User talk:ChristTrekker/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ChristTrekker. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
CP Canidates in office
Can you verify this link. [1]. It is the only one I can find. Do you think she is actually in the Constitution pary or not if so can you add her to the main page. Thanks. John R G 05:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the link above I hope it stays there. John R G 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, as PROD does not handle categories, I transferred your deletion proposal to WP:CFD. 132.205.44.134 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Disambig at Constit. Party
Hi. Sorry about that: my Internet connection was acting up while I was creating it, and it remained a red link for longer than I had planned. Dahn 14:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've ended up adding all the possible variations to disambig. Your suggestion sounds good to me (Constitutional Party (disambiguation) already redirects there), but, since you are more knowledgeble on American political references, consider whether "Constitutional Party" is a common enough rendition for "Constitution Party". If it is, then "Constitution Party" can still redirect to the article and not to the disambig: out of the three [other] "Constitutional"-named parties (there is a fourth one in France, but it looks as if it only has four members...), only one is "Constitutional Party" per se (as opposed to "Constitutional and something party") - that party is the Romanian one, and it is destined to be, at worst, a footnote and, at best, a section in the Junimea article. Your call. Thanks. Dahn 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, you are entirely right: keep article as "Constitution Party", redirect "Constitutional Party" to disambig. Thanks for pointing that out. Dahn 17:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've ended up adding all the possible variations to disambig. Your suggestion sounds good to me (Constitutional Party (disambiguation) already redirects there), but, since you are more knowledgeble on American political references, consider whether "Constitutional Party" is a common enough rendition for "Constitution Party". If it is, then "Constitution Party" can still redirect to the article and not to the disambig: out of the three [other] "Constitutional"-named parties (there is a fourth one in France, but it looks as if it only has four members...), only one is "Constitutional Party" per se (as opposed to "Constitutional and something party") - that party is the Romanian one, and it is destined to be, at worst, a footnote and, at best, a section in the Junimea article. Your call. Thanks. Dahn 15:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I started a new page if you want to work on it you can. John R G 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Type categories
Hi. My intent was not to clutter, or to undo something someone (you) has given thought to and has a clear idea of. My assumption was that listing in multiple categories allows users to browse with different filters: 1) if you want Sans-serif only then look there; 2) Computer-face, etc. but if you want to see everything look in: 3) Typefaces. As many faces designed for initial uses, Charcoal for monitor display, or Frutiger for airport signage become repurposed for print, why not have a place where they could be seen together. I am relatively new here, but have worked in type for nearly 30 years, I thought the categories were a linking/grouping tool. I am curious what you think would be in typefaces. A list of sub-categories? Best, Jim CApitol3 21:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Mac categories
I'm going to undo all your category changes a second time. Picking an arbitrary attribute of the Macintosh products and categorizing based on that really doesn't help improve the categorization and usability of the encyclopedia, and only serves to cloud understanding. Remember, we have a worldwide audience, not just a bunch of Mac nerds that already know all the categorizations.
We have a list article which breaks down all the products in this fashion: List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU. We also have List of Apple Macintosh models by case type and Timeline of Apple Macintosh models, which are two other ways to categorise the articles we have on Macintosh models by an arbitrary factor. The simplest and most universally understood categorization is to use the actual product lines that people are familiar with, and that Apple marketed the products under.
The worst part of what you're doing, is that you're using "Intel Macintosh products" as a category. That's awful! Intel doesn't make Macintosh products! Please, PLEASE engage the community in discussions about changes like this before making them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Macintosh exists to help co-ordinate and gain consensus on issues. -/- Warren 21:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing wrong with having categories in addition to lists. There's nothing wrong with multiple simultaneous categorization schemes. The idea of checking with the community first flies in the face of the wiki ideal to "be bold" doesn't it? I may possibly be ignorant of something WP Mac has established, but it's quite unreasonable to expect everyone to check there first before touching any Mac-related article. Classifying computers by CPU and product line both seem very reasonable to me. In one instance I chose a bad category name, but IMHO you're making much ado about nothing. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not against categorizing the Macintosh articles, but ti needs to be done carefully. You should chose categories that won't have one or two articles in them, but should be pretty specific, too. You should also try to do it by product series, and ignore things like case type. I know it's been up at WikiProject Macintosh, but that page is abandoned and I watch it only out of habit. Let's discuss it some more, or at least clarify what you're doing.--HereToHelp 21:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Type categories
Hi. We continue to have a difference of opinion about categories, and the hierarchies related to them. I am not grasping the danger in having actual typefaces themselves in the typefaces category. I htought we discussed this in October. No intention of being beligerant but I truly see more the limits of your approach (not finding the faces or seeing a centralized list). CApitol3 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
ChrisTrekker, thank you for taking the time to share your reasoning. Being a graphic deisgner I appreciate the orderly expression of hierarchy, and I share some of your thinking, but differ in that there are not that many typefaces here on Wikipedia (I wish that there were more and am trying, slowly, to remedy that); there are sufficient numbers of individual typefaces in the general category typefaces that I believe it would be easy to look at it and conclude that it were the total. If I were to arrive at the typefaces category page and find purely a list classifications i think I would be more comfortable with it. Thanks again for the explanation of your thinking. Best, Jim CApitol3 19:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi ChristTrekker. What I was trying to say was concern about a user going to the Category typefaces pages, and finding a handful of typefaces, and not realizing that there were far more located in subcategories. I think you GET hierarchies better than many, and so would know that they would be located in sub-cats. So, I guess to address that, all faces would need to be in one of more subcategory. Hope that makes sense. Thanks for the compliment. I see you like astronmy. I've a couple times had the good fortune to see some of the planets, and even some moons of planets through a fairly strong telescope. Miraculous, really changed my understanding of where we 9earth) is in relation to the other planets. CApitol3 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)