User talk:Skapur/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Skapur/Archive 1, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed nobody had said hi yet... Hi!

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

You might like some of these links and tips:

• some General guidance.
• Tutorial and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, -- Alf ^melmac 23:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stub and disambig

Hi Skapur - a very minor point, but disambiguation pages are never tagged as stubs - stub tags are only for articles. Theoretically you could use a {{listdev}} tag on them, but most people just leave them without a tag of any kind (BTW, I speedy-deleted the Henstridge disambig page... there's no point having a page like that until there are enough Henstridge articles to cause problems). Grutness...wha? 00:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It makes complete sense. Skapur 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi. Thanks for nominating articles for speedy deletion. In the future, please consider supplying a reason for your nominations, as it will make the reviewing administrator's job considerably easier. A list of predifined templates is available at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Deletion templates. Thanks! - EurekaLott 05:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I was doing it for some of the others but although it seemed obvious to me that the articles should be deleted, as a novice I did not know the exact reason and I was hoping an administrator would be able to hone in on the reason with more accuracy Skapur 23:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

WP Wikify

Hi there Skapur' I saw your part of the wikification drive (on your user page) and have wikified a few articles. I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Wikify which is a formal WikiProject based on the wikification drive. The idea is to promote the project more than we have previously, set out guidelines to follow when wikifying and provide help and support for contributors. At the moment we are still developing the project page and policies and would value your input and ideas. If you want to join just go to the project page and sign up, then let us know any ideas you have!

Hope to see you there, --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 11:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I'd appreciate your thoughts here. --uriah923^(talk) 22:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK Skapur 23:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Please note that as Category:United States Coast Guard is a sub-category of both Category:United States federal law enforcement agencies and Category:United States Department of Homeland Security, it is not necessary or desirable to add the latter two to every article you create about the USCG. Also, if you add [[Category:United States Coast Guard| ]] to the article, with a pipe followed by a space, it will add these articles to the top of the cat, not in alphabetical order, which is again not desirable. You don't need to add the pipe or the space. -- Necrothesp 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put the following on Category:United States federal law enforcement agencies

This category is for the top level page of United States federal law enforcement agencies. You can find subsidiary pages in an agency level subcategory.

so that other people do not make the same mistake Skapur 21:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Dorsal

Hi Skapur, Godd work on correcting Dorsal to Dorsum. Just be aware that where you find " dorsal fin " the correct replacement would be dorsal fin. I've fixed the few like this that I 'watch', but there may be lots of others. Maybe you are able to check if there are any others? GrahamBould 07:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Found eight articles with "dorsal fin" that I had converted to "dorsum (biology) fin" and now have changed to "dorsal fin" Skapur 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

adulterant tags

Hello, you recently added the linkless tag to adulterant, however there are many articles that link there, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Adulterant. You also added the wikify tag but it seems wikified just fine. Please be careful with what tags you add to an article. S Sepp 18:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Galantamine

Hi. I see you have been doing a lot of work cleaning up Wikipedia:Cleanup. Most of that is good and needed to be done. However, you seem to have removed Galantamine from the list, and moved the comments about what, exactly needs to be done to that article to that article's discussion page. I was wondering why? The article is a mess, I can't do much with it, and having it listed at Wikipedia:Cleanup seems like a good way to draw attention to it, hopefully attention from someone who can improve it. I know it's been on there a long time, but it seems that removing old entries that haven't been cleaned up just because they are old defeates the purpose of the cleanup page. So, again, why did you remove it? ONUnicorn 20:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I was following instructions in Wikipedia:Cleanup#Oldest listings as this was the oldest listing. --- Skapur 21:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Boston Whaler

Could you please expand on why you dropped an {{advert}} on Boston Whaler? I started a section on talk:Boston Whaler.--J Clear 02:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

responded on talk page. --- Skapur 02:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

{{stub}}

Hi - I noticed you've been adding stubs to a lot of articles. This category has been deprecated in favor of more specific stubs. If possible, could you try to use those? Aelfthrytha 01:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

OK --- Skapur 02:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restubbed all the articles. There are at this time no articles in category:stubs --- Skapur 08:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Windian

Hi Skapur, you recently placed an SD tag on the above article. While I think it should be a speedy as well, according to this, neologisms don't qualify as speedy deletes *sigh* I'm nominating it for AfD here. Regards, — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc|damage report} 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --- Skapur 17:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Stub on Kieran Donaghy

Please be careful when sorting stubs as you added an incorrect stub to this artical(Gnevin 19:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

I was careful. When I sorted it, there was no mention of Gaelic Football, just Football in a location in Ireland. --- Skapur 19:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It also linked to Kerry GAA (Gnevin 19:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

Am not tryin to make a big deal out of this i can see how you got confused . I just wanted to give you a heads up as to the nature of football in ireland (Gnevin 19:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC))

About your tagging of Bimatoprost

Here is why i think you shouldn't have done it. -- Boris 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for the general public and it has to be accessible to the general public. The only tagging I did was to mark it as uncategorized, which it was, marked it as a stub, which it was and marked it for wikification which it needed. If templates are doing all the work, then there is no need for the article stub, jsut redirect the article to an article with a set of chemical diagrams of all the chemicals in the template! The purpose of marking the articles is to invite others to add and improve. It is NOT an act of supervision but a request for help! --- Skapur 20:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that i also understand that we (the readers and the editors) all know that we can improve the article if that is needed so there is no point of inviting us. The only thing these "inviting" templates do is to polute the page. If you realy want to have them then "staple" them at the end, when you "page-top" them it makes the page look bad. I feel i was quite harsh on you, so here is my appology. -- Boris 09:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Lighthouse Articles

Could you please start on Mobile Bay Middle Ground Light in Alabama, and the three lighthouses in Arizona? That way, once I finish Delaware, all the states from Alabama to Florida wil have a complete list of lighthouse articles. Thanks --Digon3 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for expanding the alaska articles, they look a lot nicer now!

Thanks

I got your email and will use the extra boxes in the future. But how do I convert the Latitude and Longitude into Coordinates WGS-84 (GPS)? Example, Latitude: 58.1984 Longitude: -136.64

into

58°11′56″N, 136°38′40″W? --Digon3 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You do not have to convert if you do not want to. Both the formats {{coor dms|58|11|56|N|136|38|40|W|region:US_type:landmark}} and

{{coor d|58.1984|N|136.64|W|region:US_type:landmark}} will work. Note that the first is the "coor dms" template and the second is the "coor d" template. However, if you do want to convert, there is an online calculator at http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/gis/latlon.html and the math is explained at http://www.warnercnr.colostate.edu/class_info/nr502/lg1/notes/dms_and_dd.html --- Skapur 23:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it then --Digon3 16:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ISI

I am glad that you did correct the article on Musharaff and ISI and did include the reference by US agencies that Taliban are supported by ISI, thanks again.

wikify tags

Please, when adding any tag to any article, explain your reasons in the talk page. You recently added a wikify tag to the SAASM (I saw it on my watchlist), but I have no idea what you think is wrong with the article. If you don't feel bold enough to fix it, at least give us hints as to what you think is wrong so we can. Maury 14:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a few issues with nonbolded subject and WP:REF. I have made one change. From the Wikipedia Guide to Style: The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold text ('''subject''') at a natural place, preferably in the first sentence. If the article is about a work of art, literature or an album, note that the first mention of the subject should be both bold and italic ('''''subject''''').--- Skapur 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: "STOP VANDALISM!!!!"

Hi Skapur, Thank you for your succinct and terse comment. You're absolutely right about the U.S. Coast Guard being public domain information, but conversely throwing a loose collection of facts copied from a public domain website is not exactly how a Wikipedia article should read. At least, I never see featured articles resembling that. That is why I deleted them. Feel free to add them again and perhaps consider formatting them in a manner an encyclopedia would read. Jarfingle 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please take care with stub tags

You tagged Crushed ice as a physics stub article back on the 28 september 2006. A quick glance at the article would tell you that it has more to do with drinks or medicine than physics. Please can you take a little more care while stub sorting? Thanks. Mike Peel 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Crushed Ice is used in a lot of places besides drinks!

USCG

In the Lighthouses in the United States article, I dont think we need the link to the USCG website on top of completed states. In uncompleted state which dont all the lighthouses listed it is necessary, but in completed states it is ugly and unnecessary. Please tell me what you think. --Digon3 16:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the USCG website has a lot of information that is not present in the articles and in the case of Alaska, I had tried to put the information from the USCG website into individual articles but Jarfingle proceeded to remove them, thus driving me to put the link back on in the Lighthouses in the United States article. --- Skapur 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted them, as I said earlier, because they were in format not consistent with what Wikipedia is. You don't throw a loose collection of unformatted and uncontextualized facts on a site and then yell and someone for removing them. Jarfingle 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was formatted and very much part of the context of the page. It was not wikified. The proper etiquette for unwikified text is to wikify it rather than delete it! --- Skapur 11:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Skapur, if you were copying information from the USGC website on to the article, then Jarfingle is right. You can use the information, but It needs to be in your own words (edit them, change the sentances around and add wikilinks). And dont forget you can always but a link to the USGC website on the individual articles. Jarfingle cant get you for that. P.S USGC doesnt exactly have the best written paragraphs. --Digon3 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle-stub

Greetings Skapur.

I have reverted your edit to the US-battle-stub and its related category. No disrespect meant towards your work, but WP:WSS tries very hard to maintain a consistent look for related templates and categories and we have a lot of "battle"-related material. If you think that the current wording is inaccurate, please take the matter up with WP:WSS, so we can make sure that our templates keep a consistent look. But for the sake of simplicity, WP:WSS normally tries to use the simplest terms possible, so in this case, "battle" implies both actual land or naval engagements as well as "actions" and operations. Thank you for your understanding. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please take a look at the articles in the category "United States military stubs" that begin with the term "Operation" and the articles in the category "Military operations" ? I understand your reluctance to change things but please take a look at the operations and see if they are really battles. Please respond either here or on your talk page. Thank you -- Skapur 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. The military material is not my normal area of stub sorting expertise, but I think User:Alai is our "expert" on this issue. I am pretty sure he was the one monitoring this material. As I see it, the WP:WSS definition of "battle" definitely covers both traditional army and navy clashes, as well as "actions", but I agree that this particular material is a bit more tricky. Problem is that it wouldn't make sense to rename all the similar templates and categories, since many of these countries haven't conducted "military operations" as such. E.g. Sweden and Poland. Although the current Category:United States battle stubs is not excessively full, it looks to me like we have more than 60 of these articles; 60 being our standard threshold for approving new stub templates / categories. My hunch would say that perhaps it would be better to keep the "old" category as it is, but to split off this material in a separate stub category of its own, as a child of {{US-battle-stub}}. In this case, such a template / category would be named {{US-mil-operation-stub}} / Category:United States military operation stubs to follow our normal naming system. Would you consider such a solution acceptable? This looks like the best solution to me, and I'll gladly support such a proposal. Cheers. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, the easy way to list templates and categories the way you attempted on my talk page is to use the syntax {{tl|template name here}} and {{cl|category name here}} . Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii lighthouses

Skapur, since you know more about the hawaii lighthouses and which ones are lightbeacons than I do, could you please add the names of what you think are lighthouses in hawaii so I can create articles for them? It is becoming confusing for me. --Digon3 19:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Not copyvio (Timothy S. Sullivan)

Thanks for letting me know about that. Sometimes the copyright rules can be confusing. ... discospinster _talk 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

{{stub}}

Hiya, thanks for your comment, but to my knowledge, the category is still active and appropriate. When I have time, I do try to choose specific stubs, but when I'm doing a rapid scan through a thousand articles with WP:AWB (as I'm doing right now), I find it more effective to simply put a generic stub template on something that obviously needs to be stubbed, so that someone else can come along later and find a more specific category. If I am wrong about this practice, I do apologize though. Could you please point me to any discussion that shows that there is a consensus that this method should no longer be used? --Elonka 04:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The places I saw was WP:WSS#Important article links and WP:STUB#Locating stubs --- Skapur 05:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is still in use and active, yes, but it is also deprecated - sounds like a contradiction, but it's true. By that, I mean that it can be used, but its use is strongly discouraged and is usually inappropriate, since most (hopefully all) stub articles can use more specific stub templates, and as such it should not be used unless no more accurate template can be found. In practice, it is used by people who are far more interested in creating articles than categorising them (and let's face it, both jobs are important to the creation of Wikipedia, and some will be more interesdted in one task than the other), and they are left to stub sorters to move from there. This is the reason why Category:Stubs is frequently completely empty, and rarely has more than a few dozen stubs (out of several hundred thousand stub articles currently on Wikipedia). If it is possible for people to use more accurate stub types, though, it is always appreciated. Grutness...wha? 07:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing my bots error in putting a stub tag on Category:Morgan State University alumni. I mistakenly tagged ~10 categorys with {{stub}} and/or {{wikify}}. I've removed the rest. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Rape Culture

Please leave the 'stub' tag on the Rape culture article. Currently it measures 13 sentences, which, according to policy can still be counted as a stub for complex topics. In its current state, this article is woefully insufficient and needs expanding (as per the talk page), and to my mind, that makes it a stub. Thanks, Bobanny 00:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—and wherever—you'd like:

• Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
• Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
• Working on featured-level articles? We have some advice for nominators, and an A-Class review process to help check high-quality articles.
• Want to help with specific requests for assistance? Our requests page has extensive lists of requested articles, images, maps, and translations.
• Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My RFA!

Skapur, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Boston Light

I don't know if you were aware, but text dumps of that sort are frowned upon. While the information presented there is interesting (indeed vital), it would greatly help if you could incorporate it into the rest of the article, create proper sections, wikify, etc. Biruitorul 17:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to wikify the information. I am planning to wikify eventually but in the mean time, any help you can provide wikifying will be appreciated. --- Skapur 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as you have plans to so eventually, then I'm not worried; thank you. I'll also contribute if I have the time. Biruitorul 21:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

notable?

is wikiislam (a project of some FFI forum users) notable? certainly not. it is certainly erroneous to use a wiki as a citation, esp. in the way it has been done here. it does not merit inclusion. i am sure you are familiar with WP:V and WP:RS. ITAQALLAH 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

i do not appreciate your refusal to justify why a wiki is citable or linkable when it clearly violates all known policies and guidelines on this issue (WP:EL, WP:V, WP:RS etc.). also see the talk page of WP:RS for wholesale community rejection of "wikiislam.org" as a citation or external link. ITAQALLAH 12:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bishop of Ostia

I reverted your AWB assisted removal of the stub tag on Bishop of Ostia. While the article may be long, the prose is short, consisting on only a paragraph. The rest of the article is a list of 1300 years of office holders, which is quite long. Therefor, in my opinion, the actual article remains a stub. Gentgeen 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. You may also want to think about putting an expand tag rather than a stub tag. --- Skapur 04:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

please

Would you consider not removing wikilinks from between <ref></ref> pairs? You do it a lot when you use the AWB robot assisted editing. I'd really appreciate it if you stopped doing this.

Thanks!

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 03:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

AWB is doing this as an automatic fix. Can you give me an example so I can get AWB fixed. Also, you are not supposed to wikilink the article title in the article itself. Also, I would really, really like to understand why you want wikilink to the title of the article in a ref in an article. Can you please explain that? --- Skapur 04:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied, at length, on my talk page. If you are short of time you can skip to the end

I wish I had seen this comment of yours before I started.

So, you looked at Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees, and have doubts as to whether some of the articles belong on the wikipedia? If you feel you have the time, would you be willing to name one that you think doesn't belong?

FWIW, the Guantanamo articles are "not the work of a single individual". Several dozen articles were started by other individuals, before I started working on this topic. While I have done the lion's share of the work since then, I am not the sole contributor. Nor do I think I am violating WP:OWN, if that was a concern of yours.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 22:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is the article posters responsibility to prove notability. I believe that being the unfortunate victim of circumstance does not make a person notable. If you object to an editor cleaning up an article and removing self-referencing wikilinks, you are most certainly violating WP:OWN --- Skapur 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. -- Geo Swan 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

A reminder

I saw that you removed some stub tags from Bessam Muhammed Saleh Al Dubaikey.

I also saw you removed some wikilinks from between <ref></ref> pairs.

We both know we don't agree about this.

I could be wrong -- mistaken.

However I have explained my reasoning.

I am going to remind you that you haven't explained your reasoning.

Is it possible you meant to explain your reasoning, and you forgot?

Or maybe you explained your reasoning somewhere it hadn't occurred to me to look?

Can I look forward to your explanation?

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are again claiming ownership of an article. Read the first bullet in Wikipedia official policy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN#Events My reasoning is very simple: I strongly believe that there should be no self referencing wikilinks in articles and am cleaning them up as I see them. You claim you are using a bot like tool to update articles. Are you a registered bot? --- Skapur 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Skapur

You're maybe right about this. No intention to spam it, though. I was just really amazed to see WP's relatively very low content in marine recreation (in general) and wanted to create some attention, but probably chose the wrong article for it. •NikoSilver• 10:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand and that is why I did not remove the link from the Luxury Yachts article. I have created a few articles myself on marine issues. --- Skapur 15:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Back from wiki-break. Thanks and sorry again. I hope our paths cross under more appropriate conditions in future. •NikoSilver• 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Category Membership

I noticed that you added categories to several USCGC stubs. For example, you added USCGC Boutwell (WHEC-719) to Category:United States Coast Guard ships. However, it was already in Category:Hamilton class cutters which is a subcategory of Category:United States Coast Guard ships. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines, there is really no point in adding items that are already in a subcategory to the main category. It just clutters up the main category and I don't think it offers any added value. "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory. For example Golden Gate Bridge is in Category:Suspension bridges, so it should not also be in Category:Bridges."(Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines) I'll probably move all of these back to the subcat only, unless you have a better reason for dual category membership, or unless you'd like to revert them yourself. --Dual Freq 21:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problems with you removing the dual categories. The main reason I put the category was the articles are stub articles and hopefully increased exposure will help people find them to add information to the articles. While we are on this topic, would it make more sense to rename Category:Hamilton class cutters to Category:Hamilton class cutters (USCG) ? The category name does not indicate that it is a sub category of anything. Also, the verbiage on the category page does not indicate this and so I have added some verbiage to the Category:Hamilton class cutters page. I have also added the category to the category's main article --- Skapur 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll double check with the WP:SHIPS folks, but all of the USN ship classes make no mention of county or branch of service so I assumed there was no need to mention USCG in that one. For example, Category:Ticonderoga class cruisers, Category:Spruance class destroyers and Category:Invincible class aircraft carriers which is Royal Navy. As for a category name not mentioning that is is a subcategory, I believe the only way to know something is a sub-category is to look at the bottom of the page and see what category it is a member of. I don't think any category makes explicit mention of its categories. --Dual Freq 01:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on you on this, it looks like I'm the one who is in error. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Categorization#Double category membership Sorry to bother you, when I first saw it it seemed counter to the category policy. I'm still not sure I agree with it, but if that's what they want to do then there is no sense making this category different from the others. --Dual Freq 04:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Nordic theory

Discussion moved to Nordic theory's discussion page --- Skapur 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)