User talk:David Kernow/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Order of Categories

David,

Thanks for cleaning up some of my most recent edits. I have been changing the order of the Categories in an Article, placing them in alphabetical order for easy reference. It also occurred to me that the least important Categories are the Birth & Death years; that's why I have been placing them at the end of the list. Any problems with this?

Michael David 12:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Any clearing up has been coincidental; as I guess you've noticed, I've been trying to sort out Category:Capital punishment and subcategories. As regards category order, I order alphanumerically, which is what appears to be the Wikipedia consensus. Hence the birth/death categories appear first (unless there are templates/stubs active in the article).
Regards, David Kernow 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Gas Chamber >Lethal Gas

Hello again,

Regarding changing the Executions Category title from 'gas chanber' to 'lethal gas', I just assumed because it was called the 'gas chamber' that would be the appropriate title for it. If you felt it would confuse the holocaust victims - they were murdered not executed. Thoughts?

Michael David 16:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I've reverted the change, inserted a note at the top of Category:Executions by gas chamber and am now considering a Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps for people such as Olga Benário Prestes. However, (a) Wikipedia is currently very slow here; and (b) I'm wondering why such a category doesn't already exist, or whether I've missed it. I see from what appears to be the closest candidate, Category talk:Victims of Nazi justice that some disquiet over its name has been voiced recently, something I would share. Until Wikipedia responds more quickly again, though, I won't try searching for a previous renaming debate at WP:CfD. Assuming Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps is retained, perhaps a more general parent category is desirable, as not all victims of the Holocaust were killed in concentration camps... Alternatively, perhaps Category:Individual victims of the Nazi Holocaust is a solution...?
Thanks for your alert, David Kernow 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Try Category:Nazi concentration camp victims Michael David 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh yes – thanks!  David 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Name order query

Hi Corey,
As you're the first entry in the Japanese Wikipedians category, you have the immense privilege and honor of helping me with what I'm sure is an easy query to handle. Currently the article on Muto Akira begins "Akira Muto (1883 – 23 December 1948) was a...". Which of "Muto" and "Akira" is his first name and family name?  Thanks, David Kernow 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to your message, I'm pretty sure Akira is his first name, and Muto his last. In Japanese, the last name comes before the first. So in a westernized form, it's Akira Muto, but in Japanese it's Muto Akira. Cowmeister88 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks – I've moved Muto Akira to Akira Muto and will accept any and all flak should other folk convince me that this is a mistake. Best wishes, David Kernow 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Halaal article move

David, thanks for chiming in on the move vote. I suspect that the article was previously located at Halal, since there's an existing talk page for it. (As a result, I couldn't simply move the article myself.) Is there an easy way to find out if there was a previous vote? I'd be interested in seeing what rationale there may have been to support the move. Thanks! quadratic 10:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

As I guess you realise, it's possible a previous vote was lost if/when someone moved the article from "Halal" to "Halaal" (or back again) and manually cut'n'pasted it rather than using the Requested moves procedure... It might be possible to find out whether or not this happened by (say) posting your query at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, where a passing admin more knowledgeable than us might help. (Not sure how often that area is visited, however.) Curiosity aside, I'd just plug on with the present vote. Regards, David Kernow 10:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi David, it's been several days now and there have been five supporting votes without a single vote in opposition. What's the next step to make the move actually happen? quadratic 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Admins monitoring the Requested moves page (most often User:Nightstallion) act on the outcome of surveys after around five days to a week, so Halaal will probably be moved anon. Looking at the Requested moves page, it's fourth in line. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Very good. Thanks again for your help. I'd not gone through the move process before. quadratic 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No signature

Sorry about the oversight. Hasdrubal 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No prob; I even {{unsigned}} myself from time to time!  Best wishes, David Kernow 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

French nobility (and using languages etc other than English)

Hi Septentrionalis,
"I should prefer Gabriel, Count Montgomery, leaving the first line as it is."
I was thinking of proposing that all articles on French nobility follow what seems to be a norm outside Wikipedia that French is used for French nobles' names, but on second thoughts I fear the amount of time and energy required to placate various factions doesn't match my interest in the subject. I do feel, however, that it might be misleading to suggest to folk that histories of French nobility etc generally use English translations. If I'd gone so far as to be interested in material on French nobles, I guess I'd be surprised not to see and become acquainted with the relevant French terms. A minority view?
Regards, David Kernow 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is (it seems to me) a fairly consistent predominance of Duke of Anjou, and so forth, for the high nobility, at least in works for a general readership. Scholars tend to be less anglophone than the generality. How far this should be extended is a question, but I tend to go with WP:UE whne there is doubt. Whether Montgomery should fall under this rule is (to my mind) a question of how he is actually discussed in English; which is one reason I made a talk-page note. Septentrionalis 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to be a little uncharitable, I'd might suggest this view proposes a "That's the way it is, so that's the best/most appropriate/whatever way for it to be" view... I'd say that since a translation and/or further information about an unfamiliar is (or can be) but a click away with a resource such as Wikipedia, there's less rather than more reason to (keep) drop(ping) to an anglophone-based lowest common denominator as regards issues such as foreign words, diacritics, etc etc. But I'm not on a crusade and have no plans to launch one, at least not for the time being!  Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts, David 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for continuing once more; I think you misunderstand my position. Let me rant just a little. I don't think anglophony is the lowest common denominator; I think it's the appropriate policy for an English encyclopedia. Consider the interlanguage links for London, United States, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - hardly any of them use the English name. That's the right policy, and en.wikipedia should follow it. Septentrionalis 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake; "anglophone-based lowest common denominator" was a poor description. (So much for my being an English-speaking person!)  Rather, I don't see why something "in English" need be restricted to English, especially when it addresses topics regarding other countries or languages; and especially when enlightenment as regards unfamiliar words, characters, diacritics, etc need only be a click away...?  Regards, David 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't restrict things to English; there are those who do, and they are a pain, like all the other nationalisms. I think the (quite frequent) situation of having the article name in English and the first line bold in the other language works quite well. (The other language WPs usually don't do this much; the Russian article on Wellington is being generous in giving the English in parentheses.) Septentrionalis 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly to be preferred, I'd say, to having no mention at all of the original names/titles. Ah well, c'est la... oops; that's life!  Yours, David 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Palin

Your move of Robert Palin to Robert Thomas Palin was contrary to accepted practice and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which state that "names in the format <First name> <Last name> are usually the least problematic as page name for an article on a single person.". Generally moves away from the most simple and obvious title are undertaken only if the original title needs to be disambiguated. It is widely accepted that the article title need not match the emboldened words in the lead; see for example George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, Elvis Presley, etcetera ad nauseum. I have moved it back. Snottygobble 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh. Sorry about that; thanks for the pointer and reversion. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Duplicates

David,

I just finished editing the Article on Walter Capps, a US Representative from California. The Article is titled 'Walter Capps'. I then discovered this same person has another Article titled 'Walter H. Capps'. What's the procedure for dealing with this?

Michael David still learning.

Hello again Michael,
"I just finished editing the Article on Walter Capps, a US Representative from California. The Article is titled 'Walter Capps'. I then discovered this same person has another Article titled 'Walter H. Capps'. What's the procedure for dealing with this?"
My understanding (re Wikipedia in general, not just re articles) is that in lieu of any other considerations, keep/merge/work with whatever was around before you arrived on the scene. This is what I think is usually (meant to) happen(s) say as regards American vs British spelling or the like. Thanks to the "in lieu of" proviso, though, I haven't seen this approach arise much beyond parochial matters such as spelling. So, in the case of your Walter Capps article, the simplistic argument might be "merge it with the already-existing Walter H. Capps article" except that there are at least two considerations I'd say favor working the situation the other way round:
(a) The original Walter H. Capps article is a very stubby stub; there's much more to your Walter Capps version;
(b) Something I learned only last night – see the message just before yours on my talk page – that the favored naming format for articles about people is <Firstname> <Lastname>, i.e. as with your Walter Capps article.
So I'd say keep your version and mark the Walter H. Capps one for speedy deletion with a reason such as "Superseded by Walter Capps" (i.e. put {{db|Superseded by [[Walter Capps]]}} at the very top of the Walter H. Capps article); comment-out its assigned categories; and add it to your watchlist to see what happens. If you try this and receive flak as a result, please redirect any and all of it to me.
Best wishes, David 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

voting

Hi Philip,
"...should be altered to remove the word "voting"..."
Neither for nor against, but am wondering how many other folk coming by this might also wonder why "voting" is problematic...?  Regards, David Kernow 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

See the long discussions in the archive of Wikipedia talk:Consensus --Philip Baird Shearer 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer; I see there's a whole host of issues contained therein. Perhaps some folk feel that "voting" is tainted thanks to its use by politics in the wider world. For me, though, here in the context of Wikipedia, saying that I support one idea (without necessarily rejecting all others) and saying that I vote for that idea (again, without that making me unable to vote for any others) amounts to the same action. Regards, David Kernow 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

cfr templates

Hi. I have no objections to anyone making improvements to the templates. They could probably use some work. However, I felt that the changes you made weren't particularly helpful. Centering text tends to reduce readability, which is important in a template that people are likely to scan instead of carefully read.

Thanks for your response. Curiously, I find centering particularly significant text aids my scanning, but I realise this is but one experience.

In any case, the center tag is deprecated, and its use should be avoided.

Apologies; I was under the impression that <center> was a standard HTML element. I take the "Deprecated in favor of <div> with centering defined using CSS" at the above link to mean use (the more long-winded) <div style=text-align:center> ... </div>; is that correct?
That would work, providing you remember to quote it properly.

You also inserted an additional comment into the template, and I can't discern what purpose it could serve. - EurekaLott 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, I realise I didn't understand that the original comment only makes sense when the template has been subst:d somewhere. How about rewording the comment along the lines of "Please do not remove or change this CfD/CfR message until the survey and discussion at WP:CfD is closed", i.e. using something less vague than "the issue is settled"...?
Best wishes, David Kernow 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Something to that effect would probably be a good idea. - EurekaLott 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, have replaced opening comment on the main Cf templates with the above and will await (any) reaction. Thanks also for confirming the <div > syntax. Yours, David 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Newcastle upon Tyne media

You voted just before I posted my explanation of what happened here. It is only empty because all the articles were moved a couple of days ago. That was renaming without a vote, which is improper. "X media" is preferable, and should be read as short for "Media based in X". Most of the media available in Newcastle or almost any other city is from outside. Could you please reconsider your vote? CalJW 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure; have just amended it. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory

Hello Liu Bei,
I note that your reversion of my work on the above has caused:
  • The reintroduction of more than one wikilink per entry, contrary to a well-established Manual of Style convention;
  • The loss of a new entry;
  • The reintroduction of more than one entry without any wikilink to the item being disambiguated (e.g. the Joseph Conrad novel, the definitions of victories);
  • The removal of subject headings intended to aid those seeking disambiguation;
  • The reintroduction of material more suited to the Wikitionary (definitions of types of victory) and Wikiquote (quotes about or involving the concept of victory).
Perhaps we might work together to resolve the current loss of the above?  Thanks, David Kernow 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to your post on [Talk:Victory] regarding substantial revision to this disambiguation page. Liu Bei 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(From Talk:Victory:) "...Just because no one's gotten around to making a page for the Joseph Conrad novel victory doesn't mean we should strike all knowledge of it from everywhere else"
I think you might've missed how I handled this entry; I don't recall deleting it, but upgrading it to a redlink...
"The definitions/uses of victory (pyrrhic victory and quote from Apocalypse now) is exactly the kind of broad-web I enjoy in Wikipedia and suits its primary purpose -- to inform."
Have posted my reponse back at Talk:Victory as others may be able to confirm and/or enlighten. Thanks for your reply, David 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:People killed by the Third Reich

Thanks for spotting the above; as you've probably guessed, I'm currently working my way through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts (formerly "Victims of Nazi justice") removing any (hopefully all) articles that may be categorised under Category:People killed by the Third Reich. (Cf ...#Recategorisation?)
Does Category:People killed by the Third Reich seem a reasonable name / parent category?
Thanks again, David Kernow 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it. The name is perfect, IMO, as it is both comprehensive and neutral. In the future, perhaps a Category:Executed Sturmabteilung members could be added and included in there as a subcat, so all possible meanings of the term "killed" are covered, and the relation between political repression in Nazi Germany and contrasting political groups may be established. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Dahn 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'll keep your page on my watchlist as a reminder to let you know when I've finished trawling through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts. I don't know how many articles there are or might be about murdered SA members, but beyond Röhm and maybe one or two others, I wouldn't've thought it was that many...?  Regards, David 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories ...

Hi, and thanks for your continuing support. I had a couple of questions and I didn't know who I should ask.

  1. Do you know how I can tell how long a category has been empty? I can tell from the history when it was blanked, but really that's not the same thing, since category membership is really a property of the individual articles, and not of the categories themselves.
  2. On a related note, is there any way to tell what a category used' to contain? I'd like to restore Category:Persian deities.
  3. Do you know who I would ask about refreshing the uncategorized categories list? I think its mostly done and I'm beginning to lose track of which ones I've done already.

Thanks in advance for your help -- Eric also known as ProveIt (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Eric,
...
Thanks for your message and for thinking I could help with the above – unfortunately, the brief answer to all is "I don't know..." but I'd be confident that one of the admins who frequent WP:CfD (Syrthiss, TexasAndroid, William Allen Simpson, etc) would have some idea and maybe the tools for the job. I'm going to keep your page on my watchlist as I too would like to find out more about these questions.
Meanwhile, I'm happy to support your work as it's great housekeeping and indicates what hasn't worked out to folk like me who follow the CfD page. Thanks!  Best wishes, David Kernow 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I've asked my questions to William Allen Simpson, so we may get an answer soon ... -- ProveIt (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

E Pluribus Anthony

Hi there - thanks for your help and interest on Template_talk:Regions_of_the_world. I haven't replied to the latest comments because I suspect that User:E Pluribus Anthony and User:A the 0th are sockpuppets. I have referred them to WP:RCU and you might wish to follow the progress of that case there. Thanks. Andeggs 07:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This has now been confirmed - he is a sockpuppet. Andeggs 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your message, Andeggs. It's disappointing to discover User:E Pluribus Anthony is likely to've been using a sockpuppet, as, if memory serves, s/he has otherwise been constructive. As regards the template, I'm not sure if/how/when to proceed...?  Regards, David Kernow 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Foxe Peninsula

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,
"(clean up using AWB)"
Foxe Peninsula still happens to be on my watchlist, so your recent edit has left me wondering whether you or AWB itself automatically moved [[Category:Peninsulas of Nunavut]] above {{Nunavut-geo-stub}}...?  I suspect it's the latter, in which case I'm minded to ask User:Bluemoose to review and/or make optional this behaviour. Thanks, David Kernow 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It apeears to be the default of the AWB but don't hold Martin responsible it was myself that choose to accept the edit. I am picking up all Nunavut related articles because so many of them don't appear to be on watchlists as I noticed that vandalism may sit for several days or they just need updating. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply – as it seems this behaviour is an AWB default, I'll enquire after it; I'm not convinced it should be presented fait accompli regardless of whether an AWB user then accepts it or not. I've made my initial enquiry here. (Perhaps better made elsewhere?)  Regards, David 16:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I was basing it on the reply from SeventyThree at Querying category/stub order apparently used by AWB as default and the fact that it appears they get manually sorted in the same way as in this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt response, CambridgeBayWeather (short form "Cambridge" or "Cantab" or...?). I've copied most of the below to Querying category/stub order apparently used by AWB as default to save my rewriting it there:
"I was basing it on the reply from SeventyThree at Querying category/stub order apparently used by AWB as default ..."
Apologies; I hadn't yet spotted the additions to Querying category/stub order apparently used by AWB as default. Having just read them, however, it seems to me that there's no consensus for the order category-stub. Bluemoose/Martin links to this, where the order is stub-category (albeit poorly spaced); and Valentinian states his preference as "stub templates + categories + interwiki links", i.e. stub-category(-interwiki). I'm puzzled by SeventyThree's observation that "People seem to prefer having the stub-categories after any other categories" as my experience of Wikipedia thus far overwhelmingly indicates the reverse; on those few occasions I have found stubs following categories, it's been on very stubby article pages that have poor/no formatting anyway. Whether editors place stubs above or below categories in a page's source, the software displays the categories at the bottom of the page, so it seems to make sense to me to mimic that ordering. (I suggest all this in lieu of Bugzilla:167, for which I and others have voted, but I guess the powers that be are kept so busy...)
...As an experiment, I've just examined the first five pages with stub/s offered by Special:Randompage: Stjerneborg; Llan Ffestiniog; Naming taboo; Peter Kraus; and Sun Television and Appliances. All have their {{X-stub}} entries placed above their [[Category:...]] entries. I'll try another five anon...
Regards, David Kernow 12:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The other thing I did forget to mention is that in a lot of cases there does need to be a second space before the stub tag to accommodate the picture that is quite often included. In Lamiya Abed Khadawi an extra space would have helped improve the look no matter if the stub was first or last. I am still missing something, what is the "<!--Categories-->" and "<!--Other languages-->" for? Is that so newer editors don't delete them thinking they are un-needed? Also, if you want to change them back I'm not bothered and won't attempt to revert. I only accepted it because it wa the default and assumed that was the popular/preferred choice. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"The other thing I did forget to mention is that in a lot of cases there does need to be a second space before the stub tag to accommodate the picture that is quite often included. In Lamiya Abed Khadawi an extra space would have helped improve the look no matter if the stub was first or last ..."
If you mean something like...
 == External links ==
 * {{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4489857.stm |
     title=Iraqi woman MP killed in Baghdad |date=[[2005-04-27]]|publisher=[[BBC]] News}}


 {{Iraq-politician-stub}


 [[Category:2005 deaths|Khadawi, Lamiya Abed]]
 [[Category:Iraqi politicians|Khadawi, Lamiya Abed]]
...then I agree; the above is how I'd space it. Even without the blank lines either side of {{Iraq-politican-stub}}, however, the order is stub-then-categories, i.e. mimicking the order displayed on the page.
"I am still missing something, what is the "<!--Categories-->" and "<!--Other languages-->" for? Is that so newer editors don't delete them thinking they are un-needed?"
Partly; also simply to mark the transition from article to metadata (in lieu of Bugzilla:167). It's entirely my invention, so am not pushing for its retention by AWB, etc.
"Also, if you want to change them back I'm not bothered and won't attempt to revert. I only accepted it because it wa the default and assumed that was the popular/preferred choice..."
If someday I ever manage to return to the Canadian articles above, I'll doubtless switch the order. Meanwhile, however, I'm puzzled that AWB presents what seems to me (a) a (re)ordering contrary to what seems Wikipedia's norm (cf example of the first five stub articles found at random), which (b) is a norm that seems sensible as it mimics the order in which the information appears on article pages. I wonder if there's an agenda at work here... I'll ask Martin where a record of the consensus for this categories-then-stubs order might be found – and some indication why it seems to be near-universally ignored...
Thanks for your input, David 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I'll keep a watch on the AWB page and see if there is an update. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Military people" versus "military personnel"

In an amusing coincidence, we're discussing this very issue (along with a few other questions about the naming of those categories) at the Military history WikiProject; you might want to weigh in if you have any good arguments for either of the two versions. Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me toward the above; my first thought would be to favor "personnel", but I realise this has / can have stronger connotations than "people". (What I would suggest is unhelpful, however – especially bearing in mind that many non-native English speakers use Wikipedia – is the use of nouns as adjectives in the naming format "X people"; e.g. "American Civil War people", "War against the Peru-Bolivian Confederacy people" (!), etc.)  For the time being, I think I'll remain an interested observer, as there are a couple of other Wikipedia/Commons issues I and others happen to be working through at present. No guarantees, though, that I might not throw in a suggestion or three if anything occurs to me!  Thanks again, David Kernow 18:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: user comma-splice

"This user fixes comma splices as they are annoying."
Wholeheartedly agree. How did the phenomenon ever come to be?  (Yes, rhetorical.)  Best wishes, David Kernow 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...should we create a "WikiProkect No Comma Splices"? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 02:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Chuckle... Actually, since I started editing Wikipedia in earnest, I reckon I've come by fewer examples than I might've expected. Meanwhile, however, there's always "its"/"it's"... I think editing Wikipedia is turning me into a grammar nut... Yours, David 02:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubs and categories.

Greetings David. I just realized that my last post on Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser was unclear. We both have the same observation, that the standard order is stubs-then-categories, and it would be great if AWD used the same order. Sorry for making an unclear post. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, Valentinian. What I think is needed is some more say in which of the "general fixes" AWB applies – of which this categories-stubs/stubs-categories order is one – rather than the "all or none" presently offered. Ironically, I'm starting to think the categories-then-stubs order currently applied by AWB (and presumably Martin's preference, without Wikipedia consensus...?) may be preferable – despite the other appearing to be the norm – but I believe AWB needs to offer a choice, unless one of these orders is or becomes policy. I'm intending to post an inquiry at sourceforge.net about making AWB's "general fixes" more configurable; currently, though, I'm a little inundated. (I'd also love to see AWB made available on other wiki, in particular the Commons.)  Best wishes, David Kernow 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

MD Moving

Hi David,

I am going to be moving for the next several days. Included among the usual disruption and chaos that goes with this, I will need to stop - then reconnect - my Internet service. I don’t know how long this will take since I am at the mercy of my cable provider. As soon as I am reconnected I'll let you know.

Be healthy.

Michael David 09:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your note; I hope the chaos and hassle is a minimum. My sorting out executions and other unpleasant demises here is currently stalled as (a) I'm involved in a complete overhaul of the categorization of maps at the Commons; (b) when I manage to return to Wikipedia, there are various CfD debates I'm involved in, so feel I should continue to acknowledge them; and (c) there's life beyond Wikipedia!  I still intend to return to the work in hand, however; then, finally, to adding material to the encyclopedia once more. Enjoy your enforced break! Yours, David Kernow 13:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello,
The nightmare of moving (both home & office) is finally over. After being trapped in an elevator for two hours – having to be extricated by the fire department; being rear-ended by a Lexus on the expressway; and a much needed complete re-working of both phone and cable lines – I can get back to the (very) relative sanity of everyday. I am considering proposing a new Wiki Category: “Persons who have suffered from post-traumatic moving stress disorder”. Oh well, it was an adventure. I look forward to picking up where I left off in Wiki.
Be healthy,
Michael David 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
David,
No wish to revert – not yet anyway. Life is back to the same organized chaos – just different geography. Right now in Wiki I’m taking some time to do some housekeeping with my Watch List, and I have two proposals for Delete/Rename now being debated. 1) To finally deal with that outdated Category term “apoplexy” (1.37 on the June 18th list) – hoping people will finally call it for what it means today: “stroke”; and to deal with that most troublesome Category regarding depression (1.1 on the June 17th list). Please take a look and see what you think.
Thanks & be healthy,
Michael David 01:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Victory

Two things to discuss here. First, should strategic vistory be "a success" while tactical victory is simply "success"?

...Apologies; I also meant to amend the "tactical victory" description similarly. Have now done so.
    • "Tactical victory", success in battle without substantive or long-lasting gain.
    • "Strategic victory", a success in a military campaign.

Second, it is my opinion that military campaign should be linked. MoS:DP recommends no more than one link per line - without an article on "strategic victory", the option is open to link something else. I think that strategic victory is difficult to actually understand without understanding the term, military campaign, which is the context of that victory. Many people mistakenly believe that a strategic victory is just a more impressive tactical victory (see Talk:Battle of Antietam#Victory for the South for one such example inspired by the former state of the Victory page) or that it's part of a battle (your own - "the successful completion of a step in a battle plan") or something vague ("fulfilling a set goal, or criteria for success, leading to a next step in a plan for total victory"[1]). --Habap 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I reinstated the descriptions of different types of victory to accommodate User:Liu Bei (see the article's recent history and talk page comments). Personally, it's my opinion that this kind of material belongs on a(n interwiki-linked) Wiktionary page, especially considering the refinements you (understandably) suggest. What do you think?
Yours, David Kernow 21:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories for deletion: Aircraft by country

Could I ask you to look at this one again please? The "Ships by country" category mentioned as a comparison is used to classify ships by the country of their operation. These aircraft categories are not used in this way, they are for the country of original manufacture. I think the change to Aircraft of Foo is going to alter the meaning of the category, i.e. from "Aircraft manufactured in Foo" to "Aircraft used in Foo". This would change the nature of the category entirely, and in many cases mean dozens of additional categories on each article. JW 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention back to this one. I agree that there would be a shift in implied meaning, so have amended my vote. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)