User talk:Rls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] linking to categories

You can link to a category without adding an article to the category like this: Category:foo You might also find these helpful: Category:categorization, Wikipedia:Category --ssd 16:25, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] County categories

Why do we need separate categories for traditional vs administrative counties? We used to have separate articles but after a long protracted debate they were merged into one with sufficient explanation in the article itself. The categories where administrative areas have borrowed county names used to make the distinction, but you have reverted them just to refer to the administrative area. The whole point of categories is to categorise articles and make related articles easier to find. How would it make things any easier to have a page in two very similar categories? Especially something silly like 'Monmouthshire (administrative)' and 'Monmouthshire (traditional)'? Owain 08:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The categories where administrative areas have borrowed county names used to make the distinction, but you have reverted them just to refer to the administrative area.

I don't understand what you mean here. I originally created almost all the principal areas of Wales categories in order to categorise the many geographical Wales stubs by area. I have just gone through the categories systematically to give them a logical structure and description.
Well the Monmouthshire category stated that it was related to both administrative and traditional before you reverted it Owain 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole point of categories is to categorise articles and make related articles easier to find.

I agree. And having a category mean two different things is a recipe for confusion. Confusing the two means that someone looking for towns etc. in the current day county will not be able to find them as they will be mixed up with traditional counties.
Not at all, an article can quite easily be in both categories - as is currently the case with all the categories I've added. Someone looking in the Powys category will find all the towns in the Powys administrative area, and someone looking in the Montgomeryshire category will find all the towns in Montgomeryshire. Easy and helpful. Owain 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Especially something silly like 'Monmouthshire (administrative)' and 'Monmouthshire (traditional)'?

I don't see any reason to have categories for traditional counties, or we might as well have categories for Gwent, etc. Is there any precedent for this? Does any other group of articles in Wikipedia follow this approach? If you must include them (and I don't understand your obsession with traditional counties), I suggest leaving Monmouthshire as the current category and creating a "Monmouthshire (traditional)" category. Likewise for the other traditional counties. The only place where this is is not worth it is where the traditional and modern areas are identical (like Anglesey).

Rls 18:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Of course there's a reason for having them - they are form useful categorisation! Much more useful than the current administrative categories. I'm not sure many people in Blackwood, Rhymney, &c really want to be associated with Caerphilly, especially as the category name doesn't make it plain whether it's referring to the town or administrative area of the same name. My 'obsession' with traditional counties is quite simple - they are independent of local government, so can't be continually messed with to suit the current government's whim; they are what is actually meant by the term 'county' before the LGA 1972 hijacked the term and confused everybody; they are much more useful as geographic terms than small UAs; they have centuries of previous use and I see no reason to stop their use. Creating different categories is unnecessary when the county articles themselves are combined into one. In any case, on picking an article from, say, the Monmouthshire category, the article itself will make plain in the first sentence whether it's the traditional county of Monmouthshire or local government area of the same name that is relevant in that particular case. In either case the article will 'still be relevant to Monmouthshire. Owain 19:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
they are much more useful as geographic terms than small UAs;
That's an opinion.
Well obviously on a small scale, small town-sized UAs are useful for determining what places are inside out outside the town boundary, but on a national scale it's not very useful. Owain 10:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
they are what is actually meant by the term 'county' before the LGA 1972 hijacked the term and confused everybody
It didn't confuse me, being born after 1972. I am more used to the reformed counties, but I categorised articles by the current divisions rather then preserved counties as the only sane possibility. Anyway, what difference does it make what is meant by the term "county"? That is not the issue under discussion.
I was born after 1972 as well, and obviously I originally thought that the current administrative areas meant that centuries-old counties had been 'reformed'. But then I researched the subject a bit more and found out that that wasn't actually the case. The more local government gets messed around with, the more people will need a stable form of geography. The definition of the word is at the heart of the problem. If the local government areas weren't called counties then we would have less of a problem. Owain 10:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Creating different categories is unnecessary when the county articles themselves are combined into one.
The articles make the difference between the two entities clear, whereas there is no way to list only members of the category that are relevant to the modern-day Monmouthshire if the fidelity of the categories is not respected.
I agree that is a problem, but the categories have to be flexible to be useful. If we are using merely administrative areas as categories, then a lot of places that are clearly geographically in a county get excluded from it. That's not very useful. Owain 10:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If in doubt I think we have to go with the modern political divisions as the primary way of categorising articles. This is way all other geographical articles on Wikipedia are classified as far as I can tell.
I've got no problems at all with having politcal divisions as categories - I'm just trying to add other useful categories, but this is compilicated when they have the same name. I'm loathe to create an entirely separate category, maybe a subcategory or sort-order would be useful in these cases? Owain 10:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rls 23:54, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby union

I notice that there is a little edit skirmish going on between you and Chriscf over whether to include a list of player positions in the Rugby union article. I could not find any discussion about this, so I have started one. Cheers. --Etimbo | Talk 12:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Rls 18:03, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics and songmeanings.net

Are you really sure this site is relevant in context of the article? I wanted to look at it again but either the site is dog slow or my connection bad - I coudn't get part first page there. Pavel Vozenilek 00:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it's relevant in my opinion. It works fine for me, no problem with speed or anything else. Rls 14:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby Union edits

Sorry for breaking some links when I made the RU edits. My main concern was in correcting the title and so I've left it at that. I think problems are being caused by the league minority again, as on other sites. --Jack 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for the note. You may have a point about capitalisation, but if you want to change the names of the articles you should move them first rather than editing the links so that they are broken. Rls 12:54, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Swansea category

Hi there. I see you originally created Category:Swansea. Currently the description is "for places within it". I have added the rugby and football teams to it nonetheless (because I only read the description properly after that, ahem), along with Swansea Bay, and I was just wondering: would you have objections if I were to add other "not exactly buildings and towns" articles to it? I can't think of many off-hand. But I know I have come across articles and thought "this has to do with Swansea; why is it not in that category?" before. You seem to have a lot to do with categories. And it is easier to assign them to the right category in the first place than to go through and reassign them later. Hence I wondered if you had any objections to this? Any advice about what does/doesn't fit would be welcome. Telsa 10:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I orginally created those categories because a lot of towns etc. needed classifying so I started categories for each principal area in Wales. A lot of people have not kept to that idea though and have added non-geographical articles to the categories (I may have done so myself). I was undecided as to whether this was a good idea at the time: on the one hand there's the obvious logical grouping of related items; on the other, you have cultural entities bleeding into the geographical hierarchy. Another complication is that the categories were set up for principal areas, but that's not necessarily the same thing as the cities where these have the same name (not to mention the whole principal areas/old counties question). If you want me to decide what my view is... I would say I was wrong to state it was restricted to locations, and it should be made more open. Some articles that aren't locations can only reasonably be classified by area. As to what does/doesn't fit, it really needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis... sports teams should certainly be categorised by area. I think people probably shouldn't, or at least not simply because they were born in an area. Thanks for asking for my view, but be bold! Rls 16:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
That all makes sense to me; thanks a lot. I think that we're thinking along roughly the same lines, so this should work out pretty well. Telsa 07:38, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canolfan Tryweryn

I noticed that you have been involved in creating the Afon Tryweryn article, and would like to inform you that I intend to merge the article with my newly created Canolfan Tryweryn article, unless you have any objections. DevAnubis 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please post replies in the Talk:Afon Tryweryn page, to save me having to search through all the user's talk pages to find any suggestions. DevAnubis 12:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/l/s/User_talk%7ERls_375f.html"