Archive 2 of User:Jpbowen

Works by year

I notice that, along with User:MakeRocketGoNow, you were instrumental in creating many of the "Works by year" categories. However, the actual population of these categories has been somewhat erratic, aside from certain specific genres (e.g., film). Has there ever been any discussion in the WP community about what it would take to populate these categories consistently? Or is this something you have moved on from, and haven't been pushing? Marc Shepherd 13:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I filled in some missing years and have added some entries, mainly in an (art) museum context, my major interest. I'm happy to contribute further, but probably won't be pushing it myself in a more general way. I would be keen on sub-categories like "paintings", "sculptures", etc. by year. Also there are "songs" by year, but we probably need a more general category like musical "compositions" by year. I haven't seen any discussion on this (but haven't actively looked). Good luck if you push this further, I would certainly support it. Jonathan Bowen 22:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London Streets

Dover and Albemarle Streets are being considered on Afd. You may want to check the debate out. Nuttah68 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both streets are notable in my view. There are several existing links to them from other Wikipedia pages, they are the location of important clubs/institutions (see entries), and Albemarle Street was London's first one-way street.

You're encountering one of the problems of wikipedia, which is its deficiency in certain areas, one of them being the arts and certain other aspects of more traditionally venerated topics which mean little to many member of the Google generation. I'm not making aspersions about any particular individual, but a phenomenon which is observable. It is astonishing that Dover Street and Albemarle Street should be put up for AfD. It is equally astonishing that there has only just been an entry for them, when, for example, numerous computer games are covered in PhD level detail. The most notorious example of this is Pokémon and its dozens of ancillary articles.

The key to this is that stubs have to be watertight with indisputable hard facts to assert notability, and, furthermore, closely referenced from verifiable sources. I noticed you have encountered this on Jonathan Bowen where you have used inline citations. You might like to check out Footnotes for a more flexible and recommended method. You can see this employed in, for example, Anna Svidersky. There is actually a mix in this article of manual refences (by me) and the use of a template (by Crum375), although it would be better if there were consistency. Some guide pages I've found useful are here. If I can be of further assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius 20:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for all your useful help and advice. I will try to promote the arts and culture as much as I can on Wikipedia! I'm still a keen advocate. I have a one-page article (disguised as a book review!) in the Times Higher Education Supplement due out on 21 July 2006 if you are interested. The THES Literary Editor is showing some interest in Wikipedia. Best regards, Jonathan Bowen 21:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very interested. Perhaps you could send me URL if it's online. Does it mention Wiki? If so tell Wikipedia_Signpost. By the way, I think you have your preference settings to mark all edits as minor, which it is (incorrectly) doing. This should be changed. I recommend setting the preference which reminds you to make an edit summary also, for the times one forgets. Tyrenius 00:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will email you a copy of the article if you let me had your email address — mine is under http://www.jpbowen.com/ — and will aim to add something to Wikipedia_Signpost. The THES is by subscription only. See also a paper on Museums and Wikipedia, hopefully encouraging museums to add entries. I have updated my preferences as you suggest, thanks. Jonathan Bowen 00:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. By the way, it is more usual to reply on sender's talk page (though not obligatory) as some people will miss the reply otherwise! See TALK "how to keep a two-way conversation readable".... Tyrenius 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks — I have added a note at the top of this page! Jonathan Bowen 10:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bene

Good edits to the John Arbuthnot article. (It's an article, incidentally, that some in the outside world are praising, so it does make a difference.) Geogre 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like the additional links and thanks for your encouraging feedback. The serendipity of links between Wikipedia articles is something I like! Jonathan Bowen 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Chapman

A useful article, thanks for the info from your contribs. I have deleted the fact that he is a fellow of Wadham since he is not on the list of fellows of Wadham viewable under postholders on the college website and also in the downloadable .pdf 2005-6 handbook for its students. Op. Deo 06:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback on the Allan Chapman article. I believe he has been a Fellow of Wadham and have added a reference for this. Of course, if you know better, do say. I have also added some more information and updated the categories. Jonathan Bowen 09:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know it says he was a fellow in a few places on the web, including the reference you give, which of course may be a mistake by an incompetent webmaster of the publishing company rather than on the actual book they published. Indeed the book pages displayed do not actually say he is a fellow. Another possibility is that he was a fellow once but is no longer, However, since he is still apparently mainly based in Oxford (and at Wadham and the Modern History Dep.) I would be surprised if he is a former fellow and has somehow relinquished it. He brings mush credit to Wadham and they would surely maintain his fellowship if he ever had one. Perhaps he was at sometime some sort of research fellow of another body while based at Wadham, but that would not make him a "Fellow of Wadham". We can say for certain he is not presently a fellow, see Wadham Fellows' Table. Indeed I first became aware of the fact that he is not presently a fellow, when, being introduced as a fellow of Wadham, he said, "I am not a fellow." I guess this personal account is not a useful reference for the purposes of WP, although it makes me something of an expert on the matter and pretty certain that the attribution you gave him (understanderably in view of what you find on the web) is actaully wrong or at the very least one he does not wish to have publicised. I therefore think that in deference to his public statement and the college website that the attribution should be removed until it can be determined whether he ever actually was a fellow. I guess that this could be determined by reference to appropriate Oxford publications. But it will require a session in a library to do it. Another useful tack would be to look at the actual author descriptions on his published books, since presumably he would have raed the proofs of these and got them correct. Also is he in Who's Who? Op. Deo 11:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On his Oxford University History Faculty entry (which I have just added) it says Wadham College, but his exact status is uncertain. He was a postgraduate student there and seems to still have some sort of attachment to the College. I may be able to make enquiries to check. Jonathan Bowen 13:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have just widened the category and the Wadham reference appropriately. I have also updated the University of Central Lancashire honorary doctorate information. Thanks for your feedback and clarification! Jonathan Bowen 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hymnus Eucharisticus

Thanks for adding two very good categories to this article. I learned a few new things because of looking around those categories. —ExplorerCDT 23:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback and encouragement — glad you like the new categories. I am working on improving articles and categories concerning Oxford in general. Suggestions are always welcome. And thanks for your work on the Hymnus Eucharisticus entry. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 07:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the looks of it, the Oxford project of which you speak could keep you occupied for quite some time. On my end, I'll eventually get around (as I previously promised) to translating the Latin for the Hymnus. If you need any help, let me know. —ExplorerCDT 08:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is a labour of love since I was born, raised and educated in Oxford! A translation for the Hymnus Eucharisticus would be wonderful if and when you have the time. Jonathan Bowen 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As someone who would love to do graduate work at Oxford in political theory...any suggestions on how best to get in (and into Magdalen, in particular)? —ExplorerCDT 08:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The interview is always key. You must be good at interaction (even — or especially — when you don't know the answer). Good luck with this! Jonathan Bowen 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merton Russell-Cotes

OK, he's usually hyphenated these days, but please see my edit.--Holdenhurst 17:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note of clarification. I don't know if there is a standard for this sort of problem on Wikipedia, but I thought it best to match the associated museum name. Jonathan Bowen 17:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:African artists

Hi Jpbowen. I've come across a category you created, Category:African artists, and I can't see much use for it. It seems redundant to Category:artists by nationality. Is there any specific reason it is necessary? Picaroon9288 02:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the Category:African art category. I have just done some tidying and category narrowing to Category:Artists by nationality. Note that there are other similar categories such as Category:Latin American artists for example. Jonathan Bowen 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I've categorized all (I hope) African and Latin American nationalities accordingly, but not subcategories (e.g. Ethiopian painters). I guess I was mainly objecting to how deserted Category:African artists was. Picaroon9288 19:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for populating this category! Jonathan Bowen 19:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture of Sweden

Hello Jonathan- I have done some tweaking of the above article and noticed that you have as well. I am new in Wikipedia and still feeling my way around. I noticed that you tend to write style names without capitals where I might be on the fence (empire or romantic as opposed to Romanesque)--is that the accepted form for those? Also, I tend to internal link less than others, applying links mostly to what I think are lesser-known terms, and not to very common ones that a reader can be certain will have an article on Wikipedia. There is some guidance on this--Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)--but it's a subjective area for sure. I noticed that you linked Sweden and Middle Ages (where I wouldn't have) and was wondering if I am being too minimalist (Minimalist?). -Eric ^(talk) 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, links are cheap, so if someone might want to follow one, it is worth including (within reason). Of course, everyone has there own style, taste, etc. And you can always remove anything with which you really disagree or which is actually incorrect. Thanks for your feedback. Jonathan Bowen 14:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay--thanks. -Eric ^(talk) 15:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Check this out: [1] bunix 02:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for pointing this out, I have voted. Jonathan Bowen 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Barfield

Your edit to Owen Barfield was not minor; and your edit summary seems to me misleading. Charles Matthews 23:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On looking, this could have been marked as not minor, but this is a judgement call. I hope "Added category, external link, minor addition" is not misleading however. As well as the category and external link, I added a sentence and a phrase and restructured the first paragraph into two paragraphs - not very substantial. Of course, if I made a mistake, that is more serious and you are welcome to correct it. Thank you for your feedback in any case. — Jonathan Bowen 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed He was strongly influenced by anthroposophy. I don't know why. But that certainly is no minor edit. Charles Matthews 17:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought it didn't flow well when reading the paragraph and was covered more fully in the later section in any case. Do re-add it if you wish, I certainly don't disagree. Jonathan Bowen 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising categories

Hi. I see you've been adding eponymous categories to categories that should properly be applied to the article about the person, not to the category for that person. For example, the "People associated with Oxford" category is OK for the Tolkien, Carroll and Lewis articles, but not for the categories. Essentially, the argument is that when you add a category to a parent category, you add all the articles in that category to the parent category, and this often makes no sense. A book an author wrote should not appear under the "Writers" part of the category structure, but should appear under the "Books" part of the category structure. See the discussion here for more details. Carcharoth 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, many thanks for the information. I thought there might be a rule, but wasn't sure. Jonathan Bowen 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ransom Center and Museum category

Hello,

I'm writing about a change that you made to the page on the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin. I'm wondering why you removed the designation "Museum." To clarify, the Ransom Center's ground floor is made up almost entirely of gallery space, in which there are rotating exhibitions of art, photography, literature, and other materials. Most of these materials come from the Ransom Center's collections, but some visit from other institutions. For example, we hosted a major exhibition of Ansel Adams photography last year. Currently we have two exhibitions up: one showcases selections from the newly acquired archive of Norman Mailer, and the other showcases the paintings of the artist Feliks Topolski, also held in our collections. This is one reason that the Ransom Center should be categorized as a museum, and not just as a library and archive: we do the kind of things that the general public associates with museums. If the Ransom Center does not fall under the category of museum, visitors to Austin seeking museums to visit, or people interested in studying exhibition practices, will not likely be aware of our institution and its role as a cultural institution in Texas.

The other reason we should be categorized as a museum is that we house many materials that are not traditionally associated with "libraries," but with museums. For instance, we have very significant holdings in photography; a large collection of paintings, etchings, and drawings with an emphasis on portraiture; decorative arts; and holdings in the history of performing arts that include puppets, stage sets, and other objects.

The Ransom Center is one of a growing number of institutions that cannot simply be categorized as a museum or a library, but need to be recognized as both. We function to provide research opportunities for scholars, to preserve cultural artifacts of all types, and to interpret these materials for the public in the form of exhibitions and educational programs. I am going to reinstate the category of "Museum" on the Ransom Center page and hope that if you have any further questions you'll let me know. Leofstan 15:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC) leofstan[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I guess it wasn't clear from the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center entry itself that this is a museum. It looked like a library and archive rather than a museum from the initial introduction. I have updated the museum categories with further subcategories. Do check that these are appropriate. One note for this entry and others you might edit in the future: it is not normally appropriate to have a parent category and subcategory used in the same article. E.g., you had Category:Museums in the United States and Category:Museums in Texas. The former is superfluous and should be narrowed to the second (i.e., removed!). However Category:Art museums and galleries in the United States adds extra information and is not superfluous, so I have added this. I hope this is helpful for you in adding categories for the future. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and your improvements to the Ransom Center page! The page needs quite a bit of improving in terms of accurately representing our collections; however, I'm not sure how much I, as part of the institution, should be intervening in what it says beyond correcting errors...I understand that individuals are not meant to create their own pages, and I don't know if this rule extends to individuals like me participating extensively in altering the content of pages for their institution? I find the help pages in Wikipedia very user unfriendly, unlike Wikipedia itself! Leofstan 16:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Leofstan[reply]

You should feel free to update the page, especially to correct errors, but you should ensure everything is written in an independent style. And the entry should include material to an appropriat length too. If you wish to add further (perhaps less independent) material, you would be very welcome to use my Museums Wiki for this and link it from the Wikipedia page. I would encourage your participation if you are interested! Regards, Jonathan Bowen 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAL vs. PVS

Hello, I see you are interested in formal verification, so I thought I could see if you can help me... I'm doing some research on SAL, and I just can't figure out the difference between SAL and PVS. It seems like the same group of people stands behind this two projects and that both do the same thing. Do you know more about this? --Dijxtra 18:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAL is a set of model checkers, PVS is a theorem prover. I hope this helps and thanks for your interest. Jonathan Bowen 18:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Thanks a bunch, everything was right in front of me, sorry for having to answer stupid questions... --Dijxtra 19:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

steve.museum

I noticed that you contributed to the Archives & Museum Informatics page. I wonder if you would be interested to know that the recently created steve.museum article is undergoing Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Sils660 07:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to miss this, but it seems to have been deleted anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 13:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue plaques, deletion?

Greetings Jpbowen. I notice that you have added articles to the Category:Blue plaques in the past. This category and its related categories has now been nominated for deletion by another editor. If you still have an interest perhaps you might consider voting at the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 18#Category:Blue plaques. Regards, Oosoom ^Talk to me 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know; I have commented and voted. — Jonathan Bowen 18:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tidying...

The Dalles Carnegie Library. I live in Wasco County, Oregon, and recently joined the Oregon project, where I noticed getting the red links off the list of historic places was on the "to do" list. Creating the stub you greatly improved and better Wikified was my first attempt at addressing that need. Your clean-up not only made a better article, but helps me get a feel for what I'm doing. Thanks a million.--Jgilhousen 23:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and I hope it helps with future categorization! Regards, Jonathan Bowen 23:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childcare Center link

Hey there, I've removed this, I don't see how it's relevant to the town and people might consider it spam. •Elomis• 23:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Childcare Centre is based in Rose Hill, Oxford. I agree on its own it looks rather over-prominent, so I have added a larger selection of external links concerning Rose Hill. If there is online material relevant to an article, I think it worth including this rather than leaving it completely unreferenced. Jonathan Bowen 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodley Gallery

Thanks for improving the Bodley Gallery page! MdArtLover 00:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the positive feedback. I hope the improved categories are useful and that it helps you in categorizing articles for the future. Jonathan Bowen 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricketer all-rounder categories

Hello Jpbowen, FYI those categories you created have been speedy deleted as they had been discussed previously here and it was resolved then to not have them for reasons explained in that link. If you still feel strongly that they should be there, I suggest discussing first at WT:CRIC. —Moondyne 12:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know. I didn't realise it had been discussed before and created these categories because I noticed that a couple of categories for individual countries had already been created. I will bow to the Wikipedia process on this one. — Jonathan Bowen 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punting captions and cats

I'm going to remove all those unnecessary full stops on the captions. Please read WP:CAP. Full stops only needed if captions are proper sentences. None of them is in Punt (boat).

Also while your new cats are welcome, you have deleted some others that were useful, so I am putting them back, and also adding "Punting" to the link so that the ugly "Punt (boat)" does not show up in the cat lists where it looks feeble.

The quickest way for me to do this is to rv your changes and then put back your cats.

Thruston 10:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointer re caption guidance. Re other categories:

[[Category:Marine propulsion|Punting]] — "Marine indicates sea or ocean. Can you give an example of punts being used in the sea rather than rivers? If so, fine, if not, I think it should be removed.
[[Category:Oxbridge|Punting]] — This seems a bit superfluous and high with the other Oxford/Cambridge categories included.
[[Category:Tourist activities|Punting]] — This seems rather a high-level category for punting. There are many articles that could be included similarly.
[[Category:Tourism in England|Punting]] — Ditto. Can you think of narrower "tourist/tourism" related categories? If not, I think this article may be in enough categories anyway.

Adding "Punting" to the Categories, doesn't list this as "Punting", it just moves to to the position for "Punting" alphabetically — probably no change in most cases. To list these as "Punting" you must move these categories to the "Punting" redirect page.

Thank you for your feedback — further comments welcome. — Jonathan Bowen 00:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject History of Science

Jpbowen, you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science--ragesoss 07:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation, I have added myself for science museums and the history of computing. — Jonathan Bowen 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Severs

I don't think he needs a wikilink, as he's only known because of the house and that is where brief biog details belong. I haven't removed it, however, Tyrenius 02:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought this too afterwards, so won't worry if someone removes it. Thanks for your feedback. — Jonathan Bowen 13:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHICOTW GAonhold

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
1908 Chicago Cubs season is the current Chicago COTW In the past you have edited Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. It was the CHICOTW in the recent past. It has been placed on Good article on hold status thanks in part to your efforts. See its GA review and help us raise it towards the good article and eventually featured article classification level. The article was given good article on hold status on February 2, 2007. It will be reevaluated in between 2 and 7 days from this date. Recall that during its tenure as CHICOTW we achieved the following Improvement. See our CHICOTW Improvement History.
Contributing editors: AKeen, L Glidewell, NatusRoma, TheQuandry^*, TonyTheTiger.
	Good article nominee/Good article on hold

TonyTheTiger 23:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog dab page

Hi there. I was just wondering, since Collection catalog redirects to Library catalog, if it would make more sense to include a reference to collection catalog on the library catalog line. Something like:

Library catalog (books and other media); for museums and archives, also known as Collection catalog.

Or something like that? I'm just not sure it helps the reader to differentiate between the two, only to have them end up in the same place. The other option, of course, is to write a distinct Collection catalog article.

To be honest with you, I've never really heard the term "Collection catalog" used commonly for what you've described (and didn't see much of interest in a Google search), so I don't know how important it is to include it at all. But I defer to your judgment on that for the time being. Cheers. Planetneutral 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feeback, I was thinking about this too and I have created a separate entry. The terms collections catalog and collection database are also used (in museums and archives). — Jonathan Bowen 00:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murphy Arts Center copyvio

Could you confirm the URL of the copyvio source http://homepage.mac.com/i/hpti/1/wimg/Shared/SlideShow/SlideShow.html?lang=en is the correct URL, as it doesn't work properly for me. I've removed the suspected copyvio content in the interim. -- Heligo land 12:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to use some nasty JavaScript for the link. Try http://homepage.mac.com/philipcampbell/murphyartcenter/PhotoAlbum4.html and follow the "Brief History" link. (I found this with a Google search.) — Jonathan Bowen 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MW2007

Hi Jonathan, this is Thomas (en: ThT). Your conference paper in 2006 was an important source for preparing myself for the MW2007 (see: Wikipedia as a conference paper source, Museum Documentation and Wikipedia.de). Of course I'm interested to know how you think about this. I'd be happy to hear from you or to meet you in SF or both. Greetings, ThT 18:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas, thanks for your positive feedback and I look forward to seeing you at the MW2007 Museums and the Web conference. I will try to make you Wiki session, or do introduce yourself at my demonstration on the Saturday concerning A Museums Wiki — see http://museums.wikia.com/ . Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 02:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements

I note your addition of the category 'settlements' to some categories. Good. I also see that one editor is out to remove many links to the settlements category. He is doing this to enforce his belief that settlements are only small, temporary human habitations, never anything larger than a village. What do you think? Thanks Hmains 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I guess there is no absolute answer and we will just have to see how things pan out by consensus. A "Locations" category, or some such, could be useful as a more general category. Perhaps I will address this sometime if and when I have the time. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 08:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CFD -- Category:Internet pioneers

I've nominated a category you created for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 24#Category:Internet pioneers if you'd like to respond; thanks. SparsityProblem 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and sorry for the delay in reply since I missed this. I have to say that I think that the Wikipedia deletion process, especially for categories, is too fast in my opinion. It seems to take around a week whereas a month would be more reasonable to allow time for a good discussion. That said, from the discussion about this category, it seems to have been taken over by non-Internet pioneers. I may try again perhaps with the categorey name "Computer network pioneers" to try to avoid this problem - when I have the time! — Jonathan Bowen 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Ironworks

When you look at the article Ironworks, you will see that I have very substantially altered it. In doing so, I have removed Eagle Ironworks, Oxford, because I doubt it is of sufficient notability to warrant its appearance in this list. However, I have added a category (Iron and steel mills); strictly it is a foundry and not a mill, but that is the nearest category I can find. I have suggested that this be renamed as Iron and Steel Works, which would be more appropriate. Peterkingiron 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle Ironworks is certainly an important part of Oxford's industrial heritage and the most important ironworks (historically) in the surrounding area too. I would argue this in a wider context as well, although that is more debatable of course. Thanks for letting me know anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blue plaques, deletion again!

The Blue plaques category has again been nominated for deletion. If you still have any interest in this, the discussion and voting is here. Regards... Oosoom ^Talk to me 09:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for letting me know, I have added my say. — Jonathan Bowen 12:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute

Hello, Thanks for creating this article, and I have nominated it for DYK, in DYK talk page. I have expanded the article and it needs bit more expansion. To get selected, article needs bit more expansion. Will you be able to expand further? Thank you. - KNM ^Talk 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback and interest. I am away for a bit, so any further updates will have to wait till after my return. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 09:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 6 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Indian Institute, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Age category

Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:

Using an age group category, such as Category:Wikipedians in their 30s
Using a decade category, such as Category:Wikipedians born in the 1970s.

If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]