User talk:Goldenrowley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/archive (001) June, 2006 - November 30, 2006

[edit] Great work

		The Original Barnstar
		Very, very good job on stub sorting, this award is a token of your hard and very much needed work. Cheers!__Seadog ♪ 13:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Even though I don't use userboxes :P I would love to part of the project. I have a great love for mythology of all kinds...as it is very interesting. If you need my help or want me to do something please let me know. Cheers!__Seadog ^♪ 23:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks :)

Hey, thanks for the Barnstar for Mythology! I haven't been working on it much lately (end of semester craziness) but hope to get back to it soon. It's a long-standing interest of mine and I've learned SO MUCH from working on the hotlist topics. --Bookgrrl 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triple deities

What was it that you wanted sourced? The article is really just a pointer to articles on more specific topics that (I hope) source their details. I don't think the article is providing any "facts" that need to be sourced (I guess it could source that triple deities even exist in myth at all, but that seems kind of pointless given that each of the articles it refers to will/should already provide such sourcing. It's just a list, really. Maybe it should even be renamed to List of triple deities]]. Maybe you can tell me what you're after, and I'll see what I can dig up. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 13:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in answer to your question, I think this article has a lot of potential to be popular (and highly used) under the categoory of religion and mythological archetypes and could be expanded. Where did the trinity/triune definitions come from? That could be the source for the introduction. What souce said this is a "mythological archetype" (if any)? This is to enhance and validate the article. Thank you! Goldenrowley 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ojibwe and Algonkin

I noticed you removed the merge tags on Michabo and Algonquin mythology. These articles are part of a larger discussion we're having at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Anishinaabe. I'm of an opinion that the word Algonquian is really only useful in linguistics, but it is often confused with Algonquin, which is a specific tribe that lives in Quebec and is part of the larger group of Anishinaabe peoples along with the Ojibwe(Chippewa). I wouldn't support an article on Algonquian mythology as the differences between Cree and Powhatan, Blackfoot and Abenaki are too vast. However, Chippewa mythology and Algonquin mythology could conceivably come under the umbrella of Anishinaabe mythology. I invite you to comment at this talk page. Leo1410 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I have just paused on making the Algonquin mythology stub and responded to your team on their talk page. One mythology article per ethnic group works very well in California, while I am not that familiar with Canadian First Nations. Goldenrowley 05:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject mythology

Don't know how/why I didn't get my name onto Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mythology when you invited me on my talk page a few months back, but now I'm there. Belated thanks, and looking forward to continuing to spread mythinformation ;) --Bookgrrl 00:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beowulf

Dear Goldenrowley, I disagree with you labelling Beowulf mythological. The other characters surrounding him are held to be semi-legendary or semi-historical. If you call him "legendary" I would not oppose it.--Berig 09:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About category selection: I don't understand why he can't be both a legendary king and mythological king at the same time? I think he is also a mythological king of the dark ages as he went beyond legend of an ordinary man to become the allegory of 'kingship' who faught with monsters and dragons. I just read a chapter on Beowulf in the book "Storytelling & Mythmaking: Images from Film & Literature" by Frank McConnell: McConnell who gives Beowulf as the example of the epic King and mythological king because of the allegorical performed to the people making the world safe from chaos. I put this on the talk page for people to discuss. Goldenrowley 19:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if you insist on categorizing him as mythological, you can do that. I am not impossible. My reasons for objecting to it is the fact that Scandinavian kings from the 6th century and onwards enter the realm of semi-historicity. Hygelac is widely accepted as based on a historic figure, and the contemporary Swedish king Ohthere is often called the "first historic king of Sweden". You can find older scholarship where Beowulf is held to have been a historic figure as well. Moreover, AFAIK, legend is distinguished from myth due to the fact that legend takes place in real world settings, and was at the time it was composed held to be almost historical if not outright historical, like Beowulf.--Berig 19:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I am not impossible either so I like to give it time for thought before doing more. Historical people and events can become mythological, see King Arthur. On kings, there are going to be grey areas between legend and myth. Goldenrowley 19:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Looks like you've become popular enough to have your user page vandalized... I reverted it for you. WHeimbigner 21:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya

Out of courtesy, I'm advising you that your Speedy Delete and my Hangon were deleted from List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya. Simesa 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramics stub

Hi. A very new user, Theriac, has interpreted the connection of the Ceramics-stub to Ceramics (art) in a very literal way, and is gleefully removing it from all articles relating to factory-produced ceramics, on the basis apparently that ceramics of artistic merit cannot be produced in factories (up to and including Chelsea and Sevres...). Before going any further with it I wanted to check with you what your intention was when you proposed the original stub - I presume, from the articles on which you have placed it, that it was wider than that, and was intended to refer to a broader range of china, but I'd be very interested to know which articles it was meant to cover? Thanks, HeartofaDog 02:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi HeartofaDog, I highly appreciate your asking for help to the original "ceramics stub" author, what an honor...! On the Ceramics the stub the parent category is decorative arts not regulated just to FINE ART. Ceramics and pottery can be both ornamental and functional. I believe factories can produce decorative art, Wedgwood comes to mind, Pottery as a subset of Ceramics can be factory made. I would have you put back some of the stubs if they are currently unstubbed ?Goldenrowley 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I am always cautious with stubs. I agree entirely with what you say about this one. The problem arose because the definition on the stub page links only to a rather poor article on Ceramics (art), which looks as if it was thrown together without much thought to make a distinction from industrial ceramics. Yes, I'm happy to put them back - better still if the remover ca\n be persuaded to do it!HeartofaDog 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No need - I've already reverted the affected ones. Also, although the user name is new, this is in fact NOT a new user, but someone with a track record under their IP address.

The article Ceramics (art) is truly awful as it stands, and needs a re-write to cover all non-industrial ceramics applications. The definition page for "ceramics-stub" also needs a good overhaul, as the present misunderstanding is a very natural one given how it presently reads. Happy to give a hand if you would find it useful? HeartofaDog 01:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I could use a helping hand, if you know how to fix the article "ceramics (art)" or create a broader article...and want to do it! I did not plan to do it myself, I am more of a painter but sorted all the art stubs last fall into basic categories and check them once in a while. I just added "pottery" to the top of the stub category which should help immensely to clarify. THANK you again!! Goldenrowley 01:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your change to the stub category - as you say, it should help. As for the article, no problems - I'll have a go at it, on the basis that whatever I do to it can only be an improvement on what was there already. I've re-written it as a stub for now, to indicate the lines I think it might take - please take a look and do jump in if you think it's going off course.HeartofaDog 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello GoldenRowley, I have just found your page by tracking back through the discussion on the ceramics stub. I think discussions are best held on that page but I could you explain you comment above. You say "Also, although the user name is new, this is in fact NOT a new user, but someone with a track record under their IP address." What does this mean? Until last week have read Wikipedia but never written for it. ThanxTheriac 13:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Theraic, I did not start talking about your IP address I have no idea how people do that and did think it is NOT necessary anyway your obviously have a good point of view. I think you must have mixed up my words with those of HeartofDog? Goldenrowley 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Theriac, it's important to note that sometimes, more than one person may share an IP; for example, computers in libraries, schools, internet cafes, and some households and workplaces are shared and edits made from two or more different people on those would share an IP; so too might edits made from different computers on the same connection (I've noticed, at any rate, that my IP address changes on my laptop based on whether or not I'm using a dialup connection or a free wireless connection like on campus. I'd imagine that the IP there would be at least close to the ones of any other person using that same wireless network). Runa27 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kerlin Gallery

I don't like to be pedantic, but Dublin isn't in Scotland...[1] It is in Ireland. Tyrenius 08:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for point out the right country, I was mistaken. Thank you. Goldenrowley 08:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Easily done! You might want to check out the cats again, as I reverted to the original ones. Tyrenius 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi :)

The holidays took a bigger toll on me than I expected. I will be editing next week again. Right now I am staying low. I logged in to check for message, like yours. :-) I should also let you know that I am writing history article for a new local magazine. This was part of my plan. So, I expect it will be published in Feb. or March. It's a new magazine, only 2 issues so far, and is free. In any case, the working title is High time before 1849. It's a collection of items I found interesting, but haven't had a format to write to. I just hope this magazine works out. --meatclerk 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Eagle-small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Eagle-small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 23:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Bison-small.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bison-small.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — BigDT 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French folklore

Have you looked at List of fairy tales for French ones? Goldfritha 03:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No I did not know about that really nice resource... thank you Goldfritha!Goldenrowley 03:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overstubbed... Hmm

Hey, I appreciate your concern about the number of stub categories in the Gyorgy Kepes article I created, but actually I wonder if removing the stubs is really necessary. After all, the fact that I included one or more of those stubs was what brought the article to your attention, right? -- surely it's helpful to acknowledge that articles fall into many categories, and that people do check the stub list for areas in which they have an interest, and to which they might be able to contribute. I realize that it might look a bit ridiculous to have a stub in five categories, but this is (I would argue) an implementation issue, rather than something that's semantically unacceptable. I don't mind, but I get a feeling that you may have a "firefighting" attitude here towards dealing with the overwhelming number of stubs that get created in your particular field, which I think is counterproductive in this case, and maybe even a questionable approach in general.

But I mean this in a friendly way! I hope you can see where I'm coming from, and I'm quite a new user so do let me know if there's a policy somewhere about this issue. So I can discuss it. Theoh 21:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not think of a better way to type it but all I mean by over stubbed is there is a hierarchy, if an item falls in a subcategory for example of Ireland you do not not stub it both as an Ireland topic and an "Ireland structure" topic at the same time. The more specific category is listed in the larger categories... that's all I mean, and I wish you very well in your work here. Goldenrowley 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I took specific look at your article "György Kepes" you refer to see what I was thinking on that item in particular and think it is a bio article about an artist. the artist stubs are the correct stub when it is an artist, not "art history". I removed the "art history stub" because that section does no cover all the artists in history, rather it covers periods of art. Design I think is for designed things, not for designers... isn't it? I sometimes make mistakes butin this case I think we've got it categorized correctly with 3 stubs. Goldenrowley 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight redirect

The redirect you created The Outlandish Knight that points to Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight is up for deletion because it is not understood how these are related (The Outlandish Knight appears to also be a 1999 book by Richard Adams). Would you please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 23 how they are linked and expand Lady Isabel and the Elf Knight to include this link as well? Thanks! Cburnett 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks cburnett I've expanded substantially and added two sources. The full ballad and variations are all online at the source mentioned. Goldenrowley 03:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Printmaker categories

Please try to remember to add these where applicable; for example this [2] was a very short stub but had plenty of references to his printmaking.

Since you seem to do most of the category work on art & printmaking, I'll ask if you know if there is a grand plan for printmaking categories? I find them pretty confusing at the moment. Some obvious parts of the scheme are missing - eg no German etchers category. As you no doubt know, dividing by technique is not really a good way to go, as very many printmaking artists use several (quite often in the same work). By nationality is slightly better (although it creates problems like Belgium), but personally I think the ideal would be to divide by period, and then by nationality. The periods would be:

• Early (C15)
• Renaissance
• Baroque
• C18 (or C18 and romantic)
• C19
• C20 (or Modernist to say 1960)
• contemporary

- obviously a few people might have to go into two groups, but overall it would make much more sense.

It doesn't help that the EB 1911 uses what was even then the outdated (now definitely incorrect) "wood-engraving" for "woodcut" , and also often calls etchings engravings, just out of sheer carelessness I expect. Johnbod 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod I appreciate the confidence in me to talk about printmaking, an art-form and skill I admire although I am not an expert just an art lover in this category. We all share in Wikpidia equally so your opinion is just as valid as mine what to do with printmaking categories. I like the division by style.period the best. I'd Look at art movements to see what the styles are called in C15, C18, C19 perhaps. Goldenrowley 04:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks. I'll refine the proposal & post it at the visual arts talk page & printmaking one. Johnbod 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHICOTW GAonhold

TonyTheTiger 23:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Manuscript stubs

Can I ask that in future, when, or ideally before, you make any proposals on categories falling under the Visual arts project you advertise the proposal at the talk page there, and other relevant pages also? Really you should put it up for discussion there first. The stub-sorting project is hardly a place where you are going to get a wide or informed debate on the issues.

I must say I can't see the point of this category at all. Of course most articles on individual manuscripts are fairly short, and are likely to stay so for a very long time. Many important manuscripts are only of importance for a few illustrated pages - sometimes just one. The assertion in the debate (if it can be called that) that many of these have literary importance seems extremely dubious to me - the great majority of illuminated manuscripts contain standard religious texts (or sometimes standard secular ones), and most of the rest of the category seems to me to consist of Biblical texts or legal documents.

You obviously put a lot of time into stub-shuffling and marking, but I'm afraid I can't see the usefullness of much of it. At the moment the stub project seems to be in a little bubble of its own. Johnbod 20:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The art and literature stubs were rather full of stubs to sort between and illuminated manuscripts were placed in art history, but that did not seem quite right. Now they have a perm category under literature: manuscripts. Goldenrowley 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Art history is exactly right for the vast majority of illuminated manuscripts, and literature wrong, for the reasons I just explained - how many illuminated manuscripts have literary significance? I am minded to propose this category for deletion, unless you can come up with a useful justification for its existence. Johnbod 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry I did not know you or anyone of the Wikiproject Art group would want to review art stubs in advance, and now want an explanation, and you would express such lack of interest in having a manuscript-stub category. But please do not go petitioning to delete my new stub. I am not finished yet maybe you'll see the usefulness when I have finished identifying more manuscripts. The manuscripts are still under art history stubs, go to art history stubs, then notice how easy it is to find all the manuscripts because they are all in one place categoruized as manuscripts, under art history. Honestly, like paintings, They are works of art, not really about art history. I am interested in this genre enough to group them as a set. AND The art stubbing area was and still is very large and broad category. Inventing subcategories stubs help people find what they are looking for easily and quickly under art. Lastly, if you are an active art project member, I may suggest the art project should send people into stub sorting to watch proposals on a regular basis, 3 art proposals passed this week (only 1 was mine, and on the others I voiced my thoughts loudly, since I am on both projects)Goldenrowley 01:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am over-reacting, and I misunderstood that that you not changing the category structure as such, just reflecting the existing one. So I won't apply for deletion - but I still can't see much utility in the category. All the illuminated manuscripts were already in that category, and most of them are stubs. People interested in illuminated manuscripts are generally not the same as those interested in other types of manuscript (except in the case of musical ones, which have their own category already). Art history is the right parent for them, as that is where other historical periods and types of art are put. Johnbod 03:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I expect you will find only a few that aren't stubs; but remember in many cases only a few pages are really of interest - even a short article may be more than encyclopedic, so I think you should tend not to stub them if in doubt - I don't have a problem with the stub/not-stub of any I have seen so far. Johnbod 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay I am reasonable person what I think is missing is the "art" manuscripts were going to get jumbled in with all sorts of manuscripts over time. I just proposed the following at proposals (*that we do one just for illuminated manuscripts*) When stubs are proposed, the meeting is open for 5 days and you and the art team are all welcome to come: [[3] ] Goldenrowley 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ceramic (art) & ethical pottery

Hi Goldenrowlely, I just wanted to say that I think both articles are progressing well. Nice work! ThanxTheriac 12:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aztec codices

Are you sure the Aztec codices really count as illuminated manuscripts? --Ptcamn 07:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes... I think that Aztec Codex are illuminated manuscripts PROVIDED they are illustrated. The Wikipedia definition is: "An illuminated manuscript is a manuscript in which the text is supplemented by the addition of decoration or illustration, such as decorated initials, borders and miniatures. In the strictest definition of the term, an illuminated manuscript only refers to manuscripts decorated with gold or silver. However, in both common usage and modern scholarship, the term is now used to refer to any decorated manuscript."Goldenrowley 16:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Folio 10r of the Codex Mendoza.

The thing is, all Aztec codices are illustrated. The pictures are their primary means of written communication — they didn't have alphabetic writing until the Spanish came. Rather than "text supplemented by the addition of decoration", it's pictograms supplemented by textual captions and explanations. I think illuminated manuscripts as discussed in the article is referring to a particular European tradition of manuscript decoration. --Ptcamn 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

Hello – Based on your significant contribution to one or more San Francisco Bay Area-related articles and/or stated interests on your homepage, I thought you might be interested in this project:

	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Chicago Collaboration of the Week
AT&T Corporate Center 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
	You have been invited to join the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of the Bay Area. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Peter G Werner 04:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

PS – I have no idea why the "Collaboration of the week" has made its way into the above template. Anyway, you're invited to joine Wikiproject SFBA in you're interested. Peter G Werner 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manuscript names

I think it it is best to follow the practice of most articles (all except yours perhaps) in the category, & not use just the catalogue/shelf ref as the title of the article. Either the name of the Library or some descriptive phrase should also be included. Also in some, you don't actually say which Library they are in. Cheers Johnbod 15:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PS I'm also a bit dubious about using a German plural form and an umlaut in Category:Fechtbücher. Normally you can add redirects for -buecher & -bucher, but not with a category. Is there no English term? Johnbod 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I did not understand your comment to me, maybe it is meant for someone else, since I never wrote a single manuscript article...so I won't know what libraries they come from or anything.Goldenrowley 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So sorry - this is not you at all (dbachmann mostly). Apologies - my carelessness! Cheers Johnbod 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

NO problem. Goldenrowley 16:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] China-road-stub

Just to notify that I have responded to your comment [4]. :-) — Instantnood 11:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myth academia

I've noticed you've done a lot of work on mythology. Would you please read [5] and tell me what you think? Thanks --Ephilei 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I applaud you. It is on the Myth project "to do" list to elevate myth articles from being fun/curious to sacred and symbolic. It takes pateince and work. The main mythology page has many definitions formyth some in the sacred category. All you need are references. References help to keep things from being deleted and protected. Goldenrowley 04:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category error corrected

In The Lighthouse in Economics you had added Category:Lighthouses. This seemed to be an error. I removed the category. Jerry 16:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But don't we file lighthouses under the category of lighthouses? Oh well I'll let this one go.Goldenrowley 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Architecture stubs

I'm a bit concerned about edits such as this. Architecture, as a fine art is distinct from construction. It is useful to maintain architecture tags on architecturally important articles for this reason - I'd have no problem with both tags being added, or even a Template:Russia-arch-stub being created - but now those articles will have architecture lumped together with Arkansas cell phone mast IV and others..... Would you mind restoring the tags or doing something that satisfies these concerns? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

PS the arch-style-stub is a good idea - perhaps a mention at WP:WPARCH might be a good idea? --Mcginnly | Natter 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just following existing guidelines already existing: "buildings and structures" are filed with "building and structures" >often by country. Please refer to this Wikiproject architecture page which goes over the guidelines: [lasthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Stub_categories WIkiproject Architecture stubs]. Or go to the main stub table of contents page. These categories are formed and agreed upon by consensus. Goldenrowley 15:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please use valid examples, there is not such Arkansas cell phone mast IV article when I checked, and Arkansas things would not lumpled in with Russian buildings. Goldenrowley 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was using an extreme example to make a point - Rugby transmitting station is not architecture - it is construction, so gets filed under buildings and structures in England (Or warwickshire, wherever it is). The Imperial War Museum North however is both construction and architecture - it has some art about it so gets filed under deconstructivism and daniel libeskind categories that are all subcats of architecture. It clearly is no longer a stub - but its useful to the project to be able to distinguish between construction and architecture. There's no guideline that suggests replacing one with the other - where have you read that - the stub category page simply lists possible appropriate stubs because the architecture wikiproject serves as an umbrella project for civil and structural engineering - as well as architectre - Please don't be defensive, it's no problem - but can we restore the arch-stub tags - if you want to have both arch-stub and struc-stubs, then thats fine. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time researching your request. Yes I have been sorting architectural stubs this week (as there are many errors in those stubs). If an article says a building has artistic metic I will leave the stub on for now, simply as I do not want to take a stand its not my "project". I think the "architecture" category treee is rather circular, it has "buildings" next to "architecture" on one tree and below "architecture" on another. In any case it claims all buildings, everywhere in the world, are architecture. It lumps buildings already. The link I meant to show you is [WikiProject Architecture stub categories]. Goldenrowley 02:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The category stucture is circular, but that's fine - please read WP:CAT#Categories_do_not_form_a_tree, this is because the structure reflects the idea that a building can be both construction and architecture at the same time. The best analogy I can offer is perhaps the difference between literature and the telephone book - both contain writing but one is simply utilitarian. Defining architecture as 'not utilitarian' can be confusing as well however, because it is one of the few fine arts that also has a practical purpose. Returning to your edit of Gosprom (which clearly is architecture btw) it makes no mention of being artistic and so, by your reasoning, won't get the architecture stub tag and will be lumped in with Druzhba pipeline. Whereas, before your edits, people could identify the architecture stubs from the 'other' stubs, now they can't - this hasn't been a change for the better. So, please, for the third time of asking, please revert your edits that removed architecture stubs. Thanks. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

ok when I get time off, I will work on this request. I am at work right now so just acknowledging. Goldenrowley 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks G, much obliged. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for putting the arch-stub on Gavi Gangadhareshwara Temple. We are doing a series of articles on Indian architecture and want to avoid POV wars. Sincerely, Mattisse 23:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Hi, Goldenrowley, and welcome to WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles relevant to the Bay Area. Here are some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve Bay Area-related articles, so if people ask for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page. It is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, which you are welcome to participate. Our system for improving lower-quality articles is Jumpaclass. If you'll be editing stub, start, or B-class articles, consider using Jumpaclass to track your progress. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign Bay Area topics. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We hope you enjoy working on this project.

Peter G Werner 16:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criminology-stub

Dear Goldenrowley, Thanks for the criminology-stub comments. I think the parent category should stay as it is, criminology is definitely fit to an umbrella term for many categories, still, it's better to seperate forensic science and medicine from the criminology category. Of course, criminology stub could be used as a secondary stub for those articles, including articles deals with forensic psychiatry and psychology, even criminal law, though criminology often acknowledges the descipline is the non-legal aspects of crime. Still, there are many divisions of arts and science criminology tag perfectly fits into, like victimology, correctional administration, police science, penology, law enforcement, criminological psychology, research on crime etc. Thanks for the supporting views.--Cyril Thomas 02:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)