User talk:132.205.45.110

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/User:Username

Contents

[edit] Luminosity class categories

Oh well. Seems that you have created new categories for luminosity classes. Did you know that there was already Category:Hypergiants, Category:Supergiant stars, Category:Bright giant stars, Category:Giant stars, Category:Subgiant stars, Category:Main sequence stars, and Category:White dwarfs that have already been populated? --Jyril 21:09, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

As Categories are supposed to be aids to navigation, having the categories with redirect informatin would do no harm, and would help in navigation. Single membership in a category by a subcategory (ie. Bright giant) wouldn't hurt. Not everyone is an astronomer, and they may wander into Category:stars, so might want to look up a luminosity class, without knowing equivalence (same with Spectral Types actually), so they could click through. (Ofcourse, I didn't link in the proper categories yet). Multiple indexing should be used, no? 132.205.15.43 23:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(Note. I highly recommend registering especially as you use multiple ip:s.)
No, I don't think we should use duplicate categories. Instead of new categories, every category should have a short introduction like in Category:Red giants for example.
Only category I think is useful is Category:Stars by luminosity class which I forgot to create when I created the categories.
Also, you added categories Category:Type-Q stars and Category:Type-P stars. Did you know that previous is for Novae and latter is for Planetary nebulae which are not stars at all. First could be renamed to Category:Novae (though there seems to be no nova articles yet, bummer) and latter is redundant as Category:Planetary nebulae already exists. --Jyril 11:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Sorry, I didn't notice your GP2 category was so recently made. Guess I was a little over-zealous with that one. Apologies for any inconvenience I caused. --Psyk0 15:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Don't forget to sign in/ User talk:132.205.45.110 Scotty

[edit] The ABΓs of radiation

Hi,
Why do you insist on having a type of radiation for every letter, including the antiquated ones, of the Greek alphabet? I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply here. --Smack (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • It's encyclopedic. Even if they're antiquated, they should be listed, and directed to the appropriate place. 132.205.45.110 18:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The letters may be encyclopedic, but the types of radiation are not. --Smack (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a disambiguation page, it's perfectly reasonable to list old usage and redirect to current usage. Old usage should be redirected to current ones anyways, and a note placed on the current one that it used to be known another way. (say Beijing vs Peking vs Peiping... ) 132.205.45.110 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
But there is no such thing as sampi radiation, in any usage! --Smack (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
True, note the * wau-, san-, qoppa-, sampi- radiation does not exist. 132.205.45.110 19:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that disclaimer, but it doesn't change my point. Why link to something that self-admittedly does not exist? --Smack (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a note, so as to show people that it doesn't exist, if they thought about it existing. 132.205.45.110 18:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
← carriage return

I think that's a foolish notion. Should we have a stub page to tell daft and silly people that the flying wiki monster does not exist? Though wiki is not paper, I think that the answer to that is an obvious "no". But, you say, we already have a page on radiation. The flying wiki monster would require the creation of a new stub, a bit of extra effort to monitoring it for vandalism, and all of the expenses that go into any page. The radiation page, on the other hand, already exists. It doesn't cost anything to add a few links in case some inquisitive chap comes along.

On the contrary, I say, cluttering up a disambig is even worse. A flying wiki monster can sit in the database all by its lonesome, but anything you stick on a disambig page (particularly one as popular as radiation) will be looked at repeatedly. It will get in the way of all kinds of people. The job of a disambig is to get readers where they want to go, as quickly as possible. (See Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). If we clog them up with all manner of nonsense, like this sampi radiation, we'll bog the reader down. Furthermore, every time you make a link to a nonexistent entity, the database knows (see Special:Whatlinkshere). Make enough links, and the term starts to acquire a bit of implicit respectability; I don't think we want that. So let's take the nonsense links away and have no more of this. --Smack (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Smack is right and Don't forget to sign in/ User 132.205.45.110 Scott 05:39:16, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
someone wouldn't be looking for flying wiki monster, but might be thinking that Greek-letter-not-used radiation could conceivably exist, as there are many such ones. 132.205.45.110 17:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki markup

Hi. You wrote (on Talk:720 Degrees) "COMMENT exactly how do you type that?". I'm not quite sure what you're trying to type, but How to edit a page is a good starting point. If you need any more help, feel to ask, either here, on my talk page or see Help:Contents. Cheers --Pak21 10:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I've got a real issue with your redirect of my prod. "D'n'D" is not an accepted acronym for D&D, and the article was on a non-notable band. It should have been deleted, not redirected. I fail to see how anyone could make that type of mistake (misplaced apostrophe before the letter and two in the name) while searching for Dungeons and Dragons. Not only that, but if the band becomes notable, there is no way to write an article on them in the future. Could you please remove your redirect so the article can be deleted properly? MSJapan 03:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • This was sent to RfD. 132.205.45.110 19:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The redirect to DnD was kept per RfD discussion.

[edit] AfD

I've noticed you participating in Articles for Deletion discussions. Generally, "votes" from IP addresses are disregarded. You might have more sway if you made full arguments, but the true solution is to create an account. There are lots of good reasons to get an account, only one of which is AfD "suffrage." Whatever you choose to do, cheers and happy editing!--Kchase T 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/2/User_talk%7E132.205.45.110.html"