User talk:Falcon Kirtaran/Archive01

In Use tag

My apologies to anyone concerned about my prolonged inuse tag on Public_Switched_Telephone_Network circa 22 of 5 of 2004; I was called away on urgent business and neglected it. Falcon 01:27, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

Concern re:Dewey decimal

I'm not sure it's kosher to link from articles to pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. I think it breaks Wikipedia's fourth wall rules. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:55, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Its a category link, so it should be fine. Of course, if it is a problem, let me know. Falcon 00:58, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a category link to me: "This article is in Dewey Decimal category Template:DDSN100?" is how it represents. Category links are formed using [[Category:Name of cateogry]] -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The template was buggy due to an incorrect title; check again. And if you can find a way to get the usual category system to function with the dewey decimal system, let me know. I tried. Falcon 01:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, what you would do is create a page called Category:Dewey Decimal 100 or somesuch, and include the information there. I'm not sure that's 100% a good idea, however, because we already have categories for these things, and 'twere it me, I'd just put a note on the Category:Philosophy and Category:Philosopher pages that says "Articles in this section fall under Dewey Decimal heading x" -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 01:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Except for the directory structure for the dewey decimal system which was there before. Because there is no way to link to category pages except by categorising the page (a terrible idea: categorising the category page in its category) and creating metacategories. Therefore, I did what I did. Falcon 01:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Run that by me one more time. You can link to category pages without categorizing the page ([[:Category:Buddhism]] yields Category:Buddhism, though I don't see why you need to...nor am I clear on what your problem with metacategorization is about. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the syntax... I wasnt aware that the leading : would do any good. I hope nobody minds deleting the number of pages that need deletion. Falcon 08:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. You can list the unwanted pages on Wikipedia:Speedy_deletion. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 09:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dewey Decimal

I also began a project of changing the Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System pages to categories (mine is at Category:Dewey Decimal System). I'm sorry for not noticing the amount of work you already did on yours; I looked at Category:Dewey Decimal system and saw only 4 categories and 9 articles, not noticing the other categories you had already created (and that you were also creating an ungodly amount of subpages to contain the hierarchy).

I commented at Wikipedia talk:Dewey Decimal System#Categories and nobody said anything; looking at your contributions, I can see you were away from Wikipedia for a while, and looks like nobody else cares much about the DDC.

I think we should both work together in just one of them (either mine or yours) and delete the other.

The differences between what you are doing and what I'm doing are:

You are putting the hierarchy on subpages of Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System, I am putting it on dedicated category pages (the idea being to get rid of Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System and its subpages when it's done), and linking them in a tree (each category is in the parent category, up until the top).
You are calling the categories "Dewey Decimal xxx", I am calling them "Dewey Decimal System xxx". The official name is "Dewey Decimal Classification" [1].

Since you only created the categories from 100 to 119 (20 categories) and I only created 12 categories (root, 0-9 and 00), neither of us would have lost a lot of time if either of us started from the beginning again with a different name (looks like categories can't be renamed -- at least the "move" function does not work).

So, I propose the following: we both start again with the categories, this time calling them "Dewey Decimal Classification xxx", using my hierarchical scheme (so we'd have Category:Dewey Decimal Classification as the root, Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 5, Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 51, Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 519, Category:Dewey Decimal Classification 519.7 and so on). This would be better because we would then be using the official name.

I will stop touching the categories for the time being; no point wasting work if we decide to go another way.

What do you think?

I agree that this is a good course of action. Of course, we will also have to correct the category listings on the categorised pages (totalling about 5). That is probably why you cant move category pages... Anyway, Should we really bother with the decimals? It seems an awful lot of pages, and we should only go that far if there are in fact that many pages under the category (so some would have a tree depth of three digits, like 519, and more full ones would have more digits like 519.2). Falcon 22:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think we will ever need the extra digits (but we can add them as needed, if they are needed).

I will start copying what I did to the new name later today or tomorrow.

cesarb 21:20, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I added the root and the pages for 0, 1, 10 and 100, and added Philosophy and Psychology to 100. I will add more later.

Someone removed the categorizations to "Dewey Decimal xxx" you added in all the 9 articles; I only remembered those two were at 100. Since the old categories are now empty, I will go ahead and ask for them to be deleted.

cesarb 23:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More Dewey Decimal

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion about the categories I created; I think you might be interested. cesarb 21:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Otherkin

Hi, Falcon; thanks for your edit to the otherkin page, which was for the most part a breath of fresh air. Just to let you know, though, I've removed the changes you made to the paragraph on transsexuality for the following reasons:

I'm trying to remove weasel words like "many otherkin say" and "many transsexuals are offended by" (please forgive paraphrase here) from the article.

The current source given only supports one person's opinion, although there are certainly sources out there where complete outsiders draw the parallel for themselves as a way of understanding things. I cannot find a source for any, let alone many, transsexuals throwing a wobbly at the concept of otherkin; could you point me to one, perhaps? Vashti 09:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not at all - I was simply correcting some bad grammar (excessive paragraphing) I found on the page. Falcon 23:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to watch that paragraphing. :) Woe, woe. I'll certainly put the sensitivity information back in if I find a source that supports it. Vashti 07:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]