that there may be out there some different competing schemes for ordering besides alpha and the footy project's). good talkin to ya, Mayumashu (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DRV for Category:African American basketball players

Would you be good enough to take a look at my suggestion re changing the heading of the DRV section so it reflects the inclusion of all of the categories that were deleted in the original CFD? Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright Mayumashu (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Moves

Can you please not move GAA players to (Gaelic athletics) as that title is never used . Instead use Gaelic footballer, Hurler or Gaelic games for dual players . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I guess 'Gaelic games' in particular for a dual player. A couple had the disambiguate as 'GAA' for players of just Gaelic football but this abbreviation means nothing to anyone who does not follow Gaelic sport (or at least who isn t Irish) Mayumashu (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
That's fair enough i often see GAA used on Irish articles and have to expand it. The GAA is so popular here people often don't give it a second thought to using it Gnevin (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You may not know what (the) NHL is - same thing over here, really. Mayumashu (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean the NHL ;) Gnevin (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The National Hockey League is what I was raised on. (We only "hurl" when we re sick to our stomachs.) Btw, you may have noticed that I ve put up a batch of the Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) subcategory pages for rename, so the name is clearer to non Gaelic games followers, by adding GAA to the name. American and Canadian football have all-star teams too, if not some soccer league somewhere, so a cat pg like Category:1971 All Star (football) is very ambiguous when looked at through wikipedia-wide eyes Mayumashu (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You saw the category rename nomination, good Mayumashu (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England

I have nominated Category:Scottish footballers who have played in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:African American American football players

Category:African American American football players and Category:African American Canadian football players, which you created, have been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Information scientists

Category:Information scientists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

African American sportspeople

Thanks for the further categorization of the "left over" articles in Category:African American sportspeople. It's very gratifying to see these categories back from the dead and repopulated, with the addition of the additional categories to create a well-organized category structure. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You re quite welcome. By the way, I m subcatting for ones that I can populate with five or more members (which is my personal preference for a minimum) Mayumashu (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Subcategories

Hey, I am sort of a noob with the categories for deletion deal. Could you tag the sub-cats for me?--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland

I have nominated Category:English footballers who have played in Scotland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland

I have nominated Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland

I have nominated Category:English footballers who have played in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923)

I have nominated Category:English footballers who played in Ireland (before 1923) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Triple intersections

I know you are aware of the consensus to delete the triple intersection categories because you commented on it. Could you please stop editing against consensus to create and populate more of them. King of the North East 21:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a consensus - 7 votes to keep and 5 to delete. Anyway, I won t create anymore for now. Mayumashu (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by vote counting, it is determined by analysis of the debate, one keep vote because I like it, should not be considered equal to a delete vote that actually relates to wikipedia policy. King of the North East 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, decisions on keeping or deleting cat pages here are not mere counts of votes - agreed. Mayumashu (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Canadian expatriate soccer people in the United States

I think this category functions identically to the other expatriate footballer "triple intersects" since it is populated primarily with footballers. I understand that there are managers and a few other non-playing people, but the concept is the same. There are no "Fooian expatriate football managers in Boo" yet, but I expect they will come soon enough if this issue is not addressed now. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not trying to "pick off" a specific category, but instead am trying to consider all of the football/soccer categories at once. The current CfD is for the footballer-related triple intersect categories. I don't have a particular interest in the other sports-related categories at the moment, but if a consensus is reached with respect to football, we can consider the other sports at that time. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will remove the CfD, but I'd like to keep footballers out of this category (the only reason I stumbled upon it was because Melanie Booth is on my watchlist). If the triple intersect footballer categories are kept, they should be a sub-category of this one. No need to have a footballer article in both. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you and seasons greetings to you as well. Sorry we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but I understand your position and appreciate your comments. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Catregory named wrongly

Hi, you appear to have made a typo, so could you please, as author, move/rename "Category:People from Lower Hunt" to "Category:People from Lower Hutt" as there is no such place as Lower Hunt in New Zealand, and James Bannatyne was born in Lower Hutt. Thanks in advance--ClubOranjeTalk 07:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice the irony in the header of this section. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, touché! Thankfully it wasn't a criticism of Mayumashu's spelling, merely a request for correction :-)--ClubOranjeTalk 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:American expatriate American football players in Germany

Category:American expatriate American football players in Germany, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Kris Joseph

Hey - part of your AfD for Kris Joseph is that he is not a "starter on the team" -- as a heads up, he is a starter.[11] Not sure if that changes your mind about him, or not. Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

a bit. but I m wondering more if any NCAA Div. 1 bball player meets notability requirements? if so, whether he starts or not is a mute point Mayumashu (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following. "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports." NCAA basketball is the highest level of amateur basketball. Take a look at this discussion, too. GoCuse44 (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
So then the answer would be yes. But I have a problem with saying that anyone who has played a minute of NCAA Div bball would be notable. Do you know how many people that would mean?? There needs to be more detail provided to the wiki notability policy for amateur sport(s), for sure. But I don t know where the lines should be drawn, exactly. What the ice hockey project team does with the category Category:Hockey prospects seems a very reasonable attempt of having the top amateurs included. How about something like that for American college sportspeople ('athletes')? Mayumashu (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome the day we had a clear guideline on that. However, one has been proposed and there hasn't been any kind of consensus reached. It's an interesting discussion with all ends of the spectrum represented. Take a look and let me know what you think. GoCuse44 (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Read it, and I still think what I said here above. Yeah, I thought when I saw your Orange template that is was atypical but I do agree with you that as the policy reads, you are in your rights to have the whole roster 'bioed'. The problem, for me, is with policy as it s stated. Anyway, as you said on the page you refered me to, let s agree to disagree (but I hope, being Canadian, that Rautins becomes a bigger time player than daddy Leo) Mayumashu (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Fair enough. Thanks for your input. I'll see you around. GoCuse44 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Agger expat football reversions

Hi there. After the discussion, which you were involved in, around the expat footballers category, the decision was upmerge. A bot came to this page and did the job. Then you reverted it. I reverted your reversion, twice. You said if i didn't want a category i should ask for it to be nominated. The decision has already been made. I apologise if i've misunderstood the outcome, but if i did, i am only replicating the bot's actions, in which case it's done that across hundreds of articles. --Ged UK (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK I see. Sorry. Those categories always seem to confuse me! My bad. --Ged UK (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Immortal disambiguations

I've reverted and redirected the links to the Immortal disambiguation page. While I don't disagree that the words "Immortality" and "Immortal" can have their own disambig pages, your work on Immortality (disambiguation) was very incomplete, and the changes there and at Immortal seemed more confusing and less complete than what had already existed.

While editing disambig pages, it's important to leave them more complete or coherent than when you find them, because their only function is as signposts to articles. Naturally, your work is still in the histories if you want to come back and complete them as more finished disambiguation. Cheers. Yamara ✉ 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

okay Mayumashu (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved your comment

Hi; I moved a recent CFD comment of yours to where I think you meant to place it: see here.

If I'm wrong, of course change it back, but I wanted to let you know I moved it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:American expatriate baseball players in Japan

Good to see someone finally created this category. I look forward to your moving of the 485 remaining pages out of the parent category :-D . -Dewelar (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Didn t say I d do the moving work, but, yeah, it needs to be started Mayumashu (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was meant as a joke, but yeah, if you're willing to do it, go for it. If I edit any pages where I run across this, I will fix them as well. I've done a couple already. -Dewelar (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Martin Dugas

Hey there, your recent edits to Martin Dugas have left the infobox looking lopsides, as there is one too many linebreaks in the 'Years' section. Please could you try and rectify? Thanks, GiantSnowman 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Amqui

Any city or town that has a reasonable number of notable people from it is entitled to a "People from (place)" category no matter what its population is. There's no minimum size criterion that a place has to meet to qualify. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, I guess so. so, minimun 3 notables? 5? 10? Amqui has, what was it, 4?

Cleveland Force (1978 – 1988)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Cleveland Force (1978 – 1988), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Cleveland Force. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Somno (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, archiving this talk page might be helpful to people trying to use it. :) Somno (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Matt Bobo

Thanks for the move. It wasn't until immediately after I wrote the article (which linked to the original Matthew Bobo), that I realized he was better known under the other name. I just never got around to moving it. Bobo. 11:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You re welcome. It seemed to make sense so I went for it. Mayumashu (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Carolina Dynamo players

Hello again. I wanted to ask why you were creating sub-categories in several player categories like this one. In particular, it appears that you are making categories for players who played for this club in various levels of the US football pyramid. I'm not sure why that is necessary or helpful and wanted to understand if there is already a consensus for it and if not perhaps we can start a discussion on the WP:FOOTY talk page so the community can decide whether it is desirable. My worry is that a club like Norwich City F.C. may have played at 6 or more levels of the English football pyramid, requiring several categories for just one club's players. Please let me know if you've already discussed with others. Thank you. Jogurney (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have no intention of trying to do this for non-North American (European etc.) clubs. American sports organization is generally done by team by league (ie. competition). So a page like say Category:Portland Timbers players is linked to Category:USL First Division players when in fact many players never played for the Timbers in the USL First Division. (They played in the USL A-League.) Of course for most of the prominent North American sports teams this isn t an issue as leagues survive with the teams intact, but soccer leagues here come and go. Of course in Europe with promotion/relegation organisation is done on a whole different basis. I tried to convince one or two users on the wikip ice hockey task group of this but still they (with their North Amer. bias) want to organise German and Swedish ice hockey players by club by league. I would nt mind if linking players by club were not linked to league/competition even for North Amer. but don t know how this would go over with sports fans/wiki users here in N.A. (given the situation for other N.A. sports) Mayumashu (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. If I understand you, the plan is to create categories for different iterations of the clubs only. So when a club like Seattle Sounders reorganizes to enter MLS, it is a different club from the USL Division 1 club (I agree). However, I would expect to limit these categories so that they are in a 1-to-1 ratio with the articles. The USL does has had promotion/relegation (I think they may still) and clubs do not always reorganize when changing leagues (such as the Sounders did). Is it your understanding that the Carolina Dynamo actually reorganized each time it played at a different level of the USL pyramid? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
sorry, what I meant by organising is how we organise the pages on wikipedia. for American and Canadian sport(s), wiki users almost always list players by club, as elsewhere, but will then list these lists by league (although I see there arent these links for Carolina and other lower division American clubs - they are there for the USL First Division - see Category:USL First Division players and notice that not just players are listed but players by teams.). This is why, given that these links are made, I started to refine the lists. As it stands, there are players listed as having played in the USL First Division who never did (they played in the USL A-League or the USISL A-League, before league restructuring occurred.) For the rest of the world, with relegation/promotion, this is not doable, of course. Regelation/promotion in the USL is done by committee every few years not by playing results every year, I believe. But there is a lot of league restructuring in Amer./Can. soccer. Perhaps I should abandon my attempt and instead cut the links of players by club to players by league, resulting in a structure the same as rest of the world. It would certainly involve less work Mayumashu (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The categories which contain players by league are rarely used as far as I can tell (and rather pointless in my view). The more commonly used categories contain players who have played at the club. Are you suggesting the better method is to categorize players by league they played in rather than by club they played for? I would disagree with that approach to be sure. Jogurney (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, not at all. I think, as you do, that categorising by club is certainly most important. Then I would categorize by league too, of lesser importance but still of some, I d say. The problem is with catting by club by league (combined) Category:USL First Division players lists players by club too if that club played in the USL First Division regardless of whether the club played in a different league before (the USL A-League etc.) It is been done this way for Can/Amer sports in general, including soccer, and I set out to tidy the soccer ones up accordingly. I now think though, from our having discussed it some, that instead we should not the categorize by club by league for Amer/Can soccer (or of course any soccer). I m busy now with other things but will go about reversing what I did and severing all links of players by club by league in the time ahead. Mayumashu (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry again. I think I finally understand. There are several subcategories of the USL First Division players which are "club x" players categories. Thus, the USL First Division players cannot is inaccurate. I think the solution is simply to remove the "club x" players categories from the USL First Division players category. This means a player's article might have both "club x" players and USL First Division players categories on his article, but I think that's the cleanest solution. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
L:::::::I agree. Thanks for bringing it up, for the talk has allowed me to "see the light". I was thinking too that Category:USL First Division players should be renamed Category:USL First Division/A-League players or Category:USL First Division (A-League) players, as the change from A-League to First Division was a cosmetic name-change only one. This would allow a number of players by teams to remain listed (the ones for teams that never played in the USISL). I know, from what you ve said, that you don t value the by league pages as much, so you may not care one way or the other. Either way, good talking with you Mayumashu (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries. My suggestion is to keep the USL First Division players name for the category and just make it clear in the text that the category covers players from the past iterations of the USL First Division, including the A League. I think if you look at some of the categories for players of clubs who changed names you can see similar examples (Category:FC Saturn Moscow Oblast players). It was nice talking with you as well. Jogurney (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Youths

Category:Youths, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yugoslav footballers

The category is for pre-1992 Yugoslavia only. Matthew_hk tc 11:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be changed then. There should be SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia pages to show the 1992 divide Mayumashu (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The league structure is significantly change in 1990-91 season and 1991-92 season. Current sorting international footballers is putting SCG/FRY in one cat, SFRY/FPRY/the kingdom in another cat. Matthew_hk tc 10:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"West German"

Stop creating and adding those POV fork categories for anything supposedly "West German". -- Matthead  Discuß   22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And you are nice about what you d have me do too. Fact is, I haven t for some time. Mayumashu (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Bisons

Just a heads up, there have been at least 7 sports teams called the Buffalo Bisons. Category:Buffalo Bisons players is for a 19th century baseball team. From the hockey players I changed, you want Category:Buffalo Bisons (AHL) players. Jackal4 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks Mayumashu (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Yugoslavians of Albanian descent

I notice that this category is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to (are members of) it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you, the creator of the category, in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Yugoslavians of Albanian descent]] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I have also blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It should have been emptied by whomever. Nearly any notable Kosovar was a citizen of Yugoslavia. Mayumashu (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Albanians of Montenegrin descent

I notice that this category is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to (are members of) it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you, the creator of the category, in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Albanians of Montenegrin descent]] to articles/categories that belong in it.

I have also blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

--Stepheng3 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

likewise, this page should not have been emptied - those who saw or see it as unnecessary should have nominated it for deletion Mayumashu (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile figuring out who depopped it and discussing the matter with them. --Stepheng3 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sports lore CFD

Please see my comment in the CFD for sports lore ASAP. Cgingold (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

have done, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I don t know how to do the 'pipe work' though Mayumashu (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
See what I did here] for an example of how to make sure the nominated category points to an umbrella nomination. --Kbdank71 17:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I see Thanks a lot. (Looking at what you did, I think I had a '|' and not a '#' ) Mayumashu (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

When moving pages, as you did to Talk:Konjic Municipality, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. Thank you.

Think I did Mayumashu (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Croatian_Republic_of_Herzeg-Bosnia#Move_the_article_to_Croatian_Republic_of_Herceg-Bosna

I posted the move suggestion; let's see what happens. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

good idea, thank you Mayumashu (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dejan Jakovic

Hello. If you want to move a page, then please suggest one on the talk page - do not simply redirect a page. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don t see this as a controversial change and so went ahead - his names is spelled with diacritics throughout the article. I will however not change it back again before talk Mayumashu (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
His name is spelled with an accent incorrectly - I will change it accordingly. Regards, GiantSnowman 02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you say that? It we are using diacritics for proper names, which is common practice on wikip, and Jakovic is Balkan-born, even actively playing there, then his name should be spelled Dejan Janković. What s your rationale for not thinking so?

Category:Korean expatriates got depopulated

Looks like someone depopulated Category:Korean expatriates. I've blanked the page. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know. I don t mind personally seeing this one go Mayumashu (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of your page moves

Hi I noticed some page moves of yours that appear to be against current policy; I list the areas of concern below. Please don't take this criticism too heavily; it's quite clear all your page moves were made in good faith and many are clearly extremely helpful. This is offered to assist your future page moves.

Also, I note you changed some abbreviations from use without periods to with; per MOS:ABBR "There is no hard rule about periods—in general, avoid them." (there may be an exception in this case but your edit summary suggested a general policy on your part so I thought I'd mention it).

Cheers, --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity

I have nominated Category:Americans of mixed Black African-European ethnicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People by university

Category:People by university, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Cat: French people of Vietnamese descent

Can you add Melanie Huynh to the list for me? And is there any possible way to add a People of Vietnamese descent (which is a category) into the overseas vietnamese page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwaynydelights (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Mme Huynh needs to have a wiki article page to be added to the category page Mayumashu (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Burnaby rename categories

Hey there, I check on on Burnaby's talk page for an example and you support renaming all of it's titles from City, Province to it's City name only and I was wondering I propose the nominated categories for 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed and I did so if you want to check the categories go to today's Categories for discussion to match it's main article title and let you if you could support renaming those categories click on this link. Steam5 (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter North

Hello Mayumashu, I don't know exactly what you did, but as a result of your actions of April 7, there are now two pages about pornographic actor Peter North: Peter North (pornography) and Peter North (pornograpny). This last page with the wrong title has the complete history up to 8 April 2004 but lost its talk page. The 'pornography' page has a history of only 9 edits AND the complete edits page, starting from 2005. Could you put this right and make ONE article with complete history AND complete talk page?

I would by the way much prefer to identify the subject as a man, not as an activity. Just like, for instance, the two other Peter Norths. Maybe you could name the page 'Peter North (pornographer)'. It's a pity you didn't discuss this first on the talk page. Glatisant (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry about my sloppiness. have the misspelled one redirectly to the other now Mayumashu (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's Step # One. But could you also put the complete history up to 8 April 2004 on the right page, i.e. Peter North (pornography), not leave it on the misspelled one (that nobody will ever look for)? Glatisant (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, the revision history page for the article. I ll need to ask an administrator or someone about how to make such a move. Doing what you suggest and using 'pornographer' as a disambiguate should allow us to put the article, talk page contents, and revision history all back on what is now named Peter North (pornograpny). I ll try this if you think that it s the best move at this point Mayumashu (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
14 days later, I saw nothing has changed about the history of the article; the complete history, amounting to some 1800 edits, still only is attached to 'Peter North (pornograpny)'. Could you ask anybody to help, who knows how it works? You seem an experienced user. Glatisant (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I was waiting for a confirmation that I should go ahead with renaming Peter North (pornograpny) to Peter North (pornographer). If this rename is refused by the page renaming system, I will put in a request to an administrator for this rename. So I will then go ahead with this then, will get to it in the next 8 hours or so. Mayumashu (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Cassiar electoral district

Saw your addition of the Cassiar Country cat, which I guess is alright on a related-name basis. Thing is, teh Cassiar electoral district also relates to the political history of the Skeena area; the riding was the entire Cassiar Land District, which was pretty well everything north from about Kitimat on up, I'll see if I can find an old map. Iv'e often wondered about putting location cats on electoral districts; but it's a slippery slope and not always obvious by the name; similarly now the Cassiar Country is in the Skeena riding, who do we cat that? Do we put the Cassiar electoral district in the Category:Skeena Country cat too? or do we ahve cats "loations in the XXX electoral district"...of course not, but I was wondering about fields in town/lcoatino infoboxes statingwhich current federal/eelctoral riding places are in; which makes a lot more sense, or as much sense anyway, as what regional district they're in. Anyway this was really just a comment about the scale of the old Cassiar riding; it helps to udnerstand that the Dease Lake area was virtually the only inhabited part of that region, and that even settlements at Hazelton were related more to the Cassiar Rush/Mining District than to anything later on; in 1903 Atlin had become very populous, and growht had begun along hte Skeenay-Bulkley, so Cassiar was superseded; once one of the most important parts of the province, now nearly forgotten....Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Surnames categorised by nationality

Hallo, I've seen you've added a lot of categories to surname pages recently, but I'm concerned that they are not all correct. Take Abineri. Just because two English people have that name, it does not make it an English surname. English people, American people, etc will often have a surname which reflects the nationality of their great-great-great....grandfather, but this does not make it an "English surname" or "American surname". PamD (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that an English surname is just one that has arisen, historically, within the country of England(, something that is, as well, generally very hard to source). It can be of course, but it is also the surname of anyone whose nationality is 'English'. If the cat page was named Category:Surnames that have originated in England, it would be, obviously, a different matter. Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello, as one of the active members of WP:WikiProject Anthroponymy, which seeks to improve articles about human names, I am writing to say I completely agree with PamD. We want to source the origin of surnames and then categorise accordingly. It is not helpful to categorise geographically by where people now live, as that could include everywhere. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Then you need to name the cat pages better, for as they stand they could be taken to mean different things - English language, versus of England past or present, versus of (so-called) origin in the country of England. And when did the evolution of English culture come to a halt, in a significant sense? Will Aaronvitch be an English name, say, in a couple hundred years, but is not one now? (Ironic, given how much members of this family have contributed to English society/culture.) At some point names of Norman origin became English, after all, as have those with Celtic or Scandinavian origins. And if it is about anthroponymy, then there needs to be sources given, and I see next to none on any of the surname pages. Listing by nationality present and past is clear-cut, where, honestly, sources for claims about origin are in very short supply, and many such claims that do exist with published work are still tenous ones. Mayumashu (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I know it's a long time ago now, but I've just stumbled on this conversation and would like to comment on a few points:
  • "you need to name the cat pages better" - In fact they've just been changed, for the worse in my view. I think "English surnames", "Italian surnames" etc, were the right names, but that their interpretation needed sharpening.
  • "for as they stand they could be taken to mean different things" - That has been a valid criticism, frequently made recently. Everyone agrees that the criteria for inclusion in a category should be stated in the category definition page. In my view the criterion ought to be based solely on the labelling given in WP:RS.
  • "Will Aaronvitch be an English name, say, in a couple hundred years?" No.
  • "there needs to be sources given, and I see next to none on any of the surname pages." - Everyone agrees that you're entirely right about that.
  • "something that is, as well, generally very hard to source" and "sources for claims about origin are in very short supply" - This is where you are crucially wrong. You just haven't looked very hard. Certainly in Britain, and presumably in other part of the English-speaking world, any decent public or university library will have books on surnames in the reference section. Or if you prefer to buy, visit http://www.abebooks.com/ (or http://www.abebooks.co.uk/ etc) and put for example "dictionary surnames" into the keyword box.
  • For the specific case of "Abineri", just type "abineri italian surname" (without the quotes) into google and you'll get enough evidence for that particular attribution.
SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Canadian international soccer players

Hi Mayumashu, I know you've been involved in editing these articles, so though I'd let you know that I have redirected (alphabetical) and (by decade) into List of Canadian international soccer players; there's no need for two seperate articles, and the new table format I've introduced looks, to me, far more professional and attractive. Cheers, GiantSnowman 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The page looks good. I can see it eventually containing both lists as well as by number of caps and by goals scored (four lists). Thanks for being so courteous as to let me know. Best regards Mayumashu (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

National football team renames

Hi. I have reverted your earlier edit where you moved New Zealand national football team to "New Zealand national football (soccer) team". There is a convention for national football teams where every country uses the same format, and appears to be a consensus for retaining this. Such a major change should be discussed before being implemented as it has far reaching implications. Cheers --ClubOranjeT 10:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Surnames by Country

The discussion for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country was closed as delete and is now under review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 25#Category:Surnames by country. Your participation and input is invited. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

U.S./US - Men/Gentlemen

Hi, I've reverted your moves from US Open to U.S. Open on several articles, and from Men's Singles to Gentlemen's Singles for the Wimbledon draw page. Consensus was reached to use US, without stops, for the Open era is this discussion, and, more convincigly, in that one. You can see in the first discussion that inconsistency within Wimbledon sources and desire for consistency within Wikipedia is also the reason to have Men and Women instead of Gentlemen and Ladies for Wimbledon. If you still want to implement your changes to USO and Wimbledon articles you should re-open a discussion on the Project talk. Cheers ! --Don Lope (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

For reasons I've explained on the Angela Buxton talk page, I believe it innappropriate for there to be a POV tag on her page. What is the proper procedure to take to effect its deletion? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Category sorting

I noticed you modified the categories/stubs at John Barrett (tennis), and upon investigation noticed you've been doing the same on many other pages since mid-June. However, this actually conflicts with the recommendations at WP:STUB, which recommends placing all stub stags "at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." Similarly, WP:CAT says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful)."

As an aside, could you possibly consider archiving your talk page? It's currently almost 350kB in size, and editors with a slow internet connection might be constrained from communicating with you if they have to load such a large talk page first. I believe it's even possible to have a bot do this automatically. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I should have checked into where/how to list stubs. As for listing cat pages alphabetically, I m aware that there is no policy governing it, but I m hoping that doing so becomes the established common practice over time. And I will try figuring out the archiving procedure again - I tried once a while back but was unsuccessful. Regards, Mayumashu (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Invitation

Please revisit Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_3#Category:Druze_surnames. Debresser (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Current Egyptian footballers in Europe

I assume you would know what to propose with this category? I know we don't use "current" categories but as for what it should be merged to or renamed, I'm unsure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like an upmerge just to Category:Egyptian expatriate footballers, as we also do not categorize people by continent over country. I ll put it up Mayumashu (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian baseball player edits

Category:Major League Baseball players from Canada is already a subcategory of both Category:Canadian baseball players and Category:Canadian expatriate baseball people in the United States, and thus pages that are in the first do not need to also be in the other two. Thanks! -Dewelar (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay Mayumashu (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


Roger Attfield

I reversed your edit that noted cat links corrected; nothing said of his having acquired Canadian citizenship, so not a Canadian equestrian, horse trainer, and breeder. You are wrong in your statements and I certainly hope you haven't applied such idle notions elsewhere in Wikipedia. Handicapper (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

CIS football

I have a serious concern about your placing Category:CIS football and Category:CIS football players under the parent Category:College football and Category:College football players, respectively. I understand and respect your motivation in looking for a reasonable parent that would encompass both but I disagree. College football means American football; it sounds broader but it isn't. CIS football is Canadian football. They are different. Category:CIS football already has the parentage of Category:Canadian Interuniversity Sport and above to Category:University and college sports in Canada while Category:College football has Category:Intercollegiate athletics in the United States as a parent. I think the status quo was fine and suggest it be returned. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, certainly to most, if not all, Canadians, college football more likely means gridiron played at American universities and colleges, but this is not strictly and clearly the case, especially to non-football fans, participants. And you right that as the parent cat pages are, my placement is rather awkward, so I won t dispute if you revert these edits you ve brought up. Ultimately, I m quite sure, however, that there will need to be disambiguation put in place, with something like either Category:American college football or Category:College football (United States), again for the sake of people who don t follow the two sports. Mayumashu (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that college football is a less than perfect name but, then again, so is America / American and they use that too. College football precisely means American football played collegiately. CIS football is Canadian football played between Canadian universities. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn t see that there is College football (disambiguation) for university Canadian football as well as American football played at universities in other countries - having that page helps address the complexity of the name. Mayumashu (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget, please, that the sports are not the same as well. You cannot have a parent sport category and simply place Americans and Canadians below. The categories do already share higher parentage of Category:Football and Category:Student sport, which seems reasonable to me. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
No, no, I know that they are different - I grew up watching both. And have since come to know that they did not branch off from one another, but originated separated from rugby. I think there needs to be a connection at a point lower than football, Category:Gridiron say, but unfortunately, that term gets little usage in Canada and even less in the States, so it s likely not a viable often. It s just that they are, certainly, not siblings, but cousins of each other - soccer is so different from them, that to only meet at Category:Football is not enough, really. At any rate Mayumashu (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't argue about placing American and Canadian football both in a Category:Gridiron football under Category:Football but it seems a bit pointless and over-categorising. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, respectively, that it is overcategorisation, and I like the name you ve given it - I ll likely start the page up at some point Mayumashu (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

"Racecar driver by century" categories

Hi Mayumashu. I have started a discussion at WP:MOTOR about the "Racecar driver by century" categories you recently created. I thought you may like to contribute to the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Coloured South African people

I have nominated Category:Coloured South African people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. magnius (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Please stop adding the placeholder image, as they're being removed from all football player articles also please start a discussion at either WT:CFL or WT:NFL for the century categories. Also, the categories are organized the same on every page so again start a discussion to change it.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I ll stop adding the placeholder image, although outside of some sport wikiprojects, adding the image placeholder is common practice. as for the cat links for people by century, these are part of a larger tree, Category:Sportspeople by century, which in turn is part of Category:People by occupation and century. It would be right to leave off certain occupations, unless for a good reason - discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good enough compromise, since I don't feel like getting in an edit war over this. Cheers,--Giants27 (c|s) 01:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually started a move to have the people by century category pages for the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries deleted, since 99% of our bios come from the last 300 years and noting this is quite uninteresting. This nomination [12], fundamental to getting these deletions, failed however. Of course if a large number of users get involved in a new discussion, they could be got rid of. In the meantime however, since they have not been deleted, I ve been adding the links to bios I look at, which presently happen to be Canadian sportspeople of various sports. At any rate Mayumashu (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


Olga Puchkova

You have misunderstood. She was No 1 the world in U12 category - not just nationally.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. I didn t know that there was such a thing, but even if it were a case of a player being voted that (as there is no U12 world championship), then, yes of course, that would be WP:Notable. Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Being No 1 in tennis rankings is done by ranking points. Players earn ranking points by winning through various rounds at tournaments. There is no voting, and ranking in U12 is based on performance across many tournaments.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Right. I didn t realize there was world rankings for U12, 14 etc. presumably, then, it is run by the ITF. Certainly being, what, a World top 5 and maybe top 10 would be WP:Notable. Thanks for straightening me out. Mayumashu (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
And I see now where it is mentioned in her article that Puchkova was ITF U12 World No. 1 - apologies for missing it. Mayumashu (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dutch Admirals

Hallo, Mayumashu!

On 20 June you justified your proposal for the deletion of the Category "Dutch admirals of the 17th century" with the claim that there had only been around seventy Dutch admirals in history anyway. Now, given that there are so few articles as yet about them, the matter is for the time being of little import, but just for the sake of historical accuracy I'd like to point out that in fact there have been well over nine hunderd! The Dutch Republic had five admiralties and those were often violent times ;o).

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for that, for indeed I did not attempt to look into the matter at all and was merely counting WP articles, which I should have said. I guess running a world empire connected by oceans and on shear might would required such a large navy. Regards Mayumashu (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_14#Category:21st-century_American_people

Your comment seems like you have a "vote" in mind... but you marked your edit only as a "comment". You may wish to update that. Carlaude:Talk 05:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did as you ve suggested, but, if you were unaware, the discussion is not a straight vote by count but one that is finally interpretated, by the administrator who judges the nomination, based on her/his assessment of the strength of argument provided by all users who contribute Mayumashu (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Were you at the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships?

I saw in your User page that you were from Halifax? Did you go to the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships last weekend in neighboring Dartmouth? If so, do you have any pictures of the event that you would like to upload into the article? It would be most appreciative. Thanks. Chris (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You know I did go, with my wife and kids, but I don t think we took any pictures - I ll ask my wife to confirm this though. Mayumashu (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
No, apparently she didn t this time. Sorry I could nt help you out - WP certainly needs more pictures for colour and look Mayumashu (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Bell (2nd nomination)

There was a technical problem with your AfD nomination of Ryan Bell, which I have now fixed. You edited a previously closed AfD rather than starting a new 2nd nomination one. I reverted your change to the old one and moved your deletion rationale to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Bell (2nd nomination), which now appears in today's AfD log at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 29. I agree that the naval officer appears not to be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Where it had been deleted, the deletion prep page didn t appear as it normally does and I tried to improvise. Mayumashu (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk page size

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When pages get too long. This general guideline applies to both article talk pages, as well as user talk pages. Seriously, yours is incredibly long. You should try to keep the size of your talk page to roughly 32KB. You are at 366KB, which is 10.5x the recommended amount.

You should also read Help:Archiving a talk page. MiszaBot and ClueBot III are two bots that can archive your talk page for you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks, Ksy92003 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Leach

Now that you've moved Mike Leach to Mike Leach (coach) without first seeking input, are you going to ensure that all the links are corrected? →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I ll do that Mayumashu (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate it. Let me know if you need a hand. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
That s okay - pretty much done now Mayumashu (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Can you stop creating ridiculous categories like American football players broken down by positions and centuries? That's a little much and completely unnecessary. The articles explain what years they lived and played, there's no need for categories that detailed. What's next, Category:21st-century black American football running backs with dreadlocks from California?►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And seriously, you need to archive this page, it's gigantic.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
They are part of a large schema, Category:People by occupation and century and, no, I won t be doing it by hair-style, lol. Breaking down by position may be too fine, but by sport is likely how it will go (although it may stop at Category:21st-century sportspeople) - the matter is being gotten to, slowly but surely at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. I tried to get rid of Category:20th-century people and Category:21st-century people but could not and since have been populating these by adding these sub-cats. Mayumashu (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's just ridiculous to even create them. I don't know why I have to clean up your mess.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean, to cat by century at all? to do so by occupation generally? by sport? (I know from what you ve said, you re against by position). I know nearly all sports only have two or three centuries, unlike some other occupations, which makes them less meaningful on their own. But, again, they are part of the larger tree Category:People by occupation and century. Perhaps, again, the finest should be 'by sportspeople' or should it be 'by American football' etc.? But just a straight out delete for just one sport (at a time) doesnt address the big picture. (One problem too is there are only a few contributors regularly active at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.) But if you want to get rid of these in the proper manner, I m sorry but you need to do it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion - go for an upmerge and not a straight delete, btw, to get support - perhaps to Category:21st-century sportspeople? Mayumashu (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the century thing is fine by me. What I have a problem with is a category sorted by century, sport AND position. It's just ridiculously detailed and unnecessary. Sportspeople is as far as it should go.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) people by century CfD

I've added a new comment to the discussion that you will probably want to reply to. Thanks. – PeeJay 09:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:African American players of Canadian football

I see you've edited the category. Are you in favour of retaining or deleting? Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 9. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mayumashu (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Female basketball players by century

I have nominated Category:Female basketball players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Basketball players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Some subcats of Category:Racecar drivers by century proposed for deletion

Hi Mayumashu. FYI, I have proposed the following categories for deletion:

Note that I have not proposed the parent categories:

for deletion, just the "formula", "sports" and "stock" subcategories. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the message Mayumashu (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:People from Kirkland, Montreal

I have nominated Category:People from Kirkland, Montreal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for renaming to Category:People from Kirkland, Quebec (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you?

In the page Cory Carroll you appear to have made a Revision as of 05:00, 28 July 2009. You added some text and a reference tag <ref name="WPT World Championship telecast"/> that appears to be causing a cite error. Could you please go back and fill out the full source to fix the cite error. Thanks. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay Mayumashu (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:21st-century male basketball centers

I have nominated Category:21st-century male basketball centers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:1st-century basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic/nationality descent categories

Hi Mayumashu. In the past I know you did a tremendous amount of work on the subcategories of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. As you probably know, I've been proposing renames for a bunch of these to conform to the "FOOian people" standard. Now, I'm not sure how you feel about these changes, but I was wondering .... If I come across one of these categories that are named "FOOs of GOOian descent" and I see that you are the creator and sole author, would I have your permission to speedily rename these to "FOOian people of GOOian descent"? It would save me having to do a formal discussion for them, and would help us regain consistency faster. If you disagree with these changes—I'm sorry, and you don't have to say yes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, that s fine - go for it GoodOlfactory. And if for the ones where I haven t been sole author, I ll gladly support each of your noms. All the best, Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian male basketball players

I have nominated Category:Canadian male basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Canadian basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Basketball forwards by century

I have nominated Category:Basketball forwards by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian male basketball players

I have nominated Category:Canadian male basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Canadian basketball players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/60th_1st/1st_read/b123.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mayumashu/Archives/2009/September&oldid=1139354566"