User talk:Stijn Calle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Seeaxid 6 July:39 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Karzer

I just saw you add the Category:German student societies to Karzer. I don't agree that this article belongs in this category (it is not about a student society). However, I wonder if you could add something on student prisons in Belgium and the Netherlands? I will eventually write something on student prisons in Sweden. Uppland 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the German WP the Karzer is categorised in the category Studentenverbindungen (Student societies. Moreover, the pictures shown on the photograph are picture of a Studentcell (Studentenkarzer), a students prison. Students prisons wholy belong to the german student traditions, e.g. Heidelberg, Marburg. I think the categorisation is fully correct. In Belgium and The Netherlands, Student prisons do not exist, and, so far as I know, have never existed. Stijn Calle 19:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how to react to your reply. I have translated most of this article from the German original and understand fully well that the image is of a student prison. I have absolutely no idea how you could assume that I did not realize that. In either case, we don't categorize things simply because of association - that is what "See also" headings are for. And student prisons do not exclusively belong to German tradition. As I already mentioned, they have existed in Sweden too. I also think they may have existed in the Netherlands, but have only a vague indication of that. In this webpage the caption below the left image claims that the depicted tower in Harderwijk was once used as a student prison; it is apparently located at the Botanical garden. I have no idea what Dutch search term to use to verify this, and even if true, it may be too obscure to be found on the web. Uppland 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
A Karzer, in the german tradition, was uniquely build for student, who resided at university. Perhaps this is not the case in The Netherlands or Sweden. Therefore, I categorised Karzer only in the Category : German student societies, and not in Dutch or Swedisch Student societies. It overlaps 100 % with german student traditions. Moreover, if you look at the two pictures, they depict german fraternity students (wearing the coloured hat) in a traditional form (black, sideways). The article surely is categorised correctly within the category German Student Societies. As to other categories, I have no knowledge of them being correct or not. Stijn Calle 22:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Belgian politicians

Hello, I see that you are removing the Category:Belgian politicians from a number of articles. What is going on ? --LucVerhelst 07:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up the Category:Belgian politicians. A large numbers of articles were categorised both in this category, AND in the subcategories of their parties. Or not subcategorised, whilst they belong to a clear and identifiable political party. E.g. a member of SPa, should only be categorised in the subcategory Members of SPa, while this subcategory in itself is already categorised under Belgian politicians. Stijn Calle 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Why can't they be categorised in both categories ?
For most (international) readers, "membership of the VLD" has no meaning at all, making it useless.--LucVerhelst 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no
Yes, because all Members of VLD are all Belgian Politicians. No, because the category Belgian politicians is a typical overlapping category. Somebody who stumbels upon it, will logically assume that the subdirectories Members of ... indicate party membership. Thus, the categories are overlapping. In the case of overlapping categories, only one mention suffices. In the case of independent categories, an unlimited number of independent categories may be mentioned. That's my opinion, a solution to bring a bit of order in the category-chaos. Stijn Calle 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that for the international reader, you are in fact creating chaos.
The category system is created to provide interlinking between articles, not to create order in the minds of editors.
I believe that you are now diminishing the value of Wikipedia.
Why can't categories overlap ? Why should we only provide one entrypoint for the reader, instead of multiple ? --LucVerhelst 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the categories can overlap. And of course the strength of WP lies in its interlinking etc. But a minimum or order is necessary, otherwise the international reader who is looking for information, and is not only a leasure reader, will be totaly confused, and understand nothing because of the chaos. But what degree of order is a minimum degree of order to find the right balance between chaos and overregulation. I think it is logically and defendably in this case. Stijn Calle 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
How will an additional category confuse the reader ? --LucVerhelst 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I' am sorry if I am intermingling into your discussion. But maybe you might look into the general guidelines explained in Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, which says that duplicate categorization (into supercategroy and subcategory) is most of the time not wanted, but there are however some exceptions where this nevertheless might be preferable. I let it up to you tho interprete these rules. --Donar Reiskoffer 11:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that in this case, you can't really speak of supercategory and subcategory, not for the average reader. For say, an Argentinian, it's not clear on first sight that "Members of the VLD" is a subccategory of "Belgian politicians".
Anyway, I think that at least "Secondary categorization rule" and "User benefit rule" would apply. --LucVerhelst 12:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
If 'clearity on first sight for anyone' is a criterium, you say in fact, no clearity at all. You can expect a minimum of common sense and potential for logic from the average person. Otherwise, no categorisation is possible. Stijn Calle 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
You really can't expect that the name of Belgian political parties to be part of the knowledge of the average American (or even German or Dutchman). Wikipedia is an international project. --LucVerhelst 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you expect the average inhabitant of the world to know the US American party names (because of the obvious cultural importance of the country) but not to know party names from other states, like france, germany? If the answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question is no, you do not have an international project, but a project that has an invisible but very clear US American set of cultural preconditions (the big vs the small). Stijn Calle 12:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be handy to have an overall category with all Belgian politicians. If a user only remembers part of the surname of a politician, then this category, Category:Belgian politicians will show quickly all alternatives, alphabetically. If you have to browse all party subcats, it will just take longer to find the right politician, since then you also have to know the politician's party affiliation. Intangible 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with Intangible. (On this point. :-D ) --LucVerhelst 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I suggest to delete all party-subdirectories from the category:Belgian politicians. Stijn Calle 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Why ? --LucVerhelst 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Because every further subclassification will only 'confuse' the average user of WP, who is unable to deal with objective categorisation of unknown concepts. Stijn Calle 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
How is that, then ? --LucVerhelst 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the logical and politely formulated conclusion of the discussion above. Ift I were to put it unpolitely or blunt I would have written: "The averige person in the world is too stupid to consult WP in any way that asks a tiny bit of logic from these people." Stijn Calle 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The categories "Members of *" indeed cannot inherit from the Category:Belgian politicians. They should inherit from Category:Political parties in Belgium or one of its sub-cats. Intangible 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
@Stijn : Yes, the world would be a better place if everyone would have your superior intelligence.--LucVerhelst 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I do not have, and have never implied to have a superior intelligence; the comment is not appropriate and insulting; i was trying to make a legitimate point, although be it, not understood in this case by you, perhaps it is because i cannot clearly enough describe what i want to say, or the language, or the lack of time; insulting is easy option out, i did not start it, and i will certainly not continue it. Stijn Calle 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it, though, if you could ellaborate on the legitimate point you were trying to make, and that I didn't understand.
My point was, that the average user of WP doesn't have, and can not be expected to have, a lot of knowledge about the Belgian political system. If someone is on the Louis Michel article, and wants to find other Belgian politicians, he/she is not likely to click on the Category:Members of MR, although that would be the logic thing to do. Only, it's only logic if you know the Belgian parties.
I'm just trying to put myself in the place of the reader, for whom these categories have been made.--LucVerhelst 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe the "Members of *" categories are a very good idea, and should certainly be kept, next to the "Belgian politician" category. --LucVerhelst 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Alpha Phi Omega honorary brothers

The Philippine Student Societies tag is correct. Alpha Phi Omega has separate National Organizations in the United States and the Philippines. Carlos P. Rómulo has been made an honorary brother of Both National Organizations. Also, the United States and Philippines Student societies categories are not in a category/subcategory relationship. Naraht 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category changes

Hi, I noticed that you have been updating and changing some of the Category tags on the various articles relating to Freemasonry. They all seem logical, and I do not have any objections to what you have done... but because these pages are often targets of vandalism, we are cautious about undiscussed changes. May I ask that you discuss these changes on the relevant talk pages or at the Category:Freemasonry page before making them? Or perhaps you could add any new category tags you think are appropriate, but leave the ones already in place alone until discussion has occured. Thanks Blueboar 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not vandalising, but bringing order into what still too much of a chaos. I will try not to forget diskussing topics before performing them. Stijn Calle 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that you were vandalizing. Sorry if I gave that impression. Please do continue editing... just discuss first. Thanks Blueboar 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Belgium

Hallo,

hierbij een uitnodiging voor dit WikiProject: neem eens een kijkje, lid worden kost geen geld en er wordt niet van je verwacht!

grtz, Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Wappen-lovania.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cvlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cvlogo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ernestine duchies

You added Category:Upper Saxon Circle to the Ernestine duchies article. I don't think that is appropriate, as only five of the duchies (Saxe-Weimar, Saxe-Eisenach, Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Gotha and Saxe-Altenburg) were members of the Upper Saxon Circle. I think it is more appropriate to add those five duchies to the category, but not the whole group of duchies. -- Donald Albury 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Royalist versus Monarchist

I observe that you changed both Royalist and Monarchism to record your opinion that the two concepts are different. I do not think these are minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

a Royalist stems from the latin word Rex (king), a person who rules a kingdom. It points to the individual who was king. A Monarch isn't necessary a king. He can be a prince, duke, etc. It point to the institution, a monarchy, a system of government. In Contintental Europe the distinction is made between people who adhere to a Royal (King), e.g. royalty and everythings it surrounds (glamour etc.), whilst adherence to a system (Monarchy) of governement is semantically linked to monarchy. The words are not synonymous. Stijn Calle 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of your opinion. I'm commenting on the fact that you are making significant changes to the content of these articles, and I believe it is inappropriate to mark these changes as minor. You may also wish to post your reasoning for these changes in the Talk pages for the two articles. --RichardVeryard 19:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I observe that the vast majority of your edits are marked as minor. Please read the guidance on minor edits. --RichardVeryard 19:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:House of Saxe

I've nominated this category that you created for deletion, as the 'House of Saxe' as such doesn't exist: all the houses named like 'Saxe-Altenburg', etc. are sub-houses of the House of Wettin and the 'Saxe' is just an abbreviation of 'Saxony', as they all ruled subdivisions of Saxony (and technically all bore the title 'Duke of Saxony'). Therefore, they should just be listed under Category:House of Wettin, and I've moved them there. Thanks! —smigs 23:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French nobility categories

Hey - just a note on categories for Dukes and Counts of France: if an article already links to a subcategory of Counts or Dukes of France, there is no need to add it to the Counts/Dukes of France main category. For example: Counts of Verdun already links to the Category:Counts of Verdun, which is a subcat of Counts of France. Thanks- NYArtsnWords 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey - I noticed that you are still over categorizing (as, for example, on Counts of Rouergue). Once again, if a list of nobility is already in a category which is itself a subcategory of Dukes of France or Counts of France etc., please do not also include it in those main cats. Thanks -- NYArtsnWords 19:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
ok, but then all these lists should go into one category of their own en:category:Lists of French nobility Stijn Calle 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
sure, all the lists should be placed in the Lists of French nobility category and also in the Dukes/Counts of... category they refer to. Although, to tell the truth, I don't quite see the point anymore of the Lists of French nobility category... it may have served a purpose once, but now it just seems like wiki book-keeping to me. --NYArtsnWords 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

When moving articles, please ensure that you then fix any double redirects caused by the move. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I just came here to say what Kirill just said. Also, moving a page from "List of counts (or dukes etc.) ..." to simply "Counts (dukes etc.) of ..." is defensible and even makes sense, but moving "County of (or principality of, etc.) ..." to "Counts (or princes etc.) of ..." is not usually. Srnec 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
the logic in moving Counts to County and vice versa is that at this moment, information about the actual state, historic region, and historic rulers are all mixed up. I'm trying to sort them out, so that a more clear description of each will result. Stijn Calle 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand. But where a stub of a region/state exists with a list of rulers, it would be better to simply copy and paste the list to a new page then to move the article (with the information on the region/state) to a page named "Rulers of...", no? Please, continue to sort, but you should also fix any double redirects you create (redirects to redirects). Srnec 18:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coats of arms

Be sure that the coats of arms you provide were actually those used by the persons whose articles you add them to! I doubt that any duke of Gascony was using a coat of arms in the tenth century. Srnec 23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Their is a difference between a personal coat of arms (which belongs only to one person), and a territorial coat of arms. E.g. the count of a county has the right te use the coat of arms of his county (on its own). It he happens to be also duke of another duchy, he has also got the right to use the coat of arms of that particular duchy (on its own). His personal coat of arms could be something totally different, e.g. a combination of both coat of arms in a unique combination, that only applies for that person. If I use coat of arms with counts, etc, I use them almost uniquely as a territorial coat of arms, not a personal coat of arms. Only in few cases, this would be factually wrong, in most cases, it is applicable. Stijn Calle 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand. However, this type of distinction would only have arisen later, and not as early as the tenth century, where "coat of arms" is anachronistic in any sense. Personal coats of arms are, as far as I can see, the only arms necessary for biographies. Leave the territorial arms for the articles on the territories, unless a specific individual reshaped his territorial arms. Srnec 20:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freskin of Flanders

Noticed you have moved Freskin to Freskin of Flanders. If you read the article, you will see that it is not categoric that Freskin was Flemish. The point is though, that if even he did originate in Flanders he was never known as Freskin of Flanders and because of his importance in being the common ancestor of very important Scottish families so applying this title is incorrect. He remained unrecorded during his own lifetime — only referred to during the lifetime of his children and grandchildren. So I would ask you to reconsider this change. Thanks. --Bill Reid | Talk 17:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits

Despite my earlier comments, you are continuing to mark the vast majority of your edits as minor. But many of your edits are clearly substantial rather than minor - I think the discussion on this page provides some evidence of this. Can I please ask you again to read and follow the guidance on minor edits. --RichardVeryard 00:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will read the article and apply the principles. Stijn Calle 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/i/User_talk%7EStijn_Calle_6ba7.html"