User talk:Mayumashu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)



Matthew, regarding your recent edit at Canada, please review Wikipedia Style Manual. It advises that you shouldn't over-link, and you shouldn't link ordinary words like "soil". Just link to articles that readers would likely want to follow up on. After you've read this, perhaps you could reconsider those edits. Thanks. Kevintoronto 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem, Matthew. I made the same mistake when I first started, too. Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy your time here. Kevintoronto 18:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Thank you for your categorisation work. I have a small request. Would you mind putting an edit summary, if an edit is not minor, or clicking the "minor edit" checkbox if it is a minor edit. Edit summaries serve a very useful purpose, they notify other people what you have changed and it can save us the trouble of actually taking the diffs to see what is going on. Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And a quick remark. If a math article is in a math category, it is kind of unnecessary to put it in Category:Mathematics too. This makes Category:Mathematics quite big. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov

[edit] will oblige on categorizing

i see your point now on how better to categorize articles, in particular with the calculus article. regards Mayumashu 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have been more diplomatic though. I hope the reversion in calculus did not make you too mad. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Finals" tournament

Hi Mayumashu, "finals tournament" is just not proper English. "Tournament finals" is, but it's also a bit over-complicating things. In fact, "final tournament" is correct, as opposed to "final match". Also, when you say "Euro 2004", you imply the final tournament, so no need to add the word there. Sorry to nitpick. --Dryazan 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mayumashu, I completely understand what you're talking about. The way "final" can refer to either the game or the tournament is confusing. However, "Finals tournament" makes NO SENSE in American English, whereas "Final tournament" can make sense in British English, as far as I know (and "Tournament finals" makes sense in both, but it also sounds a bit cludgy). While there's no need to push one time of English over another on Wikipedia, it just makes sense (for me, at least) to avoid a phrase which is gramatically incorrect for a larger percentage of Wikipedia's readers. And since RSSSF uses "Final tournament", and so did these pages for months without anything complaining, we should probably go with that. --Dryazan 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japan Intro

Please explain why you changed this paragraph. Check the facts before changing things. As I wrote, there are a FEW island chains extending away from the mainland, but there NOT a few islands extending away from the mainland. Check how many islands there are in Okinawa. Not few (over 300). Also, mentioning Ryūkyū Islands and Okinawan islands in one sentence is also redundant because the Okinawan islands is part of the Ryūkyū islands. Change it back. Photojpn.org 04:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid getting it "straighter" compared to getting it "straight" is not enough. You introduced another misleading element by saying "some islands." I wouldn't call hundreds of islands "some." There is no need to quantify it. And your sentence "the lower portion of an island chain known as the Ryūkyū Islands, which comprise Okinawa prefecture," is too wordy and unnecessary.

The reason why I included Izu/Ogasawara is because the previous version implied that there was only one island chain (Okinawa) extending from the mainland. I wanted to affirm that that wasn't the case.

Please change it back to my original text. There was nothing wrong with it. Photojpn.org 23:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even fully understand your replies. "i resent being told i have my facts wrong when i had but one so." What does that mean? I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, but obviously you are not a very good writer. This matter is not even worth posting on the Japan discussion page. Photojpn.org 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Flags

Hello, the flags are where the players' home towns are, not where they are born. I used the Canadian Soccer website for this infor, and when it was not listed, I did an internet search. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics

You can use the characters below the edit box - not as fast as typing but it still works. So for example the first five are ÁáÉéÍ. --Henrygb 10:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] footy terminology

Dear Forbsey, a quicky if i may - do Scots call an international (someone who plays for the national side), an internationist? i ve run into the term now a few times and saw where you used it when starting up the page for my favourite soccer player, Gary McAllister, that you used the term. i m wondering if it s a term particularly Scottish or what, as far as you know. appreciate the help, Mayumashu 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mayumashu. The term 'internationalist' is used by be personally but I wouldn't say that it was generally used by Scots. More people probably say 'international' when describing an international player but both terms are palatable. However feel free to change it if you feel that 'international' is more relavent in terms of common football jargon.
Forbsey 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statlers

Yep, they were great, and I was a huge fan of their comedy. Rlquall 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Scotians by Occupation

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you have been using a lot of "Nova Scotian by occupation" type categorizations. While there is precedent for having a People from Nova Scotia cat, breaking it down by occupation is way way overdoing it. There was considerable debate even if occupations should have been broken down by nationality. I strongly recommend that you depopulate these categories (move to the appropriate Canadian by Occupation cats) and put them up for Categories for Deletion. Fawcett5 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you added the CfD notice to the categories, but didn't list them at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up for deletion, please re-add the tag and list it properly. Thanks. BTW, if you need help with this, I'll be happy to lend a hand. --Kbdank71 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Hi, I noticed you marked Category:American tennis coaches for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and parents

I noticed you added Nova Scotia to Halifax Int. Airport. However, that article is already in Nova Scotia via the Airports-->Transport-->Nova Scotia route, and by policy we don't add articles to parents of cats that they are already in. Hope this clears this up. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • You have to dig a little bit, but here it is "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United/History of Manchester United

Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

  • Manchester United pre-1945
  • Manchester United 1945-1968
  • Manchester United 1968-1986
  • Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.


Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For your information...

Blanking pages does not delete them; I'm refering to your blanking of a few redirects to Professional Tennis Championships, ie Hans Gildemeister. There is a procedure for deleting pages: WP:RfD, WP:IfD and WP:VfD. Please follow it next time. Thanks! humblefool® 03:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Barnes

Please do not blank articles without providing some rationale in their discussion page. To do otherwise is vandm at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up

[edit] Central Economy

Page 33 L16 of my Atlantic Canada Road Atlas First Edition by MapArt Publishing. I can scan it in for you if you want to see it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, alright I will scan it in. I have to install my scanner again, since I havent used it in a while. I reckon it's just an alternate name for economy, as I dont believe my atlas shows Economy. Best regards. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mmmkay, I wasnt able to get the software working, because my computer collapsed while I was trying to load it, but I did take a photograph of the page, which works just as fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:DSCN0355.JPG

[edit] Categories

Regarding your edits to Category:Cape Breton Island, I just wanted to clarify that Wikipedia actually has very explicit rules about how the category system is applied -- namely, an article should never be simultaneously filed in both a category and a subcategory of that same category. The rule is always that you file an article only in the narrowest appropriate categories that don't directly duplicate each other's informational purpose. In this case, the actual appropriate category is Category:Islands of Nova Scotia; since it's in there, it doesn't also go in "Islands of Canada", "Nova Scotia" or "Canada" since "Islands of Nova Scotia" is already part of the subcategory tree of all of those. This isn't just a matter of my own personal opinion, by the way -- it's actual Wikipedia policy regarding category management. Bearcat 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and double spacing

I've noticed that while you've been adding cats and footers to articles, you've been double spacing between them and all the sections. This is not necessary, is non-standard and in truth, makes the article harder to read. Could you please refrain from inserting double spaces between sections? Thanks. Wyss 16:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you said you'll continue to insert double spacing into articles even though you're aware most do not contain it? Are you aware you're not following consensus? Wyss 09:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Double spacing is not a good idea, for several reasons. The most important one is that the convention (implicit or explicit, it doesn't matter) here is to use single spacing. Whether or not there is a rule that specifically prohibits it is irrelevant: by using double spacing you create more work for other editors, because they will feel compelled to clean up after you. So please try to follow the conventions and editing practices employed in the best articles on Wikipedia. Insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong is generally unwise and doing things your way could easily be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Re-adding blank lines is an especially bad idea.

"Whoever" this is that made the above reply, let me say that i have never i conveyed (explicitly nor implicitly, whichever) that others are wrong and i am right on the aesthetics of single versus double spacing between sections. the truth is i should not edit the way articles written by others are spaced nor should wiki editors (i m guessing you have this or a similar position) edit for so-called blank spaces. i ve been disruptive according to the policy you ve cited above ([[WP:POINT|disrupting ...), true. Ironically enough however, the first point the page makes is that there are inconsistencies through the encycl.. editing out double spacing for single spacing because of a consensus among editors and the like (not users at large) is equally disruptive. i will set my default style sheet as suggested by the user who s replied below and i wonder why you, my fellow pedantics, will do the same. - Mayumashu 04:16:59, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

The above was the first paragraph of my message. People remove extra blank spaces all the time. The reason is consistency: if I want more space, I can adjust it in my user stylesheet. But that only gives consistent results if the underlying text uses single spacing. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Other reasons why adding blank lines before section headings is bad are that it creates inconsitencies across the project and that it takes control over the layout away from readers. The latter is because you can easily adjust the layout of articles by using a custom CSS style sheet. If you prefer double spacing when reading articles, I suggest you modify the default style sheet according to your preferences. See m:Help:User style for further details. Cheers, --MarkSweep 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to edit User:Mayumashu/monobook.css. Try adding the following content (copy this from the rendered HTML page, not from the raw wikitext, though):

 /* <pre><nowiki> */
   
 h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
   margin-top: 2em;
 }
 
 .firstHeading {
   margin-top: 0px;
 }

 /* </nowiki></pre> */

If you want more or less space, adjust the "margin-top" property. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Edward Knatchbull

Hello there. Edward Knatchbull belongs in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England because the baronetcy which he inherited was created in 1641. Why did you change the category? Mackensen (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Same thing with Robert Peel. The baronetcy was created in 1800, right before the Act of Union, which places it in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. Mackensen (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I shouldn't have removed the Natives of Lancashire category. That was my mistake. I'll restore it at once. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine people

Please, bear in mind that Category:Argentine people should not be just categorised by their city/province of birth, but also by more important things such as Category:Argentine people by occupation. If the article has no other Argentine category, perhaps it would be better to give it a (id needed new) sub category of by occupation. thenks, Mariano 12:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category change on Robert Clark (actor)

I'm curious as to why you changed one of the categories on the article Robert Clark (actor) from "People of Ontario" to "Toronto people". As the article states, Clark was born in Oakville, Ontario (which is in the Greater Toronto Area, but is not in Toronto itself), and then moved to Florida, and then back up to Ontario (but not to Toronto). I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever lived in the city of Toronto. Although I backed up my contributions to that article with references, I'm wondering if I got it wrong, and hope that you can clear this up for me. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't live anywhere near Toronto, and I'm not familiar with the geography of the area, so if you think the category should be changed back, then I won't object. Thanks for the information! Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous entry

As with the above entry i am requesting that you remove the name of Thomas Browne from your list of Cheshire people. Browne was born in London and lived in Norwich from 1637-1682. I am curious as to how you acquired this misinformation. Please remove entry. From reading the above entries this seems to be a persistent mistake of yours,is Wikipedia really about creating lists, or propogating mistakes. Please ammend.Norwikian

[edit] Category:Canadian linguists

I saw your changes to Category:Canadian linguists. Since you objected to the use of Template:Fooian scientist types, I've changed it back to Template:Fooian fooers. This moved Category:Canadian linguists back into Category:Linguists by nationality where it belongs, instead of Category:Linguists. I have a Template:Fooian social scientist types that is in use on Category:American linguists that could be a better pick than the fooers template. Would you mind me using that template? The problem with not putting Linguists under Scientists in the national subcategories is that not all national categories have a Social scientists subcat (e.g. Category:Canadian social scientists does not exist, but Category:Polish social scientists does).

Also, I don't think that Category:Canadian anthropologists is accurate, but I left it there. Not all linguists are anthropologists. Mike Dillon 17:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. take a look at Category:Canadian scientists. It already has a number of social scientist subcats under it: anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists. I think that linguists belongs there too until Category:Canadian social scientists exists. Mike Dillon 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've started a Category:Social scientists by nationality. Please add your new Category:Canadian social scientists to this category. Mike Dillon 17:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian mathematics professors

Hi Mayumashu. I saw that you created this category. I just wonder why you think it was not enough to categorize those articles in Category:Canadian mathematicians. From what I know, most mathematicians are mathematics professors. And I think that the absolute majority of mathematics professors who are not serious mathematicians don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. So in my view, Category:Canadian mathematicians should have been enough for categorizing the notable Canadian mathematicians who are math professors. I wonder what you think. You can reply here, I will keep a watch on this page. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Oleg. I agree 200% with you, and would now like to do away with the math professor cat as well as all professor cats. i created it to form a link between Category:Canadian professors and Category:Canadian academics, but i ve since changed my mind about the matter. i think that being a prof (in itself) is NOT encyclopedically noteworthy and therefore that there should be no Category:Professors cat. anyone who happens to be a prof and encyclopedically noteworthy because of their research contributions should be catted as an academic, according to their field, shouldn t they. i would like to see Category:Professors done away with. i m considering doing away with all the canadian prof sub-cats, but it ll take a bit of work and there are other cat work (my little wiki activity now) i m working on. -Mayumashu 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, all you need to do is remove the mathematicians from there (put them in Category:Canadian mathematicians) and then put a speedy tag in the category, that is {{d}}. That will work because you created it. You can explain in the edit summary or on the category talk page that you don't find it useful anymore. Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hanna category

How is Jack Hanna's relationship to Knoxville more important than his relationship to Ohio? Category:People from Ohio isn't just for people who were born there (it's not called "Ohio natives"), and the only subnational place that he's notable in connection with is Ohio, as the director of the Columbus Zoo. His connection to Knoxville is merely trivia to us because he didn't do anything notable there. If he's going to be in a subnational category, Ohio is the only state with which his notability has a significant connection. Postdlf 03:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing people by city

I notice that you've created a few of these—why? What do you think is accomplished by categorizing individuals by cities? What do you think the ultimate effect will be? What are your criteria for including them in each city category? Simply having lived there at some time during their lives? Presently living there? Postdlf 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Categories "Natives of Split" and particularly "Natives of Sibenik-Knin" are pointless (the latter is a modern-day county, not a city, even). Please don't do it without prior discussion. --Joy [shallot] 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] formatting of stub notices

If you wish to make {{hoopsbio-stub}} indented, do it there, don't indent it in individual articles using it. --Joy [shallot] 07:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates for instructions.--Rmky87 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Chicagoans

Hi there. If you are still interested Category:Irish Chicagoans is currently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 12 JW 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edmond Lapierre

Just a minor note on a recent edit of yours -- the Canadian notice board discussed it long ago and decided that Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons should not itself contain any articles about individual members, past or present. People should only be filed in one or more appropriate subcategories, because the main category would just be too large and unwieldy otherwise. So the main category should contain only the subcategories and the list-of-members articles. Thanks. Bearcat 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page

You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page. See Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. "Assume goodwill" we are told. So I am going to assume this was an honest mistake on your part. Can I count on you fixing it? I'd like you to remove the entry from the AfD list. -- Geo Swan 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. When I wrote you I didn't see what attracted your attention. But afterwards I did.
I have been monitoring newspaper articles about the detainees in the US "war on terror". And, when I come across an article or two that have enough information in them to write an article I start an article, or contribute to their existing article, if they have one. I started the article on Omar Khadr. And in the last two months a whole bunch more. 48 so far.
Well. about three weeks ago I had an article I started nominated for AfD. Actually four of them at once. "Not notable", "Anti-American bias"... One of the four was deleted. As part of that discussion someone suggested a "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees". A good idea. I started it. It was nominated for deletion almost right away. It survived. Overwhelming keeps. Just a few deletes. One user cryptically said they had a "concern about sourcing". I made several attempts to learn what this persons concern was -- thinking that they were also going to assume good will.
Wrong. They misused the copyright violation procedure, submitteing it in bad faith I believe. I continued to be polite, until they started lying in the wikipedia copyright problems page. I became more blunt, and said I thought they were showing bad faith. They didn't respond directly. But they promptly nominated an article I had written about a US soldier, Jeffrey Waruch, who is under investigation for killing a young girl, and seriously wounding her sister and mother. Later today they nominated a second article I had written about a US soldier, Carolyn Wood, the officer who drafted the illegal interrogation procedures that caused so many problems in Iraq. I think this is not a coincidence.
Anyhow. I made copies of all those articles in my user space. But I overlooked that the links in those article would show up in the "what links here". And it would mess up the categories, etc. So I should tank you for triggering my understanding that I should surround my backup copies with a nowiki...
When you nominated my backup copy for AfD I did consider that there was a conspiracy to delete or suppress all content that showed the war on terror in a bad light. Lol. --- Geo Swan 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osias Godin

People are not supposed to be simultaneously filed in parent categories and subcategories of the same parent. We do not file MPs directly in Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons; we file them in subcategories by their province and political party only. Bearcat 18:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...looks like you did this before I noted this above re: Edmond Lapierre; I just can't figure out why it wasn't showing up in the master category at the time. Bearcat 18:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Any mistakes i have made in filing MPs is merely accidental for i do a lot of filing and fully intend to file MPs by province. Apologies for my carelessness with the one or two you ve brought up. -Mayumashu 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish British category vote requested

Hi I noticed you voted to keep Scottish-Americans I would appreciate your help to retain Category:Irish British people, as I feel is perfectly valid to point out Irish people or people of near Irish descent who have contributed to life in Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales). Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks!! Arniep 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Would you consider voting for a rename Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain, Irish diaspora is a widely used phrase and doesn't place an indication of citizensip which the other name gave so I think this is acceptable. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks Arniep 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Manhattanites, etc.

Hi. When you add Category:Manhattanites, e.g. to a person who already has Category:People from New York City, you should delete the latter category, since Category:Manhattanites belongs to Category:People from New York City. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been - i apologize if i missed one.-Mayumashu 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Irish British eureka moment

Hi Mayumashu I think I've finally worked out the best solution to resolve the disagreement on this category. We should split this category into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Irelandor born to ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). I would appreciate if you could support the new proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop!

Please stop creating new categories for traditional counties of Scotland, and re-allocating people to them from modern council areas. This has already been a subject for debate at Cfd recently, when Category:Natives of Lanarkshire was deleted. Please raise the issue at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. We must come to a consensus on this one, because having two parallel systems is very confusing. It must be pointed out that traditional counties have not existed for 30 years, and the new council areas seem here to stay because no political party wants to change them.--Mais oui! 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

i m only relocating individuals who were dead long before there were coucil areas - it s far more confusing to have 19th century people in coucil area cats!! -Mayumashu 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish American actors

Hi, I noticed your vote on this. I just wondered whether you realised that this category contains many people in it have only one parent (or even grandparent in some cases) who was jewish, do not identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. I think it needs to be deleted because it doesn't make sense that a person who does not identify as wholly jewish could be described as a jewish american actor such as Carrie Fisher, Patricia Arquette, Robert Downey Jr., Michael Douglas. Arniep 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

it s a problem with all similar categories - the point does not warrant getting rid of the cat, just the pages you ve mentioned plus an explanation as to why you ve removed them as discussion on the page -Mayumashu 12:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thnks for your comment on the cfd page. People are being included in Jewish American categories not using the religious requirement that you have a jewish mother but regarding jewish as an ethnicity. So, even if only their father or grandfather was jewish they are being added to this category. It just seems totally non sensical to have people described as jewish american actors if they do not identify as jewish and are also of mixed ancestry like Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Michael Douglas, people like these should be in a category like Americans with Jewish ancestry to avoid these sorts of labelling problems, the same should be done for all the other ethnicity categories. Arniep 13:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American geography by state

You agreed with me that Category:Hawaiian geography should be renamed Category:Geography of Hawaii. I have now nominated all the American states for renaming, and if you could find the time to vote in favour, I would be very grateful. CalJW 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Lowther

We've been through the thing about Wikipedia's categorization rules before: Category:Vancouverites is already a subcategory of Category:People from British Columbia; accordingly, a person cannot be simultaneously filed in both categories. Bearcat 04:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

North Vancouver is a separate city and Category:Vancouverites is necessarily both for people of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver, thus the overlapping -Mayumashu 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
If you feel strongly that the possibility of confusion exists, the other alternative would be to put her in "People from British Columbia" instead of "Vancouverites"; the fundamental problem is that if you worked hard enough, you could find a reason for absolutely every article on Wikipedia to get exempted from the categorization rules. If a category scheme creates too many problems of this type, it doesn't mean we should allow exception after exception; it means the category is badly thought out and should be fundamentally restructured. Bearcat 04:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
having her in both is a perfectly fine exception to allow and there aren t that many (perhaps 5%) of pages catting people by their province/city of origin that have this kind of overlap. not everything is always black and white - shades of grey do exist - Mayumashu 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it really isn't; Wikipedia rules are quite explicit that we just don't simultaneously file an article in both a subcategory and a parent of that same subcategory. When it comes to categorization, a shade of grey just means the contrast needs to be sharpened. Categories should be defined and structured in such a way that "exemptions" are never even needed. Bearcat 07:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
then these so-called rules may need to further evolve to reflect realities that exist. there are other cases too. most states have a state writer's subcat. but if a writer happens to also be an actor too, then she or he should rightly appear in both the sub-cat for state writers and its parent cat for people from the state. the rules are but rules of thumb anyway and can be changed given a great enough collective will. User:Bearcat, i come across your edits and commits fairly often and i can tell you we re of different minds on many issues - i know we re not going to sway the other person to change their mind. to sort out the Vancouverite sub cat issue without an overlap, i ll go and start up sub-sub-cats for North Vancouver, New Westminister, Maple Ridge, and other small cities in the Greater Vancouver area despite feeling personally that they are rather smally populated to have cat for the time being - ideally though i d like to all cities eventually have a cat for its natives/inhabitants so now will suffice. i hope despite our differences no hard feelings at all. Regards, -Mayumashu 02:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Creelman

How funny that you're related. I'm actually just now reading a book called The Yellow Kids about Creelman and other contemporaries. It's fascinating stuff. Feel free to expand the stub if you can; I plan on expanding it quite a lot when I find time next. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi, sorry I missed your comment on my talk amidst the whole kerfuffle. I agree that sometimes it would be useful to have browse a whole category of many occupations like writers, artists, actors, singers without country specifity and much faster thanis currently possible. I think this would need a software change so maybe I or you could suggest it somewhere? Also Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:LGBT_criminals I would be very grateful if you could reconsider your vote as this category is meaningless as gay people have lived in many eras and countries with different laws (the same applies to Jewish criminals, Catholic criminals etc.). I don't think any blanket criminal category should exist unless it is just a parent cat for more specific crimes. Regards Arniep 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cats for Alyn McCauley

Hi, just wondering if there's any particular reason for your change of [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|McCauley, Alyn]] to [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|Mccauley, Alyn]] (without capitalizing the second C). The C definitely is capitalized... Heck I just saw him playing a game against the Leafs last night on HNIC and his sweater definitely had it capitalized. (Very technically speaking, I suspect the first C should be in superscript, resulting in McCauley, but that's a minor detail).

The name after the pipe isn't displayed on the category page, so I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious if there's a rule I should know about. --Qviri 19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! --Qviri 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn

You goofed the AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn, putting the text inside your AfD for Horses Eat sugar. I'll fix it. Jamie 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NS Communities Project...

Would you like to join the Nova Scotia Wikipedia project I am about to start with PlasmaEast? We are planning on launching a NS Community templates for Counties, Towns/Municipalities, and HRM, similar to the template that started appearing this week on county pages Halifax County, Nova Scotia. Also, have a bi-weekly "Nova Scotia Project Page" to focus efforts. Interested?WayeMason 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

sure. templates is not really my interest but they look good to me Mayumashu 23:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Good! Templates are just my thing. I feel strongly that we could focus our work a bit and bring the whole Nova Scotia section to a higher standard. WayeMason 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has started on the talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia article, please head over there and watch the project page! WayeMason 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian university and college chief executives

Hi Mayumashu,

I am in the process of merging the categories Category:Canadian university and college rectors, Category:Canadian university chancellors and presidents, and Category:Canadian university and college principals and vice-presidents into the new Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. I find it very confusing to have three categories for essentially the same position with just different names. I have also created the Category:Canadian university and college chancellors since this is more of an honorary position. Let me know if you have any issues with this.

--YUL89YYZ 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds great. i rather hastily created them without having sorted out the distinctions such as the one you mention of chancellors being rather ceremonial. appreciate that you mailed me on it too. best regards, Mayumashu 09:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.Ann Duggan

Hey, I was wondering if you can comment on this page since you have added to it. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ann_Duggan

Anakinskywalker 7:30, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

i simply added a category. i d have to say i don t think she s notable enough, so i ll refrain from voting. regards Mayumashu 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Blanking

On 18-Jan, you blanked Columbusites. Your edit summary stated that redirects to categories are inappropriate. While that's true, page blanking is also a bad idea. I've changed it to be a redirect to List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema in scotland

Have you seen this re-nomination at Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_28#Category:Cinema_of_Scotland_--.3E_Category:Scottish_actors_and_filmmakers--Mais oui! 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Hi Mayumashu. What was your logic for putting Category:Asian Canadians as a supercategory of Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada?

If you're referring to the idea that aboriginal peoples came across the Pacific from Asia, well, that's true, but it happened so long ago that classifying them as "Asians" doesn't make sense. By extending the same logic a few millenia backwards we might as well all be Africans. --Saforrest 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hi there. you re right. i checked to see when humans migrated into Europe and like you suggest it only happened recently, c.40 000 years ago compared to the migration of proto-Native Canadians, Americans, etc. which was 15 000 to 30 000 years ago. i think you ve raised a perfect point for changing the sub-catting i did. i ll change it and apologies for my not checking to see when the European migration occurred 222.228.97.207 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Would you please not apply redlinked categories to articles? Wikipedia has a rule about this — if you want to apply a category that doesn't already exist, you have to create the category immediately. You cannot leave red category links on articles under any circumstances. Bearcat 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish in GB cat vote

Hi, it would better to vote rename for this cat, otherwise someone would have to go through and change all the people in the cat by hand (the Irish in GB cat can then be recreated or just make the England Wales and Scot cats as sub cats of Irish emigrants). If the cat is renamed a bot will automatically change all the articles Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30#Category:People_of_Irish_descent_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football Aid

I've noticed you did an edit on Owen Hargreaves back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. Kingjeff 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks but no, i m not a fan of his. took a peak though and his article looks a lot better than it did a year ago. just needs the stats table filled in Mayumashu 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories: Phoenixers and Tucsonans

I have proposed renaming this, for the express purpose that people from Phoenix, Arizona are not called Phoenixers at all. The proper usage, as attested in all local newspapers, is "Phoenician". However, this coincides with the adjective for residents of ancient Phoenicia as well. (Also see 1 2 3 4) The only people who refer to residents of Phoenix as Phoenixers are out-of-towners, and the vast majority of hits for "Phoenixers" on Google refer to clubs based in Britain.

Similarly, the proper term for a resident of Tucson, Arizona is not Tucsoner, but Tucsonan (see 1 2 3).

Both of these terms (Phoenician and Tucsonan) are widely attested in local media, whereas Phoenixer and Tucsoner are absent. I think this is pretty good grounds for speedy renaming.

Cheers! -- Miwa 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Carnegie

Hi. I reverted your category blanking on Andrew Carnegie. It sounded from your edit summary that you were seeing the categories as redlinks or something, but they are valid categories as far as I can tell. If I read your summary wrong, feel free to explain more what you're trying to do. Thanks! :) --Syrthiss 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hi. no,　his category page Category:Andrew Carnegie already links or should link to these same category pages whose links i blanked. its just rather needless duplication Mayumashu 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I think from a categorization point of view, his article should have the categories applied to it. When his category (which is kind of odd in itself) has categories applied to it, that makes it a subcategory of those categories. So, I'd rather see Category:Steel Magnates point to Andrew Carnegie than Category:Andrew Carnegie because there are no other steel magnates that would go into the subcategory Category:Andrew Carnegie. Does that make sense? If so, I'll try to move some of those categories from the Category:Andrew Carnegie over to the article. While there is some duplication, it isn't complete. --Syrthiss 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
i agree that there is some oddity in it and think what you suggest doing here is good Mayumashu 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually non-straightforward category name changes

Hi there, I just lodged a "complaint" about the "nationals by ethnicity" category name changes which unfortunately happened before I was aware of the related discussion and vote. Please take a look at the comment, and feel free to respond, at the Norwegian Canadians category talk page. --Wernher 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Oakland

Hi. Can you inform me as to why Category:People from Oakland was redirected to Category:Oaklanders? This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I could be wrong, but I don't think "Oaklander" is a word that is used by anyone other than the person who created this cat. —Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. the term 'Oaklanders' is used in like the fourth paragraph of the article Oakland, California, so it seems at least some people use the demonym. Mayumashu 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. As it turns out, the City of Oakland and the media (Oakland Tribune) use the term on their websites, but I don't think anyone from Oakland ever uses the term, nor have I ever heard someone from Oakland refer to themselves as an "Oaklander". —Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
interesting. i personally like using the demonyms because they tidy up page names but there is the issue of their dissuse amongst everyday folk. there was a vote on the issue of using demonyms for people of California sub-cat pages back in the autumn, which ended no consensus to change, hence the redirect as it is - to get a date for that vote and debate see the history of the Category:Oaklanders page (i checked and the debate occurred around 27 Nov. '05). best regards Mayumashu 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robyn Regehr

As regards you saying there's no evidence he holds Brazilian citizenship... he was born in Brazil, and a quick Google on the subject says Brazil, like most countries, automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents' nationality.

That said, I haven't re-added the category you removed since I highly doubt he identifies himself as "Canadian-Brazilian". But just thought you should be aware that many countries grant citizenship by birth and unless he has renounced it Regehr is indeed a Brazillian citizen, as well as Canadian. --Legalizeit 08:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i would then prefer to have him listed as a Canadian-Brazilian and will restore the cat link as i think self-identication is too vague a way of determing the matter Mayumashu 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indianapolitans

I see you created Category:Indianapolitans. I have lived in Indianapolis for 28 years and have never heard the term "Indianapolitan". Where did that come from? --rogerd 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. it seems to be the most commonly used demonym to refer to people from Indy - a search gets 50 or so unique hits. demonyms allow the page names to be more concise as well as less "sterile" - the problem is though that demonyms are (i m now learning) not so commonly used in some (perhaps many) Ameican cities. go ahead and put it up name-change nomination if you feel "people from indianapolis" is a more appropriate way to name the page Mayumashu 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, before I do, I will do some more research. My wife, who was born here (I came after college), has also not heard the term. There is no need to act in haste. --rogerd 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis

Please don't remove categories like this. Both are accurate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

other categories links listed on this page (such as Category:Irish writers or Category:Natives of Belfast) are sub-categories for the supra-category Category:Irish people. it is conventional practice across the encyclopedia to not list supra-category links on article pages Mayumashu 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for th misunderstanding, but a more accurate edit summary would have avoided this; you wrote "removed improper cat link", which – in light of the current debate on the Talk page – didn't look as though you were merely pruning parent categories. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
that was for a second edit of my own goof - i had added an improper cat link, realized it later, and then edited it out. i made two edits and the first edit summary i gave, "removed supra cat link, ..." accurately describes my removing the category:Irish people link. (i see that the supra-cat link has been re-removed) Mayumashu 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prospector categories

Someone created Category:Prospectors today and peopled it mainly with Australian gold rush prospectors. While poking around, I noticed you had previously created Category:Gold prospectors, with only William Barker (prospector) in it, who was also put in the new category. I made the Gold prospectors category a sub of the new one & categorized the new one under mining. I'm thinking of putting in four or five Klondike Gold Rush figures in one of the two categories, but before I do that, I'm wondering whether we should merge the two categories at this point, given the relatively small number of articles. What are your thoughts? Luigizanasi 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for asking. i guess merging given the small number of prospector bios out there would be the better choice, but i wouldn t be bothered the slightest either way. regards Mayumashu 11:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
After giving it some thought and poking around a bit more, I think we should keep both categories as they can both easily be populated a bunch of people who already have articles. Luigizanasi 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Babstock

Hi! Do you know that being from Newfoundland is incidental to Ken? Just wondering. --Robert Turner 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

hello. my point on the matter of "people from" category pages is that a person is not from a place he or she wasn t raised in. it s where a person is raised that contributes to how they become "shaped" as people. Mayumashu 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Your point is well taken, however that distinction seems a bit arbitrary. A person's birthplace can also shape them even if they are raised somewhere else. Giving a rather depressing example, suppose someone survived the bombing of Nagasaki as an infant, was raised in Toledo, and suffered from radiation sickness their whole life? Would they not be 'shaped' by their birthplace? I'm sure that any survey of biographical literature will reveal many other kinds of less dramatic but still significant 'birthplace-only' influences.
Perhaps most importantly, people are shaped by their internal imagery, which can crystallize around a tiny kernal of information. My point is that the statement "that he was born in Newfoundland is incidental - he was raised in Ontario and is therefore native to to there" has an authoritative tone to it which I am challenging. KB has travelled to - and written poems about - Newfoundland, and I don't think that's just by chance. --Robert Turner 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Irish people

Hi. Please take a look at my comment on your rename nomination Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1#Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland. Thanks. --Mal 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian musicians categorization effort

Hi, I notice you were responsible for creating and populating much of the structure under Category:Canadian musicians. Just thought that you may be interested to know that we're currently continuing to build on this structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. –Unint 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country subdivisions

...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful.

could you maybe change your vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country

and let's discuss this on the project page

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms

first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. As Lorenz pointed out it seems important that we first find clear definitions of what all the terms mean. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian Britons

I've nominated this category for deletion (or, possibly, renaming — though my preference is for deletion) at [[1]]. Please comment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wp:point

why do you claim Category:Former country subdivisions was a point creation? such a cat simply did not exist. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i meant merely to vote for the renaming of the cat page and neither support nor refute the wp:point claim of that the user has made on the cats for deletion page. apologies for any misunderstanding. best regards Mayumashu 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see, best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professors

I agree on the change from professors to academics, but please note that "faculty" as a collective for academic staff is only used in North America. Elsewhere "faculty" generally retains the traditional meaning of a subdivision of a university. As it also has this meaning in many American universities (e.g. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences), using it in a category name is not ideal. Uppland 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

then we should name the supra-cat Category:Academics by university. i nominate the change Mayumashu 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University CFRs

Hi Mayumashu. Three things about your newest CFRs:

  1. I was preparing a mass renaming proposal similar to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#university category pages named with abbreviations .2F non-English for after my speedies went through. Mine was a subset of yours, though, so... good job!
  2. Regarding Category:Faculties by university in the United States, I'm still thinking about the proposed change, and its siblings', to Academics, but I think I like it. I do think I'd like its subcategories to remain faculty (singular), though. Is this compatible with your vision, or is that your next step?
  3. Though the cats in other countries are less standardized, Alumni, which includes graduates and non-grads, is dominant in Category:People by university in the United States. The exceptions are:
Bucknell should certainly be renamed, but I've been hesitant to decide whether to try to change the military academies. One nice property of unified alumni categories is that the the football player and other athlete categories (which can be extremely large) can serve as subcategories. A compromise might be to make alumni categories for the academies with grads and non-grad subcats. What do you think?

×Meegs

hi there. nice to see two people in near complete agreement!, as it seems we are. i just yesterday nominated 'Category:Faculties by university in the U.S.' (as well as Canada, and Mexico) be changed to "faculty", just as you point out. and yes, i d make "Fooian (uni.) graduates" cat pages sub-cats to "Fooian (uni. name) alumni pages". Mayumashu 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wow, we do agree on everything: I didn't read you first proposal well enough and though it called for all the country cats to go to academics. I will make an alumni supercat for the each of the military academy graduates cats, but I think I'll still CFR Bucknell. Cheers. ×Meegs 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former country subdivsions

with respect to your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_11#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former country subdivisions

Why do you want to delete this cat? if you write per WAS but then say you don't follow his POINT claim, then only two WAS claims stay:

  • The term is non-standard, having one badly translated reference in one document.
  • The category itself is not notable, as these few articles are already categorized in their respective countries.
    • The cat grew and has now 7 articles and 14 cats in it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth and death categories

Please stop moving these to the top of category lists as they are patently not the most useful defining categories. Indeed they are the least useful unless the person in some trivial category which probably shouldn't exist. Osomec 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it is common practice to put years of births and deaths first - look at bios that have been feature articles Mayumashu 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English professors and their ilk

I've noticed the professors --> academics CFD since several affected articles have popped up on my watchlist, and by and large I'm in favor of it. However, some of the people being moved from English professors to literary critics of English are not literary critics, but rather poets or fiction writers (Keorapetse Kgositsile, for example). In these cases the category should probably just be dropped. Is it too much to ask, since you proposed the CFD, that you go through this category and weed out some of the poets? I will try to do a bunch of them, though most likely not for a couple of days. Thanks. Chick Bowen 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Only partly related to the particular issue above, but last time the category was under discussion, I suggested to rename it Category:Anglists, as it would cover specialists both in English linguistics and English literature. Somebody did not recognize "anglist" as an English word, but as I pointed out, it is in the Concise Oxford Dictionary with that exact meaning. Uppland 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think from what s been said here then the best name would be Category:Literary academics of English. i don t feel anglist is prominent enough lexis to be of benefit to most users and i don t think mixing linguists and academics of literature is the way to go as in many if not most (but not all) cases the two kinds at a university are in separate academic departments. How about going with this? Mayumashu 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of these terms are good (I've been in the business for many years and I've never heard either), and I think the problem is that there's no such category of people. When we were calling English professors, i.e., teachers of English, that made sense, but if, given that being a professor is not in itself notable, we're converting the professors to academics, then we run up against a problem, because in the US at least writers who teach in English departments don't think of themselves as academics--they're just writers who teach in English departments. So I think the category should be left as it is, and the writers should be removed from it. Chick Bowen 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Historians of English literature for those fitting that description? Uppland 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
i say if they neither hold advanced degrees nor publish in academic (literary) journals, then writers included in the category should be removed - i ll take a look, the population of the page presently is small. at any rate, i ve put the name up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. i don t think that English professors should be described as 'historians' (although like all humanities specialists, they implicitly consider history and the history of literature in particular in their work) Mayumashu 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I ve rechecked wikipedia's literary criticism article and i think the original name i gave the page is indeed best. any who has taught literature in post-secondary education would qualify. again, i see an academic as an advanced degree holder who has publishs in academic journals or even who has published (even non-academically, in the case of some English profs) and teaches in post-secondary ed. as well, there are some other categories of "scholars" who are/were not academics that have been included through category page linking (theologians and amateur historians and astronomers come to mind). i think it s not perfect but English professors are literary critics and nearly all literary critics are, when "loosely" defined, academics Mayumashu 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll weigh in, for whatever what I say may be worth. It's true that all Engl. profs do literary criticism in their classrooms, as "english" above the introductory level is some form of literary exegesis. However, if I am known to the world at all, and if I pass down to posterity in any form, it will be with books and articles that are what we call "Scholarship." Now, that's vague. What it would be better called is literary history or, and this is the old term for it, Philology. On the other hand, I have a friend who never inks her fingers with old editions, never cares much about when politician X wrote Y and how Queen B's actions of 1739 might have influenced Author F's novel. Instead, she is concerned with the 'paradigms' and the ideology and the unconscious ideology and the structural fissures of Author F's work. She will be known to the world as a "literary critic," because how she is known to the world is her work in exploring the literary meaning. In the trade, she's called "a critic" and I'm called "a scholar," and "critics and scholars" are at a low-level war in the academy (for no good reason that I can see except ego and missionary zeal). No one will remember her for what she did in the classroom, nor me, at least from an encyclopedia's point of view. Similarly, some professors are also novelists and/or poets. Their fame (their "notability") is as a poet or novelist. There are overlaps, of course. Tolkein was a "scholar" and novelist, and CS Lewis was a "critic" and a novelist. There are even some people whose work in the classroom, training several generations of scholars or critics, overshadows their own works (such as Pottle up at Yale). Therefore, I would suggest categories of Philologist, Literary critic, Poet, and Novelist, and let each of these live as subcategories of Academic. After all, it's not the day job that gets you in an encyclopedia in a case like that, but the books and articles written. Geogre 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
very imformative input for me anyway, as i m not in the field. the only trouble i see is including novelists without post-sec teaching experience as academics, which they are not. then maybe my withdrawn nomination should be restarted - i prefer a descriptive name that is accurate even if it s not a commonly referred to one (ie. Category:Academics of English literature should be used to house what was "Cat:English Profs")

[edit] Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia

Hi! I noticed you are from Nova Scotia and you have edited on the Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia page. I have done a couple of articles, Thomas Caulfield, and Matthew Henry Richey (not very well) and done a bit of link repair. If you know of anyone interested in the contents of that page, I would be interested in making contact. Thanks! Stormbay 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. i don t unfortunately. my interest is in linking bios to category pages and it all starts with nova scotians and canadians, naturally, being native to there, but i m all over the place really. quite sure the best place to ask would be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia page. Best regards, Mayumashu 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] double level categories

I notice you are effectively reverting my work in removing double level categories in American ethnic and national origins. The Wiki rule, as I understand it, is that double level categories should not be used. If an article is in category x, and category x in category y, then the article should not also be in category y. For example, the 'German Americans' category is in 'European American' category and the 'European American' category is in the 'American ethnic and national origin' category. Nothing else is needed. There is also a Wiki rule that a category with too many subcategories should have intermediate categories created (such as European Americans, Asian Americans) if there is a logical grouping present. Please explain what you are doing here. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

hi there. the problem is ethnic identification can be double-levelled. i would argue the rule is a rule of thumb and that by giving the continental ethnic groups prominence by listing them first, then putting the national sub-national groups in the list proper, you achieve a ethnicity list that better represents reality Mayumashu 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asserting, nor why 'continental ethnic groups', whatever those are, should be treated in any way differently than other groups. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I do not see that your changes meet the duplication rules. Thanks Hmains 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I see and understand what you are doing, I just do not agree with it, nor do I see that this has been done with other categories. This should have been discussed on the talk page first and consensus obtained to do or not do this. Thanks Hmains 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

some if not quite a few "European Americans" for instance identify more with being "Italian American" say or "Swedish American" than European American. add to this that the word "national" is in the name of the cat page ie. "American people by ethnic or national origin", not American people by continental or pan-national origin". so just because few category pages are in the manner does not mean that there shouldn t be ones that are (as the wikipedia page on catting considers a few, though of a different sort admittedly) Mayumashu 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Scottish monarchs

Hi Mayumashu, I saw you helped me with the Scottish Catholics category, enriching it and expanding it, so I'm asking you one question now: I had added some Scottish monarchs who were Roman Catholics, and now I can only see Bonnie Prince Charlie there... The House of Stuart (as we all know) was almost entirely Catholic, I think we should add their members in the page, and I was going to do it before the page switched on to "Scottish Roman Catholics" and the various "James of Scotland" (also Mary Queen of Scots!) disappeared. Please, answer to my question as soon as you can. BTW, I do have Scottish relatives, and they're...Protestant to boot, so I really have no other aim rather than historical and cultural development Gianmaria Framarin 18:37 2 June 2006

[edit] Jack Donohue

Hello! Stumbled upon the article and thought it needed a big rewrite....I started and then noticed in the history that it is only 2 days old!!! (Amazing for someone like Mr. Donohue).... Would you like to continue this or shall I? I have added (cut and paste) alot of info from which you/I/we can rewrite into a good article. Let me know. Didn't mean to step on your toes. KsprayDad 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

go for you. i just wanted to get something started and, for as it sounds like you d agree, the man is deserving of a write-up here. i actually don t have any special info on him, i just took the basics from a couple bios that come up from a net search. Best regards, Mayumashu 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] duplicative emigrant/descent categories

In Category:People by ethnic or national descent, there are mostly sub-categories named 'People of Foo descent'. In Category:Emigrants by nationality, there are mostly sub-categories named 'Foo emigrants'. Looking down further into these sub-categories, they are both populated with sub-sub-categories named 'Foo Goo', where 'Foo' is the origin country and 'Goo' is the destination country. Examples: see Category:People of Canadian descent and Category:Canadian emigrants, having Category:Canadian Americans, Category:Canadian Australians, etc. Sometimes, in the matching sub-categories, the sub-sub-categories are the same; more often, there is partial or even no overlap.

Something is wrong here. There should be either be categories named 'People of Foo descent' or 'Foo emigrants', but not both. Which is it? Thanks Hmains 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree that this is an 'either or' choice and that both kinds cannot exist with one a sub-category of the other but given that all fooian emigrants are of fooian descent then the later cat pages are more important. i agree though that the present set-up and cat page linking is in disarray. the problem is we can t easily at all use the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page to change one kind over to the other because many voters will vote to delete rather than rename and things will either end in stalemate or even possibly in deletion with a lot of work lost. part of the problem i created when i created a number of Fooian emigrants cat pages without realizing that many people listed in the North American pages are second or greater generation, not emigrants. Mayumashu 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can work on sorting things out if we agree on the direction. I think the the Descent categories should remain and be fully populated and the Emigrant categories should be depopulated so they disappear. What you think? Thanks Hmains 03:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
i d support that. best regards, Mayumashu 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks Hmains 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcheline Bertrand

Marcheline Bertrand was born in Waukeegan,Illinois in 1950 and mostly raised by her grandparents, who ran a bowling allee there. There is little reliable information available on her parents, though we know that her father was French-Canadian and her mother of Iroquois/Six Nations heritage.

Marcheline's life path is sketchy from her middle/late teenage years. She may have first gone California (there is a report of a Social Security Card issued in her name during the late sixties) and then to New York to work as a young model and struggling actress.

[edit] Dance capitalization

I noticed that you listed yourself as a linguist. There is currently a dispute at the Lindy Hop article the Dance WikiProject about the capitalization of dances that could use the expertise of a linguist. If you think you might be able to help, we would certainly appreciate your comments. Thanks! --Cswrye 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine people by ethnic/national origin categories

please see what one editor has done to all these categories and my comments on this in the 'Category for Deletion' talk page and the 'Village pump' page. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

sour loser vandalizes. i reverted a few back, but presumably the same user emptied all of the sub-cats of their bio links. Mayumashu 13:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that the editor is actually a new administrator! In any case, I examined every article and reverted nearly everything he did. Now look at my and his talk pages so you can see he is proposing a "comprise": to wait a week and he will delete everything again. I have no resources to find fact; I just work on copyedits and categories. Thanks Hmains

i commend you on the hard work and hope he doesn t do what he may, as you ve suggested. if some of the ethnic links are too distant and therefore obscure then they should be discussed and handled on a one by one basis, but that was utter vandalism and the user should have their admin. status revoked, shouldn t (s)he. best regards, Mayumashu 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed incorrect category

I reverted your addition of category:Deaths by firearm to category:Duelling fatalities. Somewhere around 1/4 of the current entries were sword duels, and there are many more that can and should be added. I hope you agree that it would be rather odd to list a 12th Century judicial duel between mailed knights as a death by firearm. That is why I removed the category some time ago. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

sword duels, of course - apologize for the daft oversight. Regards, Mayumashu 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
NP, someone had made the oversight before you, and the problem didn't really dawn on me until I noticed Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun was classed as a death by firearm. This is the famous sword-duel that involved such severe and repeated injuries to both combatants (neither would yield) so that nearly all subsequent duels were by pistols. I took death-by-firearm cat out of duelling-fatalities and then went to some effort to add it individually to those bios where warranted. In some cases, this involved research to confirm which type of duel. Now, I watch the cat. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
splitting them up into two sub-cats would avoid having to "keep vigil" but its nice to show what s not a large number as one list, isn t it. i readded the death-by-firearm link i d removed from the bio i was looking at, btw. Mayumashu 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also thought about splitting, but there aren't nearly enough articles yet. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by political orientation

Could you weigh in on the purpose you created this category for, please? There seems to be confusion as to what it's really about. — ChristTrekker 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Theory/Philosophy

Have you considered beginning a stub or article on the various aspects of "political theory"? Your comment regarding political philosophy and its relation to political theory peaked my interest.--Quoth the Raven 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

afraid i don t follow - sure this was me? Mayumashu 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Gardner

I tried to search Google for an Australian tennis player named John Gardner, and I was unable to find any (my search on Google). Can you provide any source or article about him? - grubber 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

go to the ATP official site and enter Gardner in the search box in the upper right of the page - he ll come up Mayumashu 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't seem very notable. Even that site is severely lacking in information. There is no picture, no information about him, very little about his record. The Google search I mentioned before did not return any pages about him that I could see. I'm tempted to remove the reference on the dab page until there is enough info out there to justify a wiki-entry. What do you think? - grubber 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
he s as notable as a large number of players with pages now Brian Vahaly, Tommy Ho, Eric Amend, Eric Fromm. He doesn t have a picture and info because of the era he played in, which should not be reason for exclusion on wikipedia. He reached the second round of the U.S. Open in '71 and players who haven t done this have pages, so he d pass notability (perhaps unfortunately) Mayumashu 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Wikiproject

I see you've made a large number of edits to tennis-related articles over the past few days. If you're interested, I've recently started a Tennis Wikiproject --Dantheox 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. i may in the weeks ahead look into joining but am about to become busier for the next while. best regards, Mayumashu 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American football players

Hi Mayumashu. I would not work too hard populating the category. It was just deleted a few months ago (here), and very likely will be again. Sorry to have to bring the bad news. Best regards ×Meegs 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Figured something was up that it didn t already exist. so why isn t there this? sure, 80% or whatever of all football players are Black, but the same is true for basketball players and it exists. anyway, i ll see what the reasons were from the link you ve given - cheers. Mayumashu 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
actually, i don t see why it was deleted with a 2-2 vote. but, yeah, i ll hold off populating it like you suggest Mayumashu 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the basketball cat nearly went down earlier this week. It's only a matter of time, if you ask me. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm tempted to mass nominate all of the similar cats just to get it over with, and to prevent people from wasting effort in the meantime. Best ×Meegs 08:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i saw that later. I don t really care either way either I guess - i kind of like having ethnicity cats but can understand the argument against too and kind of like sub-catting huge ethnicity cat page lists but can understand the argument that doing so is to list trivia. but at some point most humanities data collection is trivia, it seems to me. anyroad, thanks for pointing out what s been happening and saving me from wasting time. Mayumashu 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Canadian football players

Do you really think this category is needed? It seems redundant and it looks sort of dumb. How about "Canadian Canadian football players playing in the Canadian Football League born in Canada." I'd suggest DELETING it. Mundster 18:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

we disagree Mayumashu 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I must agree strongly with Mundster: this category is redundant. The assumption should be that "Canadian football players" are Canadian, not unlike the assumption taken with Category:American football players. Please see my earlier comments at Category talk:Canadian Football League. heqs 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your thing about ethnic categories can go too far. The way I see it, heck, you are adding to Wikipedia and seem to be doing no harm, other than burdening the category system with junk, so knock yourself out. But, recently I edited the Bob O'Billovich entry when I read he had "Serb bloodlines." Say what? No evidence was provided. So, when does fun with ethnic categories stop and become "ethnic profiling," which I find replusive, but at the least, is utterly useless. Who cares if Dallas Smith is of Scottosh origin. He is Canadian.Mundster 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Marie Ellard

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Marie Ellard, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Argyriou (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese name ordering

Some of your recent edits have violated the Japanese article manual of style which states that people born before 1868 should be named "last first". If you want to discuss that, please bring it up on the MOS talk page, and don't do a mass movement of articles like that. Also, the nihongo template is not just for names which are in the reversed order. It can be used for any Japanese word, to indicate the kanji, etc. and in general, should not be removed from any article unless the kanji is superfluous (ie, if it is kanji for a word which is linked to another article, etc). Neier 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sincere apologies - I realized the pre-Meiji / post-Meiji births split after doing some edits and will revert the erroneous edits i made. regards Mayumashu 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I took care of a few this morning, until I hit Tōgō Heihachirō, which had to have some admin help to sort out. That's when I gave up and went to the office. Neier 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please also revert Manjiro Inagaki back to Inagaki Manjiro. This may also need an admistrator's assistance to avoid loss of the edit history page! --MChew 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--MChew 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Flockhart

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you moved Ron Flockhart to Ron Flockhart (auto racing). Would you mind updating all the pages that linked to it as well? Thanks. DH85868993 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the list Mayumashu 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done them for you. Cheers. DH85868993 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
righto - thanks Mayumashu 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Danny Graham

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mayumashu 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

There is a request for comments on the Robert Latimer page; please see Talk:Robert Latimer#Request for comments. Rosemary Amey 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Mayumashu 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your edit at Wojtek Wolski

Regarding your edit summary at Wojtek Wolski (diff): I have no idea if Wolski has dual citizenship (not sure if Poland has jus soli law a.k.a. citizenship via birth) but he definitely has Canadian citizenship (requirement to play on Team Canada). Just wondering, do YOU know if Poland has jus soli law? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

no idea. someone put him in Category:Polish ice hockey players and since it doesn t seem that he s ever played for Poland, i wondered this aloud. if he s not played for Poland nor a dual citizen, he shouldn t be on this cat page (despite his name and birth), should he. regards Mayumashu 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Americans

I agree with the work you are doing in this cat. If you need assistance, let me know. Kevlar67 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Feel free to pitch in if you want - I going at it in alphabetical order so if you wanted to why not sort from Z in reverse order and we d meet somewhere in the middle. I intend to do the same thing for all subcategories of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin, in the end having for instance Category:Brazilian immigrants to Canada a sub-cat of Category:Canadians of Brazilian descent, doing away with all "Fooian(-)Hooian" category names which people cannot agree on if they should be spelled with a hyphen or not and more importantly which suggest a common identity of the ethnic group within the country which may not exist, and is therefore misleading. Attributing descent simply as descent is on the other hand factual when sources are given. Mayumashu 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful, though. What information do we want to convey exactly? Ukrainian speaking Canadian immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian empire are Ukrainian Canadians, even if the best legal description of them is "Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada" (a category I intend to create, BTW). WP should convey both legal status but also cultural affiliation. Kevlar67 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Such immigrants would be listed under both Category:Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada and Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent, wouldn t they. exactly, WP should convey both sets of info - and where they overlap, one becomes a sub-set of the other - Category:Ukrainian immigrants to Canada as a *sub-set linked to Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent. It s going to take a lot of work to see it through though Mayumashu 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but the challenge is to convey both sets of information in a way that readers and also other editors will understand, otherwise they will undo all your hard work. Here's a question for you: would "Canadians of Fooian decent", "Fooian immigrants to Canada", and "Fooian expatriates in Canada" have one common category they could be found under? I'm worried that trying to get rid of Fooian Hooians will meet with too much resistance, afterall, there are lost of WP articles that these cats are based around, and people will be hesitant to change them. Kevlar67 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry User:Kevlar for not replying earlier. I ve been busy revamping the pages for Canadian ethnic and national origin. When I get this finished, I ll tackle the same pages for other countries where I ll feel it least likely to encouter resistance - the key is to change enough pages without one going to a WP:Pages for discussion and then to do a block rename once the majority of pages are named as we d like them to be. to be honest, category delete/rename users do not seem too interested in these cat pages. they d like to see them deleted but are too reluctant to try a block deletion as deleting them as a whole has not been accomplished in the past. so i think i can get enough changed over - we ll see! Mayumashu 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nate DiCasmirro

Just wondering if you can explain your reason(s) for deleting the biographical information I added about Nate DiCasmirro's hockey career. It's not liked it was inaccurate or wasn't sourced. Also, your category change is based on an unsourced assumption, that he holds U.S. citizenship. I haven't found anything that he says he does. Categorizing articles based on assumptions doesn't seem like a very good idea. I look forward to your response. Cheers!--Vbd | (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry - will undo the damage Mayumashu 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
went to the page - does your info tell you if he also holds American citizenship or ever played for the States? if neither s the case then he shouldn t be characterized as an American player Mayumashu 02:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and searched for a source that confirms that he is a U.S. citizen. I have added the reference.--Vbd | (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Fox

Please see discussion page.--Vbd | (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Boyce Richardson

Huh? Let's see: Ian Billcliff (Ian Shaw Billcliff (born October 26, 1972 in Williams Lake, British Columbia) is a 'Canadian of New Zealand Origin' but Boyce Richardson is an immigrant from New Zealand? Go figure! Why the nit-picking? Let's just go with 'New Zealand Canadians' shall we? (Actually I'd prefer Kiwi-Canucks, myself!) Macadavy 09:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Macadavy

we could but it s better this way both to have a comprehensive list of immigrants and to avoid any possible implication that all people listed as "(New Zealand) Canadian" say belong to a "Kiwi Canuck" community with particularly shared values. many may in fact do but how can this be known in most cases? simply stating ethnicity or citizenship as fact is better reflected "of origin" or "of descent" naming, the way i see it Mayumashu 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking page in my userspace

Please do not blank articles in my userspace, as you did to User:SigPig/Bruce Carruthers. I consider it vandalism, especially given your edit summary "(some kind of nonsense page - blanked)". The information is a stub being worked on about the founder of the Canadian Corps of Signals, and is verifiable as well as cited; while a stub, it is far from nonsense. If you have some kind of problem with items in my userspace, I would appreciate the common courtesy that you take it up with me first on my talk page. You seem to have been here long enough to know better about processes and procedures. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. The page is linked to the encyclopedia proper through it s category page links and as it looked like a WP:BIO page but was also a user page, I wrongly thought it was some kind of nonsensical blend of two kinds of pages, as I thought i had encountered this phenomenom here a few years ago. At any rate, I ve resurrected the Bruce Carruthers bio page. Mayumashu 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill White redirect

Hi there. I noticed you redirected Bill White (politician) to William A. White. These are two completely separate people, although they are father and son. I reverted the page back to its pre-redirect form. What was your reason for the redirect?Abebenjoe 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hey there. oops! thanks for the spot and apologies! Mayumashu 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadians of Armenian descent move

Hello Mayumashu, I saw your move of Armenians of Canada to Canadians of Armenian descent move. While I see the logic behind the move, I must disagree with it because this was in accordance with other Armenian diaspora articles. What do you think? - Fedayee 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Yeah, I know it goes against the convention as it now but I m in the process of changing all relevant article and category pages to this more logically naming and this is going to take weeks. Could we change other Armenian diaspora articles over to this naming? Or we could change the one I changed back. However, I do intend to change all pages for all diaspora over time. It just makes no sense to call every third or fourth generation Canadian of Armenian descent Armenian(-)Canadian for we can t know how much they identify themselves as such as the naming suggests a sense of common identity. We can however know simply (in verifiable cases of course) if they have the lineage or not, and the naming I m proposing reflects this Mayumashu 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadians of Indian descent move

It may be a logical move, but it might have been polite to at least mention moving Indo-Canadian to Canadians of Indian descent before doing so. One problem might be the double meaning of "Indian" in Canada, which was solved by the prior title, but is now somewhat ambiguous. Usually, these moves are proposed and discussed first, for just this reason. - TheMightyQuill 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind why you have decided to rename many articles, such as Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent, since it covers everyone with that heritage, but I to have to agree with TheMightyQuill, the double meaning associated with the term Indian within Canada is why People of Indian descent in Canada are referred to as Indo-Canadian.

The purpose of a redirect as well, from the redirect page help page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Redirect#How_do_I_change_a_redirect.3F is as follows:

"Purposes of a redirect

   * Allow access in the case that a pagename is provided:
         o which is an alternative term for the subject
         o which is a term for a subtopic (in this case one may use a redirect to a section)
         o which uses alternative capitalization and hyphenation
         o which uses alternative spelling
         o which has a common misspelling"

Since the terms Chinese Canadian, Indo Canadian, Filipino Canadian etc. are the terms that are in common usage within Canada, such as in the media and scholarly articles, they should serve as the main title of the article because this is the main title people are familiar with searching with. It is not incorrect to create a page called "Canadian of xxxx descent" since it is an alternative, but because it is not the common term, it should not take precedence over the widely used term. Instead, Canadian of Indian descent should be redirected to Indo-Canadian, and so forth for the respective articles such as Canadian of Chinese descent, instead the current redirect, which is the other way around.


- Parihav 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Ontarians

While it's true that not all Franco-Ontarians are of French descent, not all Franco-Ontarians are francophone, either, so Category:Francophone Canadians is problematic for the exact same reason that Category:French Canadians is. Can you think of an alternative way to handle this? Bearcat 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

no, not without having a Category:Franco-Ontarians of non-French descent, which I m sure no one would want including me. one improvement would be having Category:Franco-Ontarians include just francophone Ontarians and linking it to a Category:People of Franco-Ontarian descent for anglophones with Francophone parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents from Ontario - I did this for Category:Acadians and Category:People of Acadian descent recently. so I take it from this that "Franco-Ontarian" is used quite liberally and perhaps differently by different people, unlike in the case of Acadians. Mayumashu 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English-Canadians

Same comments as those re Indo-Canadians and Franco-Ontarians. The article on English Canadians is about more than 'Canadians of English Descent'. I, for example, consider myself English-Canadian under the most generally used meaning of the term, but have virtually no actual English ancestry. There are French-Canadians of Irish ancestry. The Scots-Irish include more than Irish of Scottish ancestry. The approach you seem to be taking makes sense when one is dealing with recently arrived groups ("Swedes of Ethiopian Ancestry") but becomes much less accurate when there has been movement from one point of origin to another over several generations and the population in the new homelands have begun to intermingle with the local population or have been in the new location for so long that they have developed or are beginning to develop their own sense of self-identification. I don't think that this relabelling (as logical as it may seem in the abstract) is really going to work in all cases, and shouldn't be carried out without some discussion. The problem may be a lack of nomenclature for these relatively new populations. "Québécois" or "Acadian" work well to distinguish some populations, but "Franco-Ontarians" or "English-Canadians" don't yet have such descriptors. People just don't always fit into neat categories. Corlyon 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Corlyon

I admit that the page I renamed from English-Canadian and Indo-Canadian should be reverted to reflect colloquial use and I will in the next two days contact an administrator to see about getting it done. The category pages are (or certainly should be) a whole different story reflecting ancestry based on lineage and not self-identity (far too unconfirmable, POV), colloquial use ("English-Canadian" to a non-North American would not mean the same thing if anything at all), or what generation one is removed from the country of one's ancestors. Regards Mayumashu 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mayamushu. The move back still hasn't happened, leaving Wikipedia with the anomaly of having an article on "French Canadians" but not "English Canadians". I don't think we would want to see the articles on "Acadians" and "Quebecois" tossed into a generic article on "Canadians of French Descent", so there must be some consideration given to discussions of people who are associated by affinities other than pure lineage. CheersCorlyon 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon


[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15#People_by_Italian_provinces

It looks like there was an error in the original nomination, and as a result the natives of the Province of Pavia got added to the Category:People from the Province of Parma. I guess you'll have to sort them out by hand. It's not too bad, there's only 37 of them. -- Prove It (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

oops! will get on it shortly - thanks! Mayumashu 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Elisha Cuthbert

Please stop adding Category:Canadians of European descent to the Elisha Cuthbert article without a reliable source. It is considered original research. If you feel other categories violate the original research guideline, be bold and remove them from the article. --Kevin Walter 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you are being way too pedantic in denying she s of European descent - there s even pictures on the page to back this "claim" up - are they not reliable? be reasonable Mayumashu 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Northern Irish Immigrants to Canada

Hi there. Can you be careful when adding this category to articles as not everyone is eligible to be in it that you have added it to. There have been several cases where you have added it to people who cannot possibly have been described as Northern Irish immigrants as they either moved, or died, before the establishment of Northern Ireland. In those cases they should be in the Irish immigrants, not Northern Irish immigrants. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

true enough - shall move them over. Thanks Mayumashu 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's okay, I've already done so, just letting you know the whats and whys. Keep up the good work. Ben W Bell talk 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Wilson (writer, horticulturist)

I've move this page back to its original title. Wilson didn't - as you stated in your edit summary - write (only) on horticulture, he wrote on many issues and anyway, was known equally as a writer and landscaper/gardener (these activities were, in fact, intertwined). Make sense? Pinkville 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

alright Mayumashu 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Belkin

Greetings. You ask "did he acquire Mexican citizenship?" yes, he did! I would not consider him an English Mexican or a Russian Mexican as noted in the categories.. A Mexican of Russian descent-yes! Best, --Healkids 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I m in the process of listing Canadians of fooian descent and Fooian Canadians separately as they are two different things, aren t they. Regards Mayumashu 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intersection by location

Hi. I wanted to point out to you a new overcategorization guideline. It calls into question the appropriateness of some categories that you have created, such as Category:Alberta actors or Category:Nova Scotia actors. Before emptying these and similar categories, I thought I would check in with you first. --Vbd (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

don t mind seeing these go. and appreciative of the notice Mayumashu 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

It would have been nice if you posted a comment on the talk pages, or better yet, used WP:RM for all these Foovian Canadian pages you're moving. IMO your stated reason "moved Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent: page describes Canadians of full AND PARTIAL Chinese ancestry" is very weak. For example, people of partial Chinese descent may still identify as "Chinese Canadian", there is nothing inherent in the term which implies that they are of full Chinese descent. Also WP:NC(CN). cab 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

these pages should not be based on self-identication - few people proclaim their identification to the point that a citeable source can be found. I think that someone of partial identity who does profess such self-identity where citeable should be included, point taken. this is however something inherent to some including me in the term that does suggest dual citizenship (see below on this page), full ancestry, or self-identification, and some people with fooian ancestry are none of these. the renaming is an improvement on all of what is described on the page, I m certain of this. where a source is available, however, I agree with you that self-identification should be a criterion for inclusion of an individual being refered to as "Fooian Canadian", regardless of the extent of the ancestry. Mayumashu 11:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To comment further and ask for your opinion: I'm personally not very much in favour of the "Fooian-nationality" naming scheme either (mainly because, except in the cases where the name is well known, as in Chinese Americans, it's unclear as to which is the country and which is the ethnicity, and generates endless debates about which should come first; e.g. Talk:Malaysian Chinese). However, I don't think the "Fooians of Bar descent" naming scheme comes closer to making the page title match the content that should be in the page; the main problem is that the title seems to exclude people of Bar descent living in Fooland who aren't Fooian citizens. My guess is that when someone goes to the "Chinese American" page, they might be interested in finding information about issues of Chinese immigrants (who are often represented and assisted by activist group with names like "Organisation of Chinese Americans"); they probably don't care about people of 1/8th Chinese descent like Lisa See.
Hi. then, the page should be "People in Canada of Chinese descent", to include expatriates (who are not technically Canadian, give immigrants prominence, and mention to people like Keanu Reeves Mayumashu 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was personally in favour of a naming scheme like "Ethnic Barians in Fooland", but the "Ethnic Barian" terminology caused a major ruckus (see Talk:Japanese diaspora). So lately I've just been using "Bar people in Fooland" (e.g. Japanese people in North Korea, Vietnamese people in Russia). Any better ideas? cab 08:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. "People of Fooian descent in Barland" is the best I can think of 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Indian Americans

There is a debate on whether there should be subcats for ethnicities in the maincat. As you were a contributor to the above mentioned cat, I would like to know your views here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil Americans.Bakaman 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

afraid I have to agree with keeping it. it does mean some people having two cat links. but there aren t too many supra-natural ethnic groups - Arabs, Basques, Huquenots, Kurds, Jews, Polynesians Mayumashu 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by ethnic or national origin

Hi. I know you've done a lot of work on revamping the sub-cat Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you!

I started to draft a proposal that would apply your paradigm to the many other similar sub-cats of Category:People by ethnic or national origin, but I ran into a problem. I don't understand the distinction you have made between "Canadians of American descent" and "American Canadians." The former is for Canadians who have one American parent or grandparent; the latter is for those who have two American parents, right? This seems like a false distinction -- the difference between one or both parents. Can you articulate your reasoning? Also, when I was trying to figure out how this all worked, I looked for a discussion of the changes you have made but couldn't find any. Was there one? Cheers!--Vbd (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Fooian Canadians are of full Fooian descent as I ve set up this scheme, where as Canadians of Fooian descent is of partial descent. One parent therefore means "partial descent" whereas two equates "full descent" (not a perfect distinction but wholly workable). In the case of America-Canada this does seem rather a petty distinction to make but it is in keeping with the scheme as a whole as saying someone whose of 1/4 Scottish ancestry from 100 years ago is somehow "Scottish Canadian" (suggesting one is both, in rather equal proportations) is more nonsensical. No discussion took place. I don t think a lot of users care much about having these categories whereas it is my pet interest (human migration). Mayumashu 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I see what you are getting at. Well, I guess it would have been overkill to call the cat. "Canadians of partial Scottish descent." ;-) And your example that someone who is 1/4 Scottish should not be categorized as "Scottish American" makes sense. But consider your example the other way around. It is not nonsensical to say that someone who has two Scottish parents is "of Scottish descent." And a person who has two Scottish grandparents is also "of Scottish descent." Why not put them both in the "Canadians of Scottish descent" category" (rather than the "Scottish Canadian" category)? My inclination is to lump the partial and full descent together (Foo-ians of Goo-ian descent), and keep the "Foo-ian Goo-ian" cat. for the dual citizenship cases we so offer encounter, especially between Canada and the U.S.
that was my actual original intention, to lump them together, but then I thought and still think the one parent / two parent division is significant. of course, someone with two Scottish parents is of Scottish descent and as such "Fooian Canadians is a (*prominently put) sub-category of "Canadians of Fooian descent", with an explanation is given on each page. Dual citizens fall under immigrants, a prominent sub-cat of Fooian Canadian" Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that a lot of users don't care about these categories. Check out the debate about Nicole Kidman here, here, and here. This debate has been going on for more than a year, and continues even after having been through mediation! The mere use of the word "Australian" to describe her in the lead paragraph now merits not one but two footnotes.
this makes sense in that she is a dual citizen - American by birth with Australian parents and Australian by nationality with American national origins (nationality) (Mel Gibson too) Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the problem with these labels is the blurring between citizenship and "national origin." To me, the word "descent" neatly makes that distinction possible. That's why I was thinking about proposing that your paradigm be applied across the board, but stopped when I realized that your paradigm wasn't quite what I thought it was.--Vbd (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I m in whole-hearted agreement on this main point, that descent is the better terminology to use of the parent level of category pages. I wouldn t mind that much to see all partial and full descent go together, but my sense is that there will be a lot of users who will want to keep the "Fooian-nationality" scheme. the scheme I ve been setting out to have allows for these users to keep these pages as sub-categories. Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably go ahead and propose a major overhaul and see how it goes. You are right that people think in terms of "Italian Americans" or "Scottish Canadians" as representing ethnic or national origins, but I don't know if that is true in other places. I'd just like to come up with a schema that works for categorizing people by nationality versus citizenship. But I may need to think about this a little more. --Vbd (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is largely limited North America. But I think the overall scheme now does hold "nationality" ("origin of cultural heritage") over citizenship in how we list people by occupation where people are listed both by where they have worked as nationals or expats and their nationality. Look forward to seeing how the proposal goes, regards! Mayumashu 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of high school dropouts

A tag has been placed on List of high school dropouts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how List of high school dropouts is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:List of high school dropouts saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Bruneau

I'm not sure that "Anglophone Canadians of French Canadian descent" is a relevant category; Sharon is Metis, from Timmins, and like other Metis from that area French may be her first language; she speaks flawless English, but I'm not sure that she can be so easily sorted into "Anglophone Canada", or for that matter of French-Canadian descent; the French-name side of her may be entirely Metis, albeit francophone, but note "Frenchb-Canadian" tends to refer to the quebecois ethnicity, not to francophonesn general (though it's supposed to). I don't know exactly, but she's around town, so I'll ask her if I run into her; but I think trying to label people according to their hyphenated Canadian category is kinda dehumanizing; we are not our ethnic pedigrees. In Sharon's case I added the Metis tag because I know she's a Metis-card holder (like Kevin O'Toole (bodybuilder)), but I wouldn't assume that she's "Anglophone Canadian of French Canadian descent", and I'm not sure branding Canadians with their ethnic classification is all that valid of a pasttime, although typically Canadian in its own way. As is the assumption taht someone born outside of Quebec is "Anglophone Canadian of French descent" when there's a good chance their maternal language actually was French (as throughout Northern Ontario and in some of the West).Skookum1 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what info I could on Timmins and could not find that there was a Francophone community and assumed (apparently correctly) that she's anglophone, although as you say without hearing it from her, despite Timmins' profile, it can t be known if she is francophone or not. And you mention that she and Kevin O'Toole are Metis cardholders - I ll undo an edit I made there. Thanks for the info, Mayumashu 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Kevin's card I've seen in person and it's on his personal website somewhere; he's pretty proud of it; Sharon's I was just told about, though, but she'd probably respond to the query if I emailed her (she'll like having her photos up here, even if they're older). As for the francophone/anglophone thing I'll ask her that at the same time; other Metis I know from northern Ontario do have accents and French is their primary (household) language, but not all; "Anglophones of French-Canadian descent" would seem to be exclusive even of Metis anglophones, since Metis are (nearly always) of French descent. i.e. because she's Metis she's inherently of French descent, so isn't hte other category redundant (as well as possibly mistaken). Kevin should definitely be in Category:Canadians of Irish descent, as he's also as much that as he is Metis - I gather the distinction (?) with Category:Irish Canadians is the latter are born in Ireland - ?.Skookum1 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
it s not redundant 'cause there were also a fair number of Scots, evidently some Irish, and I believe some English too who were into fur trading and whose descendants became Metis - I ve got the category page now linked to Category:Canadians of European descent. Yeah, it seems to be to make better sense to call someone whose half, quarter or less Irish say someone of Irish descent, then "Irish Canadian". in truth, there aren t really rules though as to how we refer to people of ancestry other than that of the country of their citizenship - it s about what seems to make sense to the person, isnt it. and due to a lack of convention, I ve been changing over the names of pages to reflect a less-assuming naming scheme. Mayumashu 07:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian of English descent — clarification

Was it your intention that Canadian of English descent be moved back to English-Canadian, as the current text would suggest, or to English Canadian, as you actually stated in your move request? I realise that this question comes about a week later than it should have, but once I have an answer I can get on with shifting the article over. --Stemonitis 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don t know and that s mostly because I don t care either way which is used, as I find using term either with or without the hyphen to mean anglophone Canadian to be utterly disagreeable. (I happen to be an English teacher and can tell you for what it s worth that "English Canadian" is in fact the grammatical correct expression as "English-Canadian" with a hyphen is a compound adjective, not a noun. again though this is about describing proper colloquial usage and not grammar, I acknowledge) Mayumashu 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordin Tootoo

I just noticed this edit. Yes he was born in Manitoba but he grew up in Rankin. I don't know at what age he returned to Rankin but he was there before the age of three and that I found a reference for. Now as a guess, and it's nothing I could add to the article right now, I suspect that his mother had to go to Churchill to have him. Very few Arctic communities are set up to deal with births and the mothers were sent to different places, Yellowknife, Churchill and MOntreal. This still happens today, an example would be both of my grandchildren were born in Yellowknife but are considered to be from Nunavut. Also he self-identifies as an Inuk. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I became reaware of what you are saying with the relocation, but I wasn t aware it was for childbirth and mistakenly assumed in this case that Jordin Tootoo grew up in Churchill. I think based on what you re saying that he should definitely belong to Category:Inuit people and Category:Nunavut sportspeople, even without a link to the source. Best regards Mayumashu 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. You did the correct thing as now the sources are there which is better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit people

You do know that there's not actually any such thing as "American Inuit", right? They're called Inupiat or Yupik. Bearcat 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Inuit says Inupiat and Yupik are. Is it wrong? Mayumashu 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of tricky to explain — they are all related peoples, but the Alaskan groups don't self-identify as Inuit; as similar as their culture is in some respects, the Yupik are actually of a different descent group. Canadian Inuit do tend to use "Inuit" as the umbrella term for all three groups, but the Inupiat and Yupik don't — believe it or not, the Yupik actually still prefer Eskimo as the umbrella term. It would probably be best to go for Yupik and Inupiat categories instead of Inuit for the American groups. Bearcat 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see - thanks. I ll follow your advice Mayumashu 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Inupiat page uses Inuit not Eskimo as a descriptor - I ll leave what I ve done and let any concerned user put up the cat page for renaming Mayumashu 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English(-)Canadians

I just happened to still have "watch" on your page re our previous exchange, and happened to notice this; I've sometimes weighed in on the E-C pages, to summarize the titles; I'm both of English ancestry (1/4, although some of that includes "Shonfeld" which obviously isn't) and also of the camp usually described as "English Canadians" by dint of being an anglophone Canadian. But coming from the West, I do have to say that "anglophone Canadian" has alwasy smacked of "federally-correct language" and, er, kind of smacks of being a French-ism to many; so even if they're Ukrainian Canadians or German Canadians they're likely to say they're English Canadian, and will resonate on the term "English Canada", though not in the monolithic sense meant by that phrases context in Quebec/national politics. The part of Canada where English is spoken, Canadians who speak English, is what is meant by the usage, whatever the grammatical correctness of the construction (Wiki seems to avoid them, ie. hyphenated Cdn/Am ethnonyms, but not always). I find it disagreeable, too, for all I've just said; I only mean it in the linguistic sense and not the ethnic sense, even though I'm part-English (also Norwegian, Irish, French-from-France); but the sense I find it disareeable is the need to divide Canadians up by either nationality or ethnicity; I'm just a Canadian; it's only apposite to the French and the anglo-franco division of the country/s identity (if "division" is the right word - how's "dialectic"?) that I'm English Canadian, not in any other sense; other than that I'm just Canadian, and I know lots of people who'd say the same thing, despite a palette of ethnicities in their family tree (and with or without speaking any inherited language). It's the classification of people that I'm wary of, unless their ethnicity is a marker of their identity; there's a tendency (which I've taken part in) to look up people by their ethnic origin and then add "Irish Canadian" or "Norwegian Canadian" or "Scottish Canadian" on the basis of that; but ethnicity is also about self-identification; I suppose the cats have emerged because "Irish Canadian" can mean something different than "Canadian of Irish descent". Which brings us back around to this page: I'd say there's a fundamental difference, and with this one ethnonym in particular (English Canadian) there's a big need for a separate article because of the variable meanings, vs. the much more precise Canadians of English descent.Skookum1 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought a page with more accurate meaning was necessary too and created it a few days ago. I really think too that an "Irish Canadian" is of full (or near-full + self-identification) Irish ancestry whereas "Canadian of Irish descent" allows for those who are 1/4 or any percentage Irish to qualify, and that s why I ve been changing over Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin pages. It s interesting, what you say of how being in Western Canada plays a role in how the term "English-Canadian" is used for the reasons you ve said - I really think something of this deserves mention on the page English-Canadian. By the way, is the hyphenated version more prominent in the West? Mayumashu 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Descent" name changes

While I agreed with what you were doing with the categories, I have to say I oppose the changes to the articles. Articles are supposed to use the most common terms. Google "Irish Canadian" versus "Irish of Canadian descent". It’s not our job to change usage to make it more specific, we are only supposed to report what already exists. Kevlar67 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is changing usage and believe using "Canadian of Irish descent" to name the page in fact better describes reality. The page cites census stats that ask participants to report their ethnicity from a list that reads "Irish" - the term "Irish Canadian" does not appear on the form. Of course, census data could be removed from the page, but why insist on this - why not have these pages serve both purposes - describing those who are Irish Canadian and those who are of Irish descent. Perhaps separate paragraphs should be on the page to describe what are two different things Mayumashu 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I ve taken a look of the google hits for "Irish Canadian" and see nothing in them that changes my mind of this. I think the page Canadians of Irish descent uses "Irish(-)Canadian" appropriately in reference to what it describes of 19th century Irish throughout what became Canada. Again, I don t disagree that colloquial usage should be described, but it should be used to name a page unless there s unanimity for the name being unequivocal in what it s refering to, and this is not the case with these pages Mayumashu 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14, subcategories of Canadian ice hockey people

Hello. The votes to rename "people" to "personnel" were miscounted, I believe. I count 2 in favour and 2 opposed. Could I request a recount? Best regards, Mayumashu 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:CFD is a discussion, not a vote. And in closing, an admin attempts to determine consensus from the discussion, if such exists.
That aside, I count 5, possibly 6 if I count the nominator, who oppose "people", and prefer personnel, with 2 specifically opposing.
I hope this helps clarify. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask : ) - jc37 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah. I can see that the nominator and one other user do suggest personnel to people in light of what you say that it is not a hard vote, but a discussion. sorry for the misunderstanding

[edit] Discussion?

I thought you might be interested in the discussion I started at Wikipedia Talk:Overcategorization#Categorising by national descent, origin, nationality, etc.. Please feel free to let others know. --Vbd (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Applaud the work to get this started, Vbd. Will check it out for sure. Best regards, Mayumashu 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Murray

Hi; saw your move from George Matheson Murray to George Murray (British Columbia) which I think was inappropriate and also out-of-style for the other entries on the George Murray disambiguation page. Forbes George Vernon was known as Forbes Vernon, John Andrew Mara was known as J.A. Mara - but Wiki article-naming guidelines go with the full name; exceptions are when there's an appellation, as with George's wife Ma, or as in Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown, who was known as "Volcanic Brown" and never as Robert/Bob. Anyway, I'd suggest a move back; the "(British Columbia)" part should only be used if there were two George Matheson Murrays; otherwise it's enough to simply use his full name, which doesn't require any paranthetical designation to go with it.Skookum1 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's moved back. There is now way that George Murray (British Columbia) is correct. Look at George Murray. It could possibly have been George Murray (politician) but not with a place name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I had a middle name for GMM I didn't bother with that when I created the article; and there are other George Murray politicians, although the Nova Scotia premier has a full name article anyway (I think, or a "[Premier)" dab?). BTW are what I did on Margaret Lally "Ma" Murray and Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown wikistylistic, or should they ust have been Margaret Lally Murray and Robert Allan Brown?Skookum1 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I d say inserting the nickname is fine, as you ve done, and support any move to have this set in naming guidelines. Yeah, on second thought, including a person's middle name as a means of "disambiguating" isn t that bad an idea. Best regards, Mayumashu 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
When it's available, as often it's not, and some people don't have middle names. Ma Murray's was actually Theresa - Lally is her maiden name, so it helps to bear in mind that women's middle names might be previous married or maiden names, as can also be the case with men (well, not maiden names, but you get the idea).Skookum1 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/y/User_talk%7EMayumashu_1ded.html"