User talk:Chicheley/archive

Welcome!

Hello, Chicheley/archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Rockero 00:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hardy

Hello

In reverting some recent vandalism to Thomas Hardy --- why does it get mauled so much? --- I think I have also reverted your recent recats. I did not mean to do this, but I can't quite see what to put back. Can you have a look and redo your changes? Apologies for wasting your time, I have just started using the pop up tool and clicked one line too far in the history.

best wishes Thruston 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Thomas Hardy? Because he's assigned in high school. Septentrionalis 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category Atheist

I see you've been redoing the Atheist category. Please note the caution on the main cat page:

This category contains Atheists,

that have expressed being an atheist,
and of whom is known how they defined their atheism.

In addition, Wikipedia:Categories requires that the reason for any cat should be obvious to anyone going from the cat to the article.

These are peculiarly likely to abuse; as well as good-faith misuse by those who cannot distinguish between infidel, freethinker, Deist, rationalist, agnostic and atheist. Please check before adjusting these. Septentrionalis 20:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anyone out of the category or adding anyone to it, just moving them into national categories. Chicheley 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that this was your doing. But please check that they comply with policy, as long as you're looking at them anyway. It would be a service to Wikipedia. Septentrionalis 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Baptist category

Did you mean for the category to be "Baptists from the United States"? American Baptist implies that they are members of the specific American Baptist denomination, as opposed top the Southern Baptist denomination. youngamerican (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I see that you are making alot of new categories along the lines of "Russian socialists," "American Baptists," etc. They are going to be useful, but the current naming convention on wikipedia is "Socialists from Russia", "Baptists from the United States" (not America). You might want to consider using such naming conventions for future categories and proposing the ones uder the other format for renaming. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, those seem to be ok. But I would consider doing something about the Baptist cats, as many Southern Baptists would not be thrilled at being labled American Baptists. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated it for renaming. Your first comment about naming conventions in general was wrong, but I think you realised that. Chicheley 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I had noticed that what I was thinking of categories related to objects, not people. If you need any help in this mass undertaking, just let me know. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasons category

Wow - you've been busy with subcategories for Freemasons! I tried to help out a bit with some recats for you. I picked this up from my watchlist of American Civil war articles I had written. In the future, I will try to use the American Freemasons category for future Civil War bios. Scott Mingus 23:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Chicheley 23:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freemason recats

I'll see if I can knock that one out tonight. There seems to be another guy working on it, too. Cheers. youngamerican (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I was doing educationists, but I got distracted and moved to atheists, then I was distracted from that to Freemasons. Right now I've moved back to the educationists. Chicheley 23:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not fun, but its gotta be done I suppose. Gotta love the Anglo-Irish and the post-Act of Union Royalty ambiguity. I've been avoiding any controversy and just putting them in the "British Freemasons" cat. youngamerican (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year categories

I noticed that on several articles, you've moved the year-of-birth and year-of-death/living-people categories from the beginning of the list (where, in my experience, they typically are) to the end. Are you are aware of any policy that specifies this positioning, or are you doing it for another reason? --zenohockey 00:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing it because I think it makes sense. The most relevant categories should go first, that is just commonsense. The year categories are almost completely useless and should probably just be deleted. Chicheley 00:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the usual practice here is to place the categories in alphabetical order with the year of birth and death first. Doc 00:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you call the "usual practice" is totally misguided and it is not an official policy. If you look at the relevant discussion page you will find that this practice has caused howls of protest. Also is not really that widespread; according to what I have read the date categories were mostly inserted by one user with a bot and I have seen for myself that only a fraction of articles have all their categories in alphabetical order (mostly it's just a mess). I decided to start working on this because huge numbers of articles are not in any defining categories, or have some of the most important ones missing (eg a Nobel Prize winner for Chemistry who was, yes, categorised by year of birth and death, but not as a chemist!). There seem to have been a lot of very strange priorities in past categorization efforts. I am not going to change my mind on this matter, and there is no policy against what I am doing. On the contrary, I think I am doing valuable work, and this is the first complaint I have had. Chicheley 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can point me to a link on the discussion your mention as to order, I would appreciate it. I did post to a meta page, as I recall. While there is not 'official' guideline, the closest I have found on on references and other things with several practices is to follow the pattern, if there is one, of the originator of the article. I do agree that having an order, and having the important categories is primary. In my opinion, any order other than alphabetical is POV. The dates of birth and death are the first thing after the name in the opening paragraph by WP:MOS. Doc 01:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people. You will also see that much of the alphabeticization was done by semi-bots, but this practice has now been banned. The suggestion that other orders are POV is a total red herring in my opinion. In the vast majority of cases there is little potential for controversy and adjustments can always be made in the minority of cases where there is, just as with an article. In my opinion it makes just as much sense to argue that it is POV not to put the subsections of an article in alphabetical order, but I don't think anyone is going to do that. Chicheley 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I do agree that there needs to be a guideline and we need to find consensus. I have my point of view, you have your's but I will follow what becomes the guideline Doc 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of Mongolia

Hi, are you sure this category is necessary? President of Mongolia already contains a list of all candidates, with much more information. --Latebird 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It's necessary if Category:Presidents is ever to be complete. Many countries have such a category already. Chicheley 21:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the reasons in a bit more detail? Do those other countries also have a list that makes the category redundant? --Latebird 09:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of {{NPOV}}

At the very least you need to attempt to address the issues before you remove a tag. Guettarda 23:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed a thorough explanation on the talk page, where it is commented that you are in a minority of one. Chicheley 23:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An explanation? You have a strange definition of "explanation" - when someone makes a whole set of ad hom attacks, which happen to be both false and irrelevant red herrings - that's a thorough explanation? And you endorse it? Please show me where I have endorsed a German system of titles. Please do. Not that Necro's accusations are at all meaningful - total red herring - but if you say that yes, I have expressed such an opinion, I would like you to provide a diff supporting the accusation you endorsed...or withdraw your accusation. It is not acceptable for you to make false claims about me. Please desist.

As for the tags - do you thus think that it is acceptable for a Wikipedia article to endorse one country's system of honours and not those of any other country or religion? There's a good reason why we don't endorse these systems - because they are inherently POV. Address the issues, don't endorse false claims. Guettarda 04:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this dispute at random, and it's pretty clear cut that it is you that is in the wrong, not your much maligned opponent. You are the one who is abusive and you are waging a pointless one person campaign against a practice that is used consistently in hundreds, probably thousands, of articles. You are wasting everyone's time. Chicheley 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Ackerley

I moved your point about Ackerley's schools to the talk page for the article, where it seems more appropriate to me, although I can see an argument for making such comments in the text of the aricle. I'm getting a copy of Parker's autobiography to check out some other points, so I'll clarify this one as well. Thanks for the observation. John FitzGerald 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out Ackerley's prep and public school were the same school, so I've noted it with links to Public school and to Preparatory school (UK). John FitzGerald 13:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Category:Street Names List

You may not have been aware that we already have Category:Streets and squares by city...

Thanks for your message; I wasn't aware of this category, so have now amended my vote accordingly. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I will ammend my vote - tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket categories

Are you actually interested in cricket and are you a member of WikiProject Cricket?

If not, then I fail to understand your involvement in the discussions about improving the cricket categories for the benefit of users, especially in the light of adverse feedback that I have received from people who are interested and involved about the lack of structure in WP. One of the subjects of complaint has been categories like cricket teams that are "out on a limb" and where the handful of articles are more usefully employed elsewhere, which is why I have confirmed that they are relevantly placed in other categories and then removed them from the unused one.

As for saying that I have not advised the cricket project membership about my intentions, I suggest you see the main cricket category, the Wikiproject and the portal discussion pages.

You may think you are doing a great service by opposing everything that I and a few others are trying to achieve for the benefit of the readers but it seems to me you are merely interfering in a subject you have no interest in or knowledge of. --Jack 11:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are spouting about breach of etiquette on the deletion page but it is you who are in breach. You are not a member of the WikiProject for cricket so who are you to start undoing useful work that a knowledgable and well-intentioned member has performed? Who do you think you are? If you are interested in cricket, join the project. If not, mind your own business and leave the cricket project to its members. --GeorgeWilliams 12:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one in the cricket project has objected to what I am doing with the categories and some have given support. Therefore, if I choose in good faith to recategorise articles for the benefit of the project and the readership, who the Hell are you to come along and undo it? What you are doing is VANDALISM. Mind your own business in future. --Jack 13:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a county member and I've been to at least one day of live test cricket every summer for the last 25 years. Chicheley 16:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "Jack breached etiquette by emptying a category in advance in support of a deletion nomination he planned to make". I am telling you that he did not breach etiquette because I know what he is planning to do and how he is going about it. He did not plan to make any nomination to delete; he was looking to relocate the categories in question as sub-categories elsewhere but he found that the categories were superfluous and serving no good purpose, so he ensured that the articles were all stored in relevant and appropriate categories and thereby emptied the categories. He was then advised by Sam Vimes that he should nominate these categories for deletion by the conventional process because he had previously been given to understand that a redundant (i.e., empty) category is disposed of by a Wiki-bot housekeeping procedure. It was only then that he decided to find out how to use this Cfr process. He has not acted in breach of anything. He has acted completely in good faith because he wants to improve the project structure having had some adverse feedback from people he is trying to interest in using WP. Jack is incapable of acting in bad faith: he is the most honest man I know. ~~I'm sorry I lost my cool earlier and I will withdraw a couple of comments I made. All the best.~~ --GeorgeWilliams 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Since then he has accused me of vandalism for repopulating a category and some of the comments made about me have been vicious. Perhaps you will encourage him to offer an apology as well? Chicheley 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for use of the word "vandalism" but I have had to put up with doing so much reversion on here because of real vandals that it tends to be used instinctively. Can I please ask you not to undo another person's recent work without writing to them first, unless you are certain that it has been done maliciously? I wish George would not sing my praises but it is true that I would never intentionally act in bad faith; and I am trying very hard to improve the structure of the cricket project, especially after I have contributed so much to it in the way of historical material. Best wishes. --Jack 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I have withdrawn the above because I have been advised that you accused me of acting in bad faith re the cricket teams category proposal. I had not noticed that before, only your stupid comment about etiquette based on strict observance of that ludicrous, convoluted deletion procedure you are so dedicated to. To accuse me of acting in bad faith when it is patently clear that I am trying to improve the project for the benefit of all concerned is downright insulting. I await YOUR apology. --Jack 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You will see that I too have withdrawn my apology because you are unworthy of it. It has been pointed out to me that you accused Jack of bad faith right at the outset of all this argument despite the facts that (a) Sam had pointed out that a procedural error had occurred; (b) Jack apologised for his oversight and explained what he was doing; (c) Jack had made known same day or earlier to the cricket project that he was undertaking various reviews of the structure with a view to improving things for the readers. Your gripe is based on literal application of these horrendous deletion policy procedurals and the fact that Jack could not be bothered to waste his time getting involved in something which is, to use his word, convoluted. I have seen comments by other contributors that these procedures work against Wikipedia and that is true. They obstruct progress, such as Jack was trying to achieve, and they enable disinterested, negative individuals to try and delete perfectly good articles. For example, there is one character who frequents the deletion section who is in the habit of marking for Afd anything he personally dislikes on the grounds that it is "cruft"; but of course his own stuff is anything but "cruft" (what an inane word that is). I know Jack has had some horrendous problems of this sort and that is why he has a short fuse when he has to deal with people who are not members of the cricket project. I am also aware of even worse problems suffered by numerous other cricket contributors, especially around articles covering the 2005 season. I have re-read the deletions page re those cricket articles again and there is no doubt that the argument or row or whatever you call it was initiated by you accusing Jack at the outset of breaching both etiquette and good faith. He may have inadvertently breached a procedure but that is all. I suggest you have a look at Jack's massive contributions to the site and then tell me if he is a person who does not act in the best interests of the site? I also suggest you apologise to him for accusing him of acting in bad faith because even if he did make a mistake and do things in the wrong order, he absolutely did not act outside good faith. I also suggest that, if you are interested in cricket and you wish to help the cricket project, you enrol as a member. --GeorgeWilliams 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a set of private clubs in which one has to "enrol as a member". I hope never to encounter you again and will certainly not take the risk of editing an area of Wikipedia where you regard yourself as one of the bosses. I think that is is highly likely that you and Jack are the same person, and each time you duplicate one another's behaviour that impression grows stronger. You agree about everything, you share a level of temper and erratic behaviour which I have not seen from anyone else on Wikipedia, and it isn't possible to tell a post written by one of you from a post written by the other. If my suspicion is incorrect I apologise, but if you are two separate people, and friends, you are welcome to continue with your friendship without my participation. I certainly won't be joining any project to which either of you belong. Chicheley 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To set the record straight, George and I are not the same person. We are indeed close friends but we do not always agree with each other as discussions on the talk pages often reveal. I am sorry that matters have reached shouting point but I will not accept being told that I have acted in bad faith. I may have omitted part of a procedure because I don't have time to mess about with misleading procedures but that is not acting in bad faith. I won't bother you again. --Jack 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Alphabeticization by bot is not appropriate

Firstly, if you have a problem with AWB sorting categories alphabetically then you need to talk to that bot's programmer and not me. Secondly, if articles don't have categories you'd like to see them in, then that's your problem so add them yourself - I use AWB replace categories due to name changes and not to add them. Craigy (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you had been using it in that way, of course it would have been appropriate to talk to you. Chicheley 18:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Woldo 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please try harder not to be patronising. Chicheley 10:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request to speedy rename categories

When requesting that categories be speedy renamed, please edit the categories to insert {{cfr-speedy|new category name}}, so that users of the category may know about the speedy rename proposal. Thanks! Kimchi.sg 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Yorker Hotel

Note that I have made the merge. One of the two articles was a poor version of the other. For uniformity, I kept the Hotel article rather than the hotel one. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German philosophers

Greetings; you stated on the category change discussion that "[w]e categorise by nationality. Creating the odd exception will only create confusion and inconsistency." Since you speak in the plural voice, I left a question for you there, namely: is there an official wikipedia guideline about categorizing people by citizenship in a nation-state vs. by language? The reason I've had concerns about this article is precisely because it creates confusion and inconsistency. "Germany" has existed since 1991 at the latest, and 1871 at the earliest (with different borders). Kant, widely regarded as a German philosopher, even one of the German philosophers, was not born in "Germany" -- so how should he be categorized? I think this will remain an issue for coherent editing of this category. Meanwhile, I'm going to leave this page to others; I'll be maintaining Category:Philosophers by language, including a List of German-language philosophers instead. Please reply either here, on your talk page, or else on mine. Thanks! Universitytruth 06:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative hadn't even arisen as an issue until a few days ago, so there was no reason for anyone to write a guideline on the matter. I will nominate your irregular categories for deletion. Chicheley 23:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you then what you recommend be done with Immanuel Kant and Salomon Maimon, neither of them odd exceptions? I'm not absolutely wedded to the first solution I proposed, and am open to other suggestions, if reasons are given for them. Thanks. Universitytruth 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles include the phrase "was a German philosopher" in the first sentence. In my opinion your literal minded approach to boundaries, both geographical and historical, is neither normal or necessary. There is in any case no rule against categorising people by two nationalities, and it is quite often done. Chicheley 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Welsh-speaking people

I notice that you placed a Category for Deletion notice on this page on 06.07.06.

The notice includes the words "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". However, since no discussion of this matter is in progress, I propose to delete the notice should no such discussion be initiated within five days of the proposal. -- Picapica 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't looked properly. Chicheley 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful. Any clues? (I didn't realize this was a "Where's Wally" game.) I followed the instruction "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page." but the category does not have an entry there. The only mention of Welsh on that page was "Category: Welsh-Americans". My objection to the CfD notice as not pointing to a discussion therefore stands. -- Picapica 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chicheley

The discussion of the "Welsh-speaking people" category has not been there the same length of time as all the others with which it has been bracketed. It needs to be there for a week. I doubt that you understand the minority language issue as well as you think you do, otherwise you would not suggest that Welsh speakers do not consider this one of their defining characteristics -- they surely do. The way other people have voted on the blanket removal of all language categories shows that they don't understand the issue either, but they are entitled to vote. However, many of them had already done so before this category was included. Any vote dated before you added the category to the list on 6 July must be discounted unless the user in question verifies it. Deb 11:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have repeated your assumption that someone who disagrees with you must be ignorant. I will counter by suggesting that you have a weak grasp of the purpose of an encyclopedia. We are not here to categorise people by what is important to them (which would mean things like their health, their kids, their relationships, their friends etc), but by what is of defining encyclopedic importance. Chicheley 14:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to say, for example, that English literature is a branch of biology, I would think they were ignorant, and you would agree. What I am saying is that you are incorrect in suggesting that Welsh-speaking people do not consider that being Welsh-speaking is a defining characteristic. It may well be that English people do not feel this way about being English-speaking, but the majority of English-speaking people are monoglot, whereas all Welsh-speaking people are bilingual. Would bilingualism, in your view, be a defining characteristic? If so, maybe we can compromise. Deb 16:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingualism is most certainly not a defining characteristic in an encyclopedic sense. Do you have any idea how many bilingual people there are in the world? As I said before, you are looking at things the wrong why round; the category system exists to define what is vital about an individual's public life, not their personal life. Biographical articles often suffer from major category clutter so it is important to be firm about the expansion of biographical categories. Chicheley 08:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Umm, a diff would be nice :o -- Tawker 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Kurdish people and Category:Assassinated Kurdish politicians

Kurdish is not a nationality (or at least is in a contaversial manner). Ebdulrehman Qasimlo should be marked as an assasinated iranian politician. --Cat out 07:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is marked as Iranian too. Chicheley 09:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel we should avoid marking ethnicities as a "nationality" as things will get complicated quite easily. A politician from Turkey and Iran wont really have much, if anything, in common. Perhaps sort by country? I think that was the idea behind the category. --Cat out 09:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality and statehood are not the same thing. The Polish nationality existed in the 19th century and the Kurdish nationality exists now. So for that matter does the English nationality, even though England hasn't been a state for 299 years. Category:Kurdish people and Category:Kurdish politicians already existed. There are also categories for Basque politicians, Chechen politicians, various Indian minority groups and I expect other non-state groups I haven't noticed yet. It would be patently biased to ignore the Kurds. Chicheley 09:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. That wasnt the point of my comment. Allow me to elaborate why this kind of classification is problematic.

Firstly, I am fine with cattegories such as "African American politicians" as such a thing is clearly confined to the US. The category is a sub category of "American politicians" as it should be. It would be problematic to declare african americans as a seperate nationality from the rest of the US and would breach neutral point of view. We also do not categorise a south african politician and an american counterpart under the same "African" category.

Categories exist as navigation aids for easy access between related topics. A Kurdish politician in Germany is not in any way related to one in Iran. German and Iranian laws, and politics are drasticaly different.So a Kurd in Iran, Turkey, Germany, and Syria should not appear under same "nationality" category but instead on seperate sub national categories. Any Kurd living in Turkey is a citizen and hence a national of Turkey. Just like an African American is a national of the US.

I hope this offers a better rationale.

--Cat out 19:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but totally unconvincing. Chicheley 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about a different aproach. It is pov to suggest Kurdish politicians have nothing to do with their local governments. Even if they are campaigning against the government they still have to work with the government (in a sense to win elections etc). Which is a citable and verifiable fact. Hence there is no reason why the Kurdish politicians cant be a subcat of the local nationalities. as well as a subcat of kurish people independently. See African american example as referance.

I want to work with you on this issue, but you should also be making an effort.

--Cat out 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary I have no obligations to engage with your prejudices and will not make any further comment. Chicheley 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prejudice? All I seek neutrality and factual acuracy. --Cat out 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Power plants to Category:Power stations

I've posted a comment in reply to yours in the CFD discussion for renaming the Power plant categories. You may wish to review it and decide if that changes your opinion of the proposed rename in regards to the United States. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please vote more clearly so we get the right outcome

Done.[1] Thanks for letting me know! Luna Santin 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous members of Red Sox Nation

I was going to put this on cfd, similar to the recent discussions on "notable hockey" and "notable baseball" fans, both of which appear headed towards deletion. Before I did, I checked the talk page and found a link to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 23#Category:Famous members of Red Sox Nation. Should this one be left alone or is it reasonable to list it at cfd again? --Brian G 11:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest waiting to see and if the parent category is deleted, and if it is, renominating using that as a precedent. Chicheley 12:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dance/club music artists categories

I noticed that you added this category. However there is already a Dance musicians by nationality category as well as a category for Dance musicians for each country. Plus there was a debate on this as well. Robert Moore 01:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the other categories as I was going through them. They all need to be merged so there is only one category per country. Chicheley 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning to break the list of artists down by subcategory: The duos, groups and project acts are going to the new Category:Dance musical groups listing. I also might make some modification with Dance music artists by breaking them down by sub-genre and gender. Robert Moore 22:41, 03 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automotive companies to Category:Motor vehicle industry

I am asking you to rethink your position on this one. If any category is to be renamed Category:Motor vehicle industry it should be Category:Automotive industry and not this one. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects

You are receiving this message because you previously voiced your opinion on a Redirects for deletion of a cross-namespace redirect that was originally deleted but then went to Deletion review and was then relisted at RFD. This is a courtesy notice so you are aware that the issue is being discussed again and is not an endorsement of any position. --Cyde↔Weys 13:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway/motorway/whatever category

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC) --SPUI (T - C) 19:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category duplication

Hi Chicheley, I've been dealing with this issue for about a year and a half, so I want to give you some background on the issue and explain what I'm doing:

When Categories began, about 2 years ago, the situation was very different than it is now. Category "clutter" was not an issue because nothing was in categories. The big problem that shaped the initial discussions was the problem of categories getting "too big". "Too big" at that time was larger than a few hundred categories because there no easy way to navigate a large category. Back then, there were no table of contents for categories. To deal with large categories the standard practice was to create subcategories and depopulate the larger ones. The first categories that were "too big" were people categories, and subcategories "by nationality" were created to break them up. As this was happening, I and others became frustrated as some perfectly fine categories with 500 or so articles got broken up into 'by nationality' categories that were much less useful for browsing.

Another oft stated principal of categorization is that categories could be broken into different systems of subcategorization, so that several systems of subcategorization could co-exist. As more and more subcategorization methods proliferated, more and more categories got broken up into small pieces. Early guidelines for categorization reflected this way of doing things.

This was about the time I started getting involved in categorization policy. Two categories particularly bothered me. One was Category:Film directors which in its first incarnation contained film directors from all over the world. One day I discovered that it had been depopulated and replaced by Category:Film directors by nationality. The original category made it very easy to browse through all the articles on film directors. When it was broken up it became difficult. I found this especially irksome because I don't find nationality to be at all relevant to film directors.

Another category that bothered me was Category:Bridges in New York City. I spend alot of time working on articles about bridges. At the time, all the toll bridges in New York City had been removed from the category because they were in the sub-category:Toll bridges in New York City. It didn't make sense to me that a reasonably sized category would have half of its contents removed because there was a sub-category that was a subset of the larger category. Someone looking for the bridges in NYC shouldn't have to look in both places. The distinction of a bridge being a toll bridge may be of use to some people, but it is not an important attribute of bridges.

When I inquired about the reasons for the categorization policy, the rationale given was that categories had to be broken up when they got to big to make them useful. This inspired me to create the first version of a category table of contents which has evolved into the TOC found in virtually every large category in wikipedia. With the acceptance of CategoryTOC, I started examining what parts of the categorization policy was out of date. This led to some long discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, a rewrite of the page about 7 months ago, and the addition of Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories.

This leads us to our current situation. Here is the issue in a nutshell:

Wikipedia's categorization scheme allows for multiple taxonomies. This is a good thing and a powerful feature.
People want to create subcategories which are essentially intersections of larger categories.
Wikipedia categories act as indexes that help users browse through subjects.

The problem is that these 3 qualities of categorization conflict unless there is categorization duplication. If there is no duplication, the larger categories are less useful for browsing and indexing. If everything is broken into small subcategories it is very difficult to browse through all of them. If they exist combined and broken up, you can browse at whatever level you desire. After the discussion about this at talk page, or the relevant discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (linked from the talk page). We decided to fully populating the actors categories as an experiment to see if this way of categorizing can gain wider acceptance.

If populating higher level categories gains wide acceptance, we will need a way to make it clear which categories get populated and which do not. We have noted on the Category:Film actors page that the listings are duplicated, and there can be some sort of standard format for this. I don't really think it is all that bad, and our new way of doing it fits into the natural order of how people put people into categories. First they get entered into the more general category, and then added to the more specific subcategory The populating of categories should be an all or nothing decision. Either they contain all the articles that fit or none of them. I find the current common situation, where categories only contain the un-differentiated articles to be very unsatisfactory.

The downside, as you mention is category "clutter". Categorization is imperfect. The solution, most talked about is to have an automated way to do category intersections, so you could take Category:Film actors and Category:American people and find the intersection. If this is implemented, there would be no need for a great number of the subcategories we now have. Categories would be populated at the "level of notability", by which I mean that people are notable for being actors or film actors. In these days of globalization, people are rarely known for being American film actors. So what we are doing is fully populating the actors categories at the "level of notability" and below. This essentially is the system that people hope will happen by having a software upgrade. The upgrade (if it happens) will add intersections that do not yet exist, create them on the fly, and remove a good deal of category clutter in articles.

Until there is a software upgrade the question is which is worse, having a little "clutter" in the category listings of articles, or depopulating categories at the topic level. I'd much rather live with the clutter. As more and more category intersections are created, I'd like to hope that people will think of the intersection categories as the clutter, and not the topic level categories. -- Samuel Wantman 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against putting things in parent categories and main categories in a few special cases, but I don't think that the actors categories are special cases. It started off with film actors, then it seems all American actors were also to be put in Category:American actors, even if they had been fully subcategorised. But what about television, stage, musicial theatre, silent film, voice and radio actors. What about people with dual nationality? We could end up with people in not one or two, but 14 or 16 or more extra categories. That would be a disaster. I remain convinced that your approach is misguided, and that the "consensus" you trumpet for it does not exist. Chicheley 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also utterly misunderstand the usage of categories. The upgrade would not reduce the desirability of thorough subcategorisation at all, because they facilitate browsing. The intersections would only be used by people who were actively looking for something, whereas sharp subcategories encourage serendipity. Your proposal would either rob parent categories of huge amounts of relevant material or encumber them with even more irrelevant material. For example instead of placing Category:British stage actors in Category:Theatre in the United Kingdom, a choice would have to be made between using Category:British actors, withs its hundreds articles about actors who do not work in theatre, and having no actors in the theatre category at all. By suggesting that the subcategories should be abolished you are proposing to chronically undermine one of Wikipedia's finest attributes, that is its serendipity. Chicheley 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is that many of the actors are not actually in both categories. If we work on getting everyone out of Category:American actors and into the appropriate subcategories, then we will know that people who visits those places will be see all the names the should see. Otherwise, that happy situation might never be reached. I try to recategorise at least a hundred people a day across a wide range of fields as the general standard of precision and completeness of categorisation of biographical articles is low, and I am quite happy to do much of the donkey work in this area. Chicheley 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having clicked on some random names, it seems that only a minority of the names are dual categorised. Not a minority of the big stars, but a minority overall. Thus your basic premise that we currently have a dual system is false. We just have a messy, inaccurate, incomplete system that needs an upgrade. Chicheley 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and I'm also not sure that you understand what I am saying, so let's keep at this. There is nothing strange about having Category:American actors fully populated. Actor categories from other countries are fully populated and other American occupation categories are fully populated. There is nothing against policy old or new about having this category populated. Except for two incomplete subsets (actor-singers and child actors), American actors are only fully duplicated in their grandchildren categories and not their two children. The two subsets are incomplete and fits one of the acceptable exceptions for duplication. As for Category:Film actors. Film is international. I have seen films with Americans, Canadians, Brits, Italians and French all in the same movie. If an occupation category is international, it seems that it should be populated with people of all nations. I have not proposed adding people above their level of notability, and this might just mean repopulating Category:Film actors. It doesn't mean that we would fully populate Actors, Entertainers, etc... Theatre, by its nature, is not very international, so perhaps this would not need repopulating. Instead, I'd probably want to add actors "by language" as this seems a natural way to collect theatre actors. Under the current system, there would be no reason not to add "Theatre actors by language" as a subcategorization scheme, so adding this category has nothing to do with the issue of duplication. My point is that there is a natural place to combine people together in fields that are international in nature.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying about a software upgrade. Many subcategories are being added below the level of notability that are the intersection of larger categories. For example, there ethnicity subcategories like, Category:African Americans and occupation categories like Category:Film actors. So currently an African-American film actor like Laurence Fishburne is in | African-American actors | American film actors | etc... but maybe after a software upgrade he would be in | Actors | People of African descent | American people | Film people | etc... With such a system you could find and browse through categories for

all actors
all people of African descent
all Americans
all film people
all American actors
all film actors,
all American film actors,
all American film people
all actors of African descent,
all film people of African descent,
all African Americans
all African-American actors
all African-American film people
all African-American film actors.

By categorizing Fishburne in the four large categories he would also automatically be in all 11 of the intersection categories. Now I don't know if, when and how category intersection will ever be implemented, but my question to you is which of the 15 possible categories mentioned above should Fishburne be in now, until a new system is created? The problem as you point out is that we cannot create and fully populate all possible categories without creating quite a bit of clutter. Each additional attribute roughly doubles the number of possible combinations. My point is that Fishburne is notable as a film actor. I will forgo many of the other possible combinations if he is in at least the category for which he is known. In my view, what has happened in the past is that the important categories got chopped up and depopulated for the sake of the intersections. I just want to add back some of these significant categories.

I am certainly NOT advocating removal of ANY subcategories. Absolutely not. I am just saying that duplication should be considered more acceptable since there has been a proliferation of subcategories that are the intersection of larger categories. Let me give you another example. Recently, someone took Category:Bridges in England and depopulated it by moving all the bridges to dozens of smaller categories, one for each county in England. I plan on repopulating the larger category because I find the smaller categories are much less useful, and unlikely to create serendipity for users (especially those who are not British).

It may seem useful for those of us who categorize to have these large categories function as a holding tank for the articles that haven't yet been categorized more precisely. But I think these categories, randomly populated with a small number of obscure people, look very bad to the general user of Wikipedia. If people have a natural inclination to put someone in the category "Film Actor" I think that sends the message that this is what makes the person notable. A small number of people appearing in a category may be be the result of users not understanding how to categorize. A large number seems to be evidence that WE have made a mistake and the category needs to be repopulated. I know this means some extra work, but I think it is worth it.

Yes we have a messy, inaccurate, incomplete system that needs an upgrade. It also needs a consensus as to how it works. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to do, and I hope you will reread what I have written above. When I mention a dual system, what I mean is that some people think it is x and some think it is y. I'm trying to push this issue so that there can be some agreement about how it works. What I am proposing is that whenever we categorize someone we should say this person is notable for being _______. If they are notable for being a film actor they should be in the category for film actors. If they are notable for being a film director they should be in the category for film directors. Same for English-language authors. If their profession is not international, they may be notable for being an American politician, a German lawyer, etc... Just because someone is in a small subcategories should not be a reason for taking them out of the larger notability categories. They can be duplicated in the smaller categories. People who want to browse through the small categories are able to. I don't understand why we don't want to have a single category that functions as a central index of film actors, yet allow dozens of Actor by series categories adding to category clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying this discussion to the appropriate category pages, and to Wikipedia talk:Categorization Please reply on the Categorization talk page. --Samuel Wantman 08:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your arguments and objectives. Chicheley 18:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that from the start. Wikipedia works by solving disagreements through consensus and discussion. I stopped categorizing when you voiced your concern and have attempted to discuss it with you here and elsewhere. After ONE person who agreed with your position, you started recategorizing. That is not consensus. -- Samuel Wantman 19:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a general consensus which applies to all articles. You rushed to manufacture a fake "consensus" which constradicted the general consensus in order to impose your will in a specific topic area, and then tried to implement it using a bot, which is improper behaviour when the matter is controversial. I also note that whereas I overhaul the categories on an article thoroughly for the benefit of readers, you mostly confine your efforts to imposing specific (bad and unwanted) schemes. You have misled visitors to this page by suggesting I am in a minority of two, when you know as well as I do that that is totally untrue. You have faced opposition from a considerable number of users over a period of six months. Chicheley 20:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "fake" consensus. This has a long history on the categorization talk page and the actors pages. Wikipedia today is not the same place as the Wikipedia of a year ago. I've tried to explain the background of what is going on, but you don't seem to want to understand it or discuss it. There are some real problems to be dealt with. The "general consensus which applies to all articles" is left over from a situation which no longer exists, is no longer a general consensus and no longer applies to all articles. You don't seem to want to address the problems or discuss them and only claim to have an obsolete policy to support your claims. You have not offered any solutions to the problems, and only claim to be preventing "clutter". I was part of the discussion to recategorize actors, and some other people started the recategorization and left it half completed. I only started work on it because it made no sense to be half one way and half the other. I implemented it using AWB which is not a bot. It is not against policy to recategorize if there is consensus and discussion. Since you have objected, I've stopped using AWB. Who knows, if you were to discuss this and convince me of my errors I'd even help you with the recategorization. -- Samuel Wantman 23:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is only "obselete" in your opinion. The history you give is neither here nor there since current system is good for other reasons, namely that it facilitates navigation while minimising clutter and this will not change. It was absolutely not a bad thing that by nationality categories were introduced. You are obviously a "by-subject" man, and you overlook that many, many people do not think that way. If biographical articles are not cross-categorised, many of them will not be in both the occupational category and the nationality category, but only in one of them, massively reducing completeness of both systems. If cross-categorisation was created for other reasons that is no more than a happy accident as it was essential in any case. Creating exceptions to this general rule will just create a nightmare of inconsistency; no-one would be able to categorise any biographical article without checking what the rules were for a person in that particular field. Thus we need a consistent system.

Clutter is the biggest problem in the categorisation field, as excessive clutter makes good categories hard to find and the way things are going threatens to make the whole system useless in the long run. As far as I am concerned there are no "problems" which I am not addressing. Chicheley 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for discussing this. First, I am not proposing to get rid of the cross-categorization between nationality and occupation. I am proposing to duplicate it when occupations are international. That is all I am proposing. That is a very simple concept. It is the reason that the Philatelists want to get rid of the nationality sub-directories. I told them that they could duplicate instead of removing the sub-directories. Yes, many people find the nationality subdirectories useful, and I am not trying to get rid of them. What I see happening all over Wikipedia is that people come up with more and more ways to subcategorize things, and as they do, they take perfectly fine large categories and break them into small hard to use categories. This is happening to all the states in the United States where people are creating categories for people by cities and towns. Following your rules they'd all be removed from the categories by state. When that happens it becomes nearly impossible for anyone to browse through the people by state because they will be splintered into many pieces. Then you have problems like the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization where people are subcategorizing all the British into categories for English, Welsh, etc... If they are all removed from the British some people are very upset. If they do not get subcategorized other people are very upset. There is a value to being able to browse through occupation categories that are international in nature without having to look at nationalities. There is a value to having complete indexes for topics at the level of notability. I just want us to pick a spot where we say that it is useful to have all members of the category listed, and therefore even if the category gets broken up into subcategories the category will not be depopulated. This often happens whenever there are multiple subcategorization schemes. In those cases the subcategories are grandchildren instead of children and there has never been a policy against having duplication between categories and their grandchildren.

Granted, category duplication makes it harder to categorize. Granted, it also adds more category listings to articles. But I'm thinking about users who want to browse through topics without having to look through dozens of subcategories. Give users the choice of where they want to browse. Yes we have to draw a line somewhere or else things can get out of control. But I'd like that point to come from discussion based on what is useful and I think it should be drawn at the topic level -- the level at which articles are written. Politics is national, it makes sense to have the level be national for politicians. Philatelists are not national so the higher level category would be fully populated. Each subject area is different. -- Samuel Wantman 08:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It simply isn't true that "there has never been a policy against having duplication between categories and their grandchildren" - look back through the history of the policies, which you should know plenty about already. I think your way of doing things is just too inconsistent to be sustainable, because it relies on everyone knowing what is going on in any area they touch. In a wiki environment that just isn't going to happen - especially in an field like acting, which is edited by vast numbers of people - so following your proposal can only leave things in an inconsistent state. Having looked at a lot of the articles you edited, I can tell you that you left them in an inconsistent state, and you knew what you were trying to do. With your system the problem can only get worse as more people intervene. Your proposal also creates category clutter, which I as I have said I see as the main problem in categorisation of biographical articles. Chicheley 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fait accompli

Please explain how it can be an attempted fait accompli for a consensus decision to be made among project members to present a set of categories for proposed merger. The nomination is made via the site guidelines and presents an opportunity for all site users to discuss the matter before a decision is reached. How is that an attempted fait accompli? --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If something is a good idea, it should stand on its own merits. It is irrelevant what conclusion was reached in some other discussion. Wikipedia is extremely vulnerable to manipulation, and your regular inferences that "project members" have some sort of special rights place a severe strain on the openness of the system. They encourage the creation of cliques and exclude new users. Chicheley 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read what Samuel Wantman has to say about consensus both above and in this discussion. Creation of cliques? See our project pages and how we are trying to attract new members. What gets me is that if I alone had submitted this proposal without reference to the project consensus, you would have insisted on evidence of consensus. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You long term track record of viciously abusing other users robs you of all right to lecture others about consensus. And you are quite wrong about what I might say: I regard "consensus" in Wikipedia as no more than a founding myth. One simply has to see how each discussion goes. The problem with a prior discussion by "project members" is that it predetermines the outcome of a discussion, and in some cases the "project members" may have a poor understanding of how the category system works, or be promoting an agenda which runs counter to Wikipedia's objectives. It is much better for each proposal to be discussed and voted on my independent regulars on the categories for discussion page. Subject experts can be useful in providing facts, but if we are ever to have a consistently organised encyclopedia, it is beneficial to have a group of people who are committed precisely to achieving that. However, you have repeatedly expressed utter contempt for people who are trying to improve the organisation of Wikipedia. You do not hesitate to assume bad faith or to make quite appalling personal attacks. Chicheley 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original argument between us began when you accused me of "bad faith" and did not apologise. All I had done was try to improve a project structure but I made a mistake in terms of WP deletion guidelines, because I was unfamiliar with required procedure. An administrator, Sam Vimes, helped to correct the mistake and put an explanation on the discussion page. This was immediately followed by an apology from me for the oversight. The next entry in the discussion was you weighing in with "bad faith", "breach of etiquette" and suchlike insulting rubbish. If you don't like "vicious abuse" then don't insult people. You latest accusation of "fait accompli" is also an insult: you are effectively saying that we hatched a conspiracy instead of reaching consensus. Once again, you are completely out of order. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information

This is to advise you that I have made a formal complaint about you to an administrator at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamuelWantman#User:Chicheley

I have chosen Samuel due to his recent involvement with you both here on your own talk page and in the CfD disussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_30#Merge_all_Philatelist_Categories

To give Samuel every opportunity to investigate my complaint without prejudice, I suggest that no further discussions take place between us on either of our own talk pages or on the CfD pages. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down you two! There's no way that I can mediate this or take any action because I have my own history with Chicheley and could not possibly be unbiased. If you can't work things out through discussion, I suggest requesting comments or mediation. --Samuel Wantman 09:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calm down you two. Perhaps some private, off list, discussion might result in a meeting of minds. Lightoftheworld 16:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPs by Parliament

I have just posted a lengthy reply to the CFD for MPs by Parliament, and wondered if you might like to reconsider your nomination? I have just put a lot of work into creating and populating these categories, after extensive discussion, and am sorry to see them risking deletion so soon. --BrownHairedGirl 17:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to change my mind because you put in a lot of work. When one edits Wikipedia one must accept the risk that one's edits will be rejected. None of the 8 points you have made convinces me that these categories are a good thing to even the slightest extent. Chicheley 17:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I'm sorry if I stepped on your pet peeve, but I stand by my actions. It is your disregard for established consensus related to maintenance categories that must be kept on check. As I said before, there is no better alternative for them at the moment so the will stay until a better one is found, not before. And I believe I am the best judge of what actions I shall keep performing on wiki. Thanks for your concern. I will say no more of the matter. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 09:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You attitude is an utter disgrace. You are arrogant and unfit to edit Wikipedia. Please do not do so again as your contempt for consensus is intolerable. Chicheley 20:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down you two. Perhaps some private, off list, discussion might result in a meeting of minds?. Robert I 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles lacking sources

This category has been restored by deletion review, and as the result of that restoration a number of other actions were taken. I know you are deeply concerned about the fate of these self-referential categories, and so I would invite you to comment on this issue in the thread at ANI. Dragons flight 18:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Texas

I noticed that you removed the tag from the category above. I am curious as to the specific reasons this was done. One, I note that the banner itself said that it was never to be removed, and that you may have acted inappropriately by removing it. I say "may have", because I don't know who specifically has authority to remove it. Also, I would point out that my proposal was, as stated, an extreme proposal, and not necessarily to be taken too literally. Clearly, I don't imagine that all the subcategories, if they were ever created, would necessarily be "stand-alone" subcategories. I personally tend to think that something along the lines of what has been done with Category:People from California would probably be enacted. However, I would point out that it seems to me to be very likely that the greatest number of new pages created in wikipedia are very likely to be pages about people: this year's new crop of politicians, professional athletes, TV series regulars, musicians, and so on. If this is true, then maybe, say, one-third of all new pages relating to the United States will probably be biographical. If that happens, then we may well find ourselves facing a situation where the proliferation of categories may be the only way to address the even greater proliferation of biography pages. Badbilltucker 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone has the authority to remove a tag so it is entirely wrong to allege that I have done anything wrong. I know a lot about categories and I don't think this category should be subdivided because some people would have to be added to more than one of the subcategories, but one by state category on an article is quite enough. There is a huge and rapidly escalating problem with category clutter on biographical articles. Chicheley 16:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tend to agree with the last point. You will notice that I have been adding the residents of a given area to the pages of the town, county, whatever, or to a list of individuals from a given area lately in an effort to try to reduce the need for such categories. However, I do think that it would be much more effective to try to find some place to discuss your valid concerns, possibly in the Wikipedia:Categorization talkpage, than in taking personal initiative which could potentially lead to conflicts. I note here that I myself am in no way associated with Texas, and have only taken what action I have taken in an attempt to reduce the population of that category, which was about 1400 pages or more (at least eight pages) when I started. Badbilltucker 18:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and has you have not seen fit to respond (not that you had to), I would call to your attention that just about ANYONE who disagrees with you could initiate reverting your own work of category deletion and potentially lead to one or the other of you being blocked on the basis of the three-revert rule. I also call to your attention that I myself have never engaged in a single such reversion. However, seeing as you have only been in wikipedia at all since April, it occurs to me that your actions could be taken as an affront of some sort by others. On this basis, I once again urge you to try to engage people in conversation on your concerns rather than continuing in your current practice of unilaterally changing articles. Badbilltucker 18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down chaps. But perhaps you should try to engage more with other contributors, Olborne?. Sussexman 20:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was remove a tag for which I was subjected to a baseless query about my integrity, which carried the implication (later to be repeated) that I don't have the right to edit on the same basis as my attacker. I then responded to a query. But given the hostile and patonising response I received, next time I get a message I may ignore it, especially if it is from someone with a confrontational username like Badbilltucker. Chicheley 09:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify something which I hadn't consider necessary to clarify, my name here is, as I stated on my own page, an alias. I choose to let my actions here exist independent of my own "civilian" identity. It is specifically the name used by everyone I knew to describe a now-deceased party I had had to work with over the course of my college years. I took it because it is both easy for me to remember (however hard I have tried to forget him) and, primarily, one that is unlikely to be used by anyone else. I regret that others have chosen to give it a meaning that, honestly, had never occurred to me. Also, if you were to reread the statement above, and my own comments on my talk page, I was under the impression that a banner which contained such "official" wording would, in fact, be official. I apologize for my error. Also, my own record would indicate that, however many categorizations I have done, I have never reversed any. No threat to do so was implied, or, if you reread my comment, actually expressed. I would simply point out that if there already is a category of "People from Houston", let's say, that someone going to look for people from Houston would be likely to look in the more specific category, not in the more general category, "People from Texas", regardless of how many other areas in the state an individual might be "from". Your unilateral change of categorization could in and of itself be taken as provocative by some, and such people may have already reverted your action. I have not and, actually, have no intention to do so. Also, I did take the effort to look over your activity of posting, and noted that making these changes without any discussion before or after the fact seems to be the pattern here. There was an appropriate place to respond and express your concerns, by actually responding directly to the comment which precipitated your action. You, however, chose to act, regrettably, once again, unilaterally, without discussion, and clearly against the principal of consensus upon which wikipedia is based. This could be seen as being confrontational on your part in and of itself. I again stress that wikipedia is built, and continues to exist, on the basis of consensus. In matters which have already received significant contributions from others, such as any pre-existing categorization scheme, or in the categorization of any particular existing page, I believe that the principles of wikipedia would indicate that discussion before making such actions is in fact the rule, not the exception. I also note that several of your actions have in fact eliminated truly redundant categorization (removing a general category when a more specific category was also included in the categorization), and I commend you for doing so. However, I repeat that such unilateral action as you have taken in many other cases,. such as the one that sparked this conversation, could very easily create a conflict with someone who was no more willing to discuss things than you have demonstrated yourself to be. I once again urge you to seek consensus with those individuals whose work you undo, rather than act in what could be perceived as an arrogant, and possibly arbitrary, way. There are a number of places in wikipedia where you could legitimately express your concerns where, if they were adopted, would lead to having your beliefs enacted more universally than you could do so on your own, and I strongly suggest that you put at least some of your energy in these more generally useful and less directly confrontational activities. By the way, had you not yourself made what actually is an unfounded aspersion against me above, I would not have posted this reply at all. It is rarely the case that in matters such as these that either party is truly blameless. Maybe, even, including you. Badbilltucker 21:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quaker Categories

I just noticed that at the start of this past summer you created at least 4 new categories for Quakers, and I thought I'd quickly ask why and if there are any others I those of us working on the Quaker Wikiproject should be aware of. We somehow missed their creation, and I only added them to our list of categories this evening. What I'm concerned about is that some of them are likely to stay very small, and I'm not clear there was a need to break the Quaker category apart. Could you please explain what your thought process was here? Thanks --Ahc 03:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]