User talk:David Kernow/Archive 7

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

Category:Government ministers by country

Sorry to vote against your nomination, even though I had suggested it. I should have checked the nameing conventions before I said anything about it. -- Eric ProveIt (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem; as I guess you've already seen from the discussion, I'm also moving toward an "in"/"of" distinction. Best wishes, David Kernow 14:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Lists of schools sharing the same name

Please revisit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 8#Category:Lists of schools sharing the same name to Category:Lists of educational institutions sharing the same name and if necessary, modify your vote. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Usgnus 04:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to notify Carina22 and me about the above; I've modified my vote to (the admittedly long) Category:Disambiguation pages for educational institutions sharing the same name as the articles are disambiguation rather than "List of" pages. If you think of something more succinct, post it at the CfD discussion and I should see it sooner or later. Best wishes, David Kernow 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Possibly living people

Thanks for the messages and the chance to clarify or change position. I don't like the construction. I don't like the alternative much either; both seem to allow for the possibility of a person being both dead and alive. Without being metaphysical here, people tend to be either dead or alive, so that they are not "possibly living" and are not "maybe alive". It's just that the collective *we* don't know. For example, Jimmy Hoffa is either dead or alive he's not "possibly living" and he's not "maybe alive".

...at which point I was thinking of Jimmy Hoffa inside a box cuddling this!

Perhaps the clunkier but more accurate view is something akin to Category:People who have disappeared and not returned. I think the have could also be moved following the "and" and sound more like USA-English. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I consider "People who disappeared" to be less ambiguous than "Disappeared people" as a shortened form of "Category:People who (have) disappeared and (have) not returned". Thanks for your thoughts (and entertaining imagery!)  David 17:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming of category:Anthropological categories of people

I have pointed out in the discussion that Category:Anthropological categories is a duplicate of Category:Anthropology, which contains a wide range of categories which are not about peoples. Osomec 13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message pointing out the above, Osomec; I've now withdrawn my vote as I recognise sorting out these categories is something for folks more anthropological than myself. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Street Names List

You may not have been aware that we already have Category:Streets and squares by city. This category is effectively a duplicate and what is the point of having a separate category with the word "names" in the title? I see little value in this category, and the fact that it has started with two cities in Eastern Europe at this late stage shows that it is eccentric. Streets can be also categorised by country within Category:Roads by country. That system is well established too. I have proposed a merger and would ask you to consider that option. Chicheley 23:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I wasn't aware of this category, so have now amended my vote accordingly. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Have any idea on why

I'm seeing this sort of varying content shift when looking back at things? I definitely saw maps combining on the en.wikipedia page when moving stuff ten days back. Now things no longer seem to be an 'AND' list here, so to speak. Puzzling! // FrankB 12:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Per your thoughts here, you're uncovering the bottleneck currently between the Commons and its sister Wikimedia projects. No simple action to suggest save your asking someone like Duesentrieb (Daniel Kinzler, mentioned in the Wikimedia Commons article linked above) and/or other Commons admins/bureaucrats (I use method mentioned here to identify them). Regards, David Kernow 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
PS [...]
Just a heads up and that I'm checking in for messages on diverse matters. Will probably be inactive on maps, etc. through at least the end of the coming weekend. Also need to put some time into prior projects. If I do anything, will be to cat some stuff into the middle ages categories to ensure all have some content to counter the deletionist tendencies on en.wikipedia.
RU doing anything to formalize a wikiproject and if so, what can I do to help? Considering the same deletionists tendencies, that would seem to be a moderately high priority given the waste of things being deleted, undeleted, etc.! // FrankB 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your contact; asking after you was on my to-do list but my attention has also been needed elsewhere. As regards maps and categories etc I've been looking into country subdivision methods (for the sake of classifying locator maps) and found an open can of worms, but one I believe may be sealed acceptably. At present I'm awaiting information from a Branch Chief of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)'s Political Geography Division!
I'm not doing anything to formalize a Wikiproject as I don't want people to come across it and start thinking I'm responsible for it; I'm happy, however, to support and contribute to one. Once I return to the maps on the Commons, any overview information I'd add would probably be in the form of a "Commons:Map categories" page or the like.
Hope all well beyond Wikipedia, David 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)