User talk:Dugwiki/070228 archive

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.

Welcome!

Hello, Dugwiki, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! ,

Dan has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

, Daniel5127, 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Role-playing --> Roleplaying

It's best to nominate all categories at once and not as speedy. -- Usgnus 20:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'm going through manually searching for pages currently looking for "role-play" as a spelling. I don't have a list of all categories and pages with "role-play" instead of "roleplay", but I'll see what I can do. It would be a lot easier if someone more knowledgable were able to do a bot for this.  :) Dugwiki 20:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Role-playing_games#Changing_Role-playing_to_roleplaying.3F -- Usgnus 20:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: Don't just search-and-replace text in a page; it breaks the categories and you end up with redlinks for all the articles with parenthesised parts to their names. Make sure you put redirects in or move the articles linked to from the pages you change. Percy Snoodle 15:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I've been trying to do. I search and replace, then start correcting any bad links. Dugwiki 15:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Books_by_Michael_de_Larrabeiti

It was great to see that someone had added the above. I thought I was the only MdeL fan on Wikipedia, or certainly the only one who was prepared to work on the articles. How did you come to be aware of de Larrabeiti? And would you be prepared to do some more work on MdeL articles?

Assuming, of course, that you are not one of these wonderful editors who actually put in the work of editing things that they are not personally interested in, but still need doing...--James Kemp 14:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just one of those editors who edits things I've never heard of. The Larrabetti pages came up on a list of uncategorized articles, so I created the new category. Never heard of the guy, personally. Glad you like the category, though. Take care.  :) Dugwiki 15:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving roleplaying

I have just fixed the mess you made. Pages must only be made by using the move tab at the top of the page (see Help:Moving a page). They must not be made by a cut and past move because it destroys the history of the article which is important for copyright purposes. The whole point of WP:RM is to ask administrators to help you move a page when it is blocked by other edits. It would have been far easier for me to do the move without having to merge in histories, so in future please do not use cut and past to move the content of a page to a new name . --Philip Baird Shearer 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Sorry if I made a mess on some of the articles. Dugwiki 22:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Sculpture Parks

I see you've AfDd this page. In the state it was in I can see why you would have felt that way. It was alone and unloved. If you look at it today there is outwardly little difference, however there are substantial enough differences which will, I hope, be significant for you.

Granted there are only two more parks (or park locations) listed. But it now has inbound links from the parks it lists and thus has a better ability to grow. In general an inbound link from a similar page creates sufficient stimulus for an editor to add an item to a list.

Parks are starting to have a mini-synopsis against them, thus beating a pure category hands down.

It also has, correctly, the status of an Incomplete List.

No longer does it have the {{linkless}} tag because it is not

What I hope you will consider is revising your opinion and withdrawing your nomination. Obviously it can also run until due date of consensus, and I see nothing wrong with that, except it is more work to add to an incomplete list (other pages need to be linked to it for the list to work) that and "ordinary" article, and thus people are discouraged from putting in a great deal of labour while it is AfD.

Fiddle Faddle 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, adding the summaries of the park info is good. My main concern was that the list, as it stood when I first read the article, had no new information beyond what the category offered. Adding the summaries and other info addresses that issue nicely. I posted to keep the article on the discussion page. Dugwiki 15:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that is win:win, and precisely what AfD is for Fiddle Faddle 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

acrodynia

You've made a (very understandable) mistake while adding a category to this article: please read the new acrodynia intro and maybe learn something! --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 13:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. The article appeared on the "uncategorized" list, and it looked to me at the time like it would be classified as either a medical sign or symptom indicative of an underlying disease or poisoning. Thanks for the clarification. Dugwiki 15:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

aardbalm comment posted to wrong page

(Below was a comment from another user that was accidentally posted to my user page instead of this talk page) Dugwiki 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have adjusted the letter 3 times - I cannot reduce it anymore, aardbalm is an embalming chemical, it goes under a trade name aardbalm which is swahili for mud. I have been trying to learn how to right a presentation on it without it being seen as an advert. I have tried one more time to adjust it and hope that it meets with your agreement.

Edit summary request

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

13% for major edits and 5% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your article changes. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I put summaries in when I think they're necesssary. Most of the time, though, the summary doesn't appear necessary because the change is either trivial or obvious when looking at the diff of the article. I also found that I make enough total changes that adding summaries to trivial changes makes the process less efficient. But thanks for the advice. :) Dugwiki 15:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

John Osborne

Thanks for adding Luther. That one slipped by me (although I actually saw the original production). --El Ingles 20:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I actually edited that as part of a larger recategorization "project" I'm doing to categorize plays by author. Sometimes in the process of doing that I find plays that have names which require disambiguation, so I put in a stub article, like Luther's. Unfortunately I know nothing about the play, so feel free to add whatever info you have on it to the stub article. Later! Dugwiki 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Musicals categories by nationality

Hi. Thanks for creating the German and French categories. I created a bunch of articles and stubs today for German, Austrian and French musicals. But I'm not very technically ept, and I don't know how to create a category. So I put some of the Austrian musicals in with Category:German musicals. Can you please make an Austrian musicals category and move the Vienna ones? Plus, in the big List of musicals, I think there are still a bunch of foreign musicals lurking that need to be tagged, but I've gone crazy with Wiki today, so I'm stopping now. -- Ssilvers 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I made Category:Austrian musicals and included Mozart! in it. In the process, I noticed that there were duplicate articles about Mozart! - one called "Mozart!", and the other called "Mozart (musical)". I merged the two under the Mozart! heading. Hope that helps. :) Dugwiki 04:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks! My mistake. When I created the page, I relied on something that didn't have the name exactly right. --Ssilvers 07:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories on Musicals

Hi! I've noticed you've been putting some Categories on musicals by nationality. That's great! However, when you do so, please do not remove the [[Category:Musicals]] from the musical. It is being used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre to help get a greater sense of the entire scope of Musicals out there and is being added (while not replacing any other Musical related tags) to all musicals on Wikipedia. I am also inclined to suggest that you join this wikiproject (by adding your name to the participants list) as you seem to have interest/expertise in this area. Thank you so much! --omtay38 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, spoke before I looked. I now understand sub-categories. However, the Musicals by nationalities are not being listed as sub-categories on the Category:Musicals page. This may be intentional (as you can tell by my above comment, my understanding of categories is still a little skewed). However, the purpose of adding the [[Category:Musicals]] tag to all the articles was to be able to view them all in one place. --omtay38 17:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad you like the new categories. I also added Musicals by year category templates as well this morning. As far as subcategories, usually a sub-subcategory is still considered a subcategory. All "American musicals" are obviously "Musicals" for example, which is why it would be redundant to list them twice. The set up I used is the same set up used for other "by nationality" and "by year" categories in plays and books and moview. Normally, the only articles that would appear under Category:Musicals would be articles that aren't easily subcategorized.
Are you guys running various bots on all the Wikipedia musical articles using the Musical category? Short of that it seems like having everything listed in the article section is probably redundant. Dugwiki 17:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
No, we have no BOT running, plus (again with my category blindness) I overlooked the two sub-sub-categories (musicals by nationality and musicals by year). It all makes sense to me now! :-) Sorry about my confusion.
By the way, we could really use your help as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. You should consider joining. --omtay38 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Dugwiki. I am convinced by your explanation on the project page and will support your doing it the way you suggest. I think you've been of tremendous assistance with the Musical Theatre project. When you've got the whole category thing worked out to your satisfaction, I'd like to turn to the List of most notable musicals, or whatever we're calling it. You'll see that I left a message on the talk page for that. But I'll be away from July 27 to Aug. 7, so maybe we could do that after I get back. Thanks again! --Ssilvers 23:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

A Tree Full of Secrets

You recently added an "unreferenced" tag to the ATFoS article. I just thought you should know, that bootleg collections of this sort are tricky - the vast majority of the article is easily referenced by a simple look at the collection itself, the sites which created and host it, and its included text files. The tricky bit is that we can't USE any of these as a reference, even though they are primary references, since linking to any of the sites that host or discuss it is usually a potential copyright violation. Any ideas on how we could source it without potential worries about copyright violations? - dharmabum 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you might have a catch 22 here. Wikipedia standards say all articles are supposed to be based on information with verifiable references. They can't rely on original research, such as the article's author owning the CD (see Wikipedia:No original research for details on the policy). Therefore the TFoS article likewise needs to have references in the article itself that people can use to verify the article's statements. Simultaneously, you can't post material that infringes on copyrights, and that probably includes links to pirated copies of music.
Really the only way around the problem that I can see is if you can find an outside, independent article or review of ATFoS from a reliable, established source. You can then use information from THAT source for the article, and link to it. Then remove any information about ATFoS that can't be verified without breaking copyright. So your article is reporting that "such-and-such a news source reports that ATFoS is this, this and this," and isn't linking directly to potentially illegally pirated material. Dugwiki 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Chicago Manual of Style disambig

Just noticed your disambig note for "The Chicago Manual of Style." Since there's only one Chicago Manual of Style, I'm not sure it's needed, but I'm new here. What are you thinking might be ambiguous about the title of the Manual? Best, Cultural Freedom 2006-07-24 19:02 (UTC)

The disam note is due to the article appearing on the Chicago (disambiguation) page. Since it is listed on the disambiguation page, I added the disam link on the style guide article as a cross reference. (Even though the names aren't identical, typically articles on a disam page have a link referencing it.) Dugwiki 19:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Makes sense. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-24 21:57 (UTC)

Abigail Thernstrom

Thanks for your contributions to this article. Good work. Lou Sander 18:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Dugwiki 18:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

The Working Man's Barnstar
For implementing my suggestion for categorizing works of architecture by year. Excellent job. Dystopos 14:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the star. Glad you liked it. :) Dugwiki 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Peacock terms

Hiya, I see that you've been working through a series of articles and doing some cleanup, which is appreciated.  :) However, I'd like to express a concern about what you are calling "peacock terms." Though I agree that some articles definitely do need to be pared down a bit, I don't see the term "best known as", as something that's necessary to brand a peacock term and remove [1][2][3] In those cases, I think that the language is appropriate, especially as the opening paragraph on a Wikipedia article is usually tasked with establishing why a particular subject is notable, especially in cases where the notability is borderline. --Elonka 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, "best known for" and "best known as" is sort of a borderline phrase. It might be appropriate, or it can also be used by someone who ISN'T really known for anything as a way to beef up their article. For example, I've seen articles about people who say they are, for example, "best known for their innovative writing style" or "best known as a founder in his genre", etc. In other words, the phrase can be used as a way to cover up lack of notability by implying that the subject IS known for that topic.
So, depending on the situation, I feel the phrase can fall under peacock terms because it is not conveying additional factual information, but rather is a phrase that can be removed and still leave the actual, verified credentials and awards and resume intact. To me the question becomes this: if the phrase is removed, does the reader still have the same, verifiable information and can the actual, factual information in the article support the subject's case for notability?
I'll use Mike Godwin as an example. The introduction originally said he was "perhaps best known on the Internet as the creator of Godwin's Law". Now reading that sentence, what is almost certainly true is that he did indeed create Godwin's Law. However, it's not nearly as obvious or easily verified that he is "known" for creating the law, let alone "best known" for it. Nor is it immediately obvious that creating Godwin's Law makes him notable. In fact, the word "perhaps" here shows you that the original author of the article wasn't really even sure how true that phrase was. "Perhaps" he is, or "perhaps" he isn't, who knows?
But notice that when I remove the phrase "best known as" from the article and simply tell the reader that he is the creator of Godwin's Law, no verified information is lost (in my opinion). Readers now become aware that he created Godwin's Law, and those readers can then decide whether or not that is a notable or interesting fact.
So basically the phrase "best known for" isn't always useful or even true, and I've found that in a bunch of cases I can remove it completely and the article hasn't lost any real information. Just my opinion. Dugwiki 21:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter J. Hamilton

You have flagged this article as unreferenced. As the initiator of the article, I can confirm that your point is well-taken and will add a couple of citations within the next few days. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Dugwiki 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sources now in, more to follow (he's relevant to an article I'm writing so I'll come across more). I think there's enough there now to have lifted the "unsourced" tab, let me know if you disagree. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks ok to me, although I obviously can't verify them. I just made some minor style changes (put cats at end of the article, and bulleted the references). Dugwiki 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, they're real. :) Hamilton, though flawed, was an interesting guy. Newyorkbrad 20:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fictional [fictional/legendary creature]s" CfD

Hi Dugwiki,
Just to let you know I've added/clarified a thought re this CfD. Best wishes, David Kernow 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I posted a quick reply. Basically I still don't yet see a significant enough difference between "Fictional yetis" and "Yetis in fiction", for example, to do a name change. I see a difference between "Fictional yetis" and "Yetis", though, so in theory I understand having "Fictional yetis" be a subcategory of "Yetis".Dugwiki 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Mark Barnes

Hi, thanks for editing that article a bit. You took out categories you felt were redundant. You may want to think twice before you delete categories you deem redundant, because you seem to be under the impression that if a person is found in a subcategory, they are found in the category. Say, if he's a "New York" lawyer, then he must also be found under the "American Lawyer" page? That's not the case, and you can follow those links to see. Additionally, a person can be a "New York" lawyer and not be an American one; in fact, there are many that would fit that description. The point to listing "American" and "New York" is that he is a notable American attorney, and a notable New York attorney--you removed him from one of the categories. I think you should reconsider removing categories--they rarely are redundant, if they are applicable. Now under "Aids Activism" if a person goes there, they won't see a Barnes article to reference. --DavidShankBone 18:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lawyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_lawyers Category:New York lawyers

Actually, if you read the category descriptions, you'll see you are incorrect in your understanding of Category:American lawyers and Category:New York lawyers. "New York lawyers" refers to notable lawyers who have actively practiced in the state of New York. "American lawyers" refers to lawyers who have actively practiced in the United States. Clearly all lawyers who practice in New York also practice in the United States, and therefore it IS redundant to appear in both categories. Lawyers who practice for the federal government would fall under Category:American federal lawyers. Basically the only lawyers who should appear directly under Category:American lawyers at this point are ones where the article doesn't specify what state or states they have actively practiced in.
Likewise for "Aids Activism" and "Aids Activists". All articles about notable Aids Activists are clearly also notable articles about Aids Activism, and thus it is redundant to appear in both categories simultaneously.
Hope that clears it up for you. Dugwiki 19:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Under your reasoning, then we should eliminate the redundant categories altogether. Barnes is not solely a New York Lawyer. He teaches at Yale Medical School. He held high-profile Washington D.C. jobs. He has gone on secondment for Harvard (see bio). Therefore, he is a New York lawyer AND an American Lawyer in any way you look at it. I disagree as to how youd define the Category:American lawyers and it is your own definition. Point me to a policy on it, though, and I'll concede if you are right. But as a person who has actually used these categories to find people, and as someone in the legal field, I'm letting you know I find it more useful as a User of Wikipedia for this information to have the people listed under both. --DavidShankBone 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
copied and pasted and replied under the article's discussion page. Dugwiki 21:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

For your truly superb work in setting up the categories for Category:Years in architecture. We're on with the job of populating it now, but it works a treat. Thanks again. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure! Glad you like it. :) Dugwiki 16:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

American revolutionaries

Hi, I saw your edit on the category page for American revolutionaries. You wrote, "This includes both people who advocated revolt against Britain to achieve American independence, and people who advocated revolt against the American government to secede from the union." I think this should be widened. There have been revolutionaries like John Brown, Daniel Shay, and Nat Turner who have engaged in revolts against the American government who did not advocate seccession from the Union. I think the definiton should be clarified to include this. I will add a note on the category discussion page. Thanks. LarryQ 04:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right that you don't have to advocate secession, per se, to be a revolutionary. Thanks for the tip; feel free to replace the sentence with something clearer. Dugwiki 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Scottish musical

You have only one musical in this category. Does it object to being part of British Musicals?  :-) I think people are more likely to find it there than in a category all by itself? -- Ssilvers 19:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. British musicals might be a better category. Feel free to move it if you like. Dugwiki 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ellis Duell

You may wish to leave commentary regarding this article's entry at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Duell.Smeelgova 22:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was just making a minor edit to the categories while going through the list of American lawyers. I didn't have an opinion one way or another on deleting the article. Dugwiki 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

Please don't remove vital categories such as Category:Iowa politicians. Such categories are vital to the attempts to improve the articles of such people. Most of the categories you removed from Tom Vilsack were indeed redundant, but please remember that a politician category is NOT redundant with a lawyer category. Thank you. --Tim4christ17 talk 17:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was redundant with a lawyer category. It was redundant with the Category:Governors of Iowa. Clearly all Iowa Governors are also Iowa politicians. Except in rare cases, an article should not appear in both a category and its parent category (in this case, both "Governors" and "Politicians"). I'll move this discussion to the article page, though, for any other follow-up comment. Dugwiki 17:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Louis Brandeis

Hello. I just wanted to drop by to mention that it was my unsigned comment on the CfD earlier. Regards --After Midnight 0001 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Bacchus-F

I hope the update satisfies the criteria for being a wiki article. --Nissi Kim 01:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It looks much better now, thanks for expanding the article. :) Dugwiki 15:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

There is more than one country in the world

I thought I would draw your attention to the above fact as your comments on Category:Films by rating suggest that if you ever knew it you have forgotten. Edton 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring your sarcasm for now, I replied in the cfd discussion for that category. Thanks for the (slightly rudely worded) input. :) Dugwiki 16:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Quasyboy

I took care of the Category:Actors by television series by dividing the the actors categories into different genre categories. This way the category does'nt have to be deleted. Quasyboy 1:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually subdividing the category doesn't address the problem, namely that if every television series and movie has its own unique category then you'll have actor articles with 30 or 40 or 50 categories, one per television show and movie they appeared in. Also, I don't think the category was going to be deleted, but instead the subcategories for individual shows will probably end up being reviewed for possible deletion depending on whether or not that show actually needs its own category. Dugwiki 17:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A category I found that should be added to your actors CFD

Category:I'm a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!, that category is simply used for anyone that has appeared on that show. It's already in CFD for renaming, but should be added to your CFD. All the actor categories need to go. RobJ1981 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Since the category is already nominated for renaming/deletion, I simply added a delete recommendation there. I also placed this category under the parent Category:Actors by television series. Dugwiki 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Added the link as you asked. Probably good idea to link it as you say when it comes up next time... I think Kbdank71 missed it when he closed becuase the cat and the subcategories were closed on different days. Tim! 18:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank, Tim!, you the man. :) Dugwiki 18:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename of Category:United States Courts of Appeals judges

I have a followup question with regards to this rename. Could you please respond there?

— DLJessup (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics grading

I see from you post of WT:WPM that your going through all the mathematics articles. WHile your going through that you might also like to grade the articles using the {{maths rating}} tag. The aim of this is to identify the better mathematics articles, which could become Good Articles or even featured articles and maybe find their way into the WP:V1.0 CD-Release. --Salix alba (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, I'll keep that in mind. I'm a math major, but not a mathematician by trade, so it's hard for me to rate the more complicated articles. But I'll take a look at the ratings and try and keep them in mind as I look at these articles. Thanks for the tip. :) Dugwiki 17:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Cool. You may find Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 helpful. If you don't feel sure on a grading you can insert the template with no parameters. This signals to other users that a grading is needed by placing the article in the unassesed category. --Salix alba (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

standard mathematical notation

Please: Don't write − 12 when you mean ( − 1)2. In standard notation, those mean two different things. The first is −1; the second is +1. (Also, please don't write <=\, when you mean \le\,. Michael Hardy 20:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting the parentheses on ( − 1)2. As far as "<=", if I used that at all is was probably a typo. I probably forgot to include the math formatting tag. Dugwiki 20:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Forgetting the math formatting tag will not have that effect. You have to write "\le" rather than "<=". Michael Hardy 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, then I probably typed "<=" instead of typing "\le". Either way, a typo. Dugwiki 21:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

definable real number

Specifically what in the article titled "definable real number" do you think may be original research? Michael Hardy 20:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I have included comments in that article, and people have been responding. I recommend keeping questions on the article's content in that talk page so everybody can take part. Dugwiki 20:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll

Please stop trolling at the maths reference desk.87.102.16.174 20:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, please feel free to point out how I was "trolling" on a post there. Thanks. Dugwiki 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:trolls
Thanks for the advice. I wasn't trolling, though. Dugwiki 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ta for the message

I didn't think you were targeting me particularly, just the type of categories. I'm sorry if I came across rudely about your 50-100 cats argument, as you have now found an example you can now use it freely and I won't criticise you for it again - I think some form of restriction would minimise the problem but its unclear whether any consensus can be reached, some people favour outright deletion, some a restricted set of categories, and some keep all of the categories regardless.. Tim! 23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Like you said in the cfd page, it might be worth checking the voice acting categories and see how that goes. Dugwiki 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine Dining

Behold Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fine dining - crz crztalk 17:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I put in my two cents (and all this talk about dining is making me hungry!) Dugwiki 17:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dying

Thanks for the sub-cat. Another editor has suggested that the wording "Dying" isn't very encyclopedic. I'm inclined to agree. Any thoughts on a name change that incorporates the idea that the person is presently alive but living with a terminal diagnosis? Rklawton 17:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact as you sent me this message I was replying on the cfd that I like the suggestion Category:People diagnosed with a terminal illness. Dugwiki 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're on the right track - except that it might be interpreted as "who have ever been..." How about: Living people diagnosed with a terminal illness ? Rklawton 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I also posted a comment about that while you were replying here. :) For simplicity, I'd suggest keeping the remainder of the discussion at the cfd page, so we're not duplicating posts both there and here. Dugwiki 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your recent changes to World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade

Actually, it's more than just the PvP changes. The new Jewelcrafter profession is in, all of the new recipes for the existing professions are in, and the mobs in the cities have all been upped from L55 to L65. The entrances to the new zones are also live, but you need the expansion to use them. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't 100% sure exactly how Jewelcrafting was handled, so I left those items in the article. The main things I deleted were references to the PvP honor point system and the lfg window. Dugwiki 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the content that is slated for the expansion is already in the game, it is only that some content is locked requiring the expansion to access. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, and I left in the article references to the inaccessible items. I only deleted (I think) references to changes that are accessible to all players as of patch 2.0.1. Hopefully that clarifies it. By the way, I'd recommend any further discussion on this article take place on the article's talk page, to avoid duplicating what we're saying to each other. Dugwiki 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Zasterisk

Zasterisk has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since I created this article, but as I recall I created it after hearing about it from a gaming news source (probably one of the podcasts, such as PC Gamer Podcast or an IGN Podcast). Personally, though, I don't have a problem with the article being deleted as non-notable at this point since it doesn't appear to have garnered much other attention in the intervening time. Of course, if someone finds some news articles about it to include to establish greater notability then they should be added to the article and the prod removed. Dugwiki 17:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My only comment on this particular CFD was that there aren't enough articles to warrant subdividing American Bishops by state. If and when there are many more such articles, though, subdividing would make sense. Certainly having all 569 bishops listed only under "American Bishops" can be improved by subdividing them into states or regions. Obviously you don't need a unique category for each bishop though. Dugwiki 16:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up Jacques-Francois Menou

You were right, article did need a clean up; I tried to fix the sentence structure and topic emphasis but still needs lots of work done. Merged his Islamic name article into the main one & hopefully it's a good start. Cheers Australian Matt 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to reconsider: Bow ties article

In response to your ideas and ideas of other editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers, I've substantially changed the List of bow tie wearers article, and you may want to take another look at it and reconsider your vote to delete. The page is one of the most sourced articles now on Wikipedia and the information presented is far from indiscriminate. I'm also considering a name change to put the word "famous" or "notable" or "noted" in the title. Please take a look and feel free to offer your opinion again, whatever it is. Noroton 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Impressive looking work on the references. I changed my vote to keep since the article now appears to be cited. Dugwiki 17:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

In the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Tom ap Rhys Pryce in which you participated, some editors suggested the need for a guideline where a consensus could be reached regarding whether everything which is newsworthy is also encyclopedic. I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news). Your input is welcome. Thanks. Edison 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Dugwiki 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

re: FYI on Rany Orton "This Fire Burns"

Hmm.. never saw the epsiode you mentioned :( Anyways, two reasons that it probably shouln't stay is because 1) I don't think we're confident that it was in fact "This Fire Burns" but if we had a source it might be better and 2) If he only used it for one week, is it that important that it be recognized as his theme? I am for readding it, but I think this one might have to get a reference before readding though. Cheers! semper fi — Moe 18:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I agree with you that it shouldn't be readded unless proper verification is found. I was just letting you know for your own possible curiosity that he did indeed use another song for one week last year on a televised episode. It's possible it wasn't This Fire Burns, I honestly don't remember at this point, or it's possible it was. Personally, if someone ever found the behind the scene story for what it was and why it was pulled, I'd be curious. Dugwiki 16:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cult film articles

Do you plan to put up List of cult film actors and List of cult film directors for deletion as well? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 05:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point. Those should probably be nominated for deletion as well for the same reasons as the film list. I'll try to remember to do the nomination if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Thanks for the reminder. Dugwiki 16:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

categorizing / actor roles

Hey Dugwiki - Just wanted to say that I appreciate your approach on the actor/performances issue (elsewhere & on Tim!'s essay page). Particularly the user-oriented navigation thinking -- it's very helpful. --lquilter 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Glad you like my comments. Dugwiki 16:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Question on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. Puff

Please see my reply on talk page, you're welcome to make further comments on the issue. Regards PeaceNT 11:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I noticed someone else commented on this on your talk page after me, too. I left my follow-up comment on your talk page and in the now-reopened afd for Mrs. Puff. Later! Dugwiki 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jan Smuts

Further to our discussion on Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization and opinions on Category:Jan Smuts. Taking into account your views, which I have to admit had a good deal of truth in them, I went on a speculative trawl through the articlespace to see if I could populate the category a little more. I'd be interested to hear your views on the category as it now stands. It certainly doesn't approach the likes of Category:Abraham Lincoln etc, but does it now look as if if justifies its existence?

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 22:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I was basing my comments on how the category stood at the time, but given the scope of the articles I wouldn't be too shocked if enough directly related material could be gathered for his own category with some digging. I'll have a look. Dugwiki 22:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your explanation on List of AI Contestants AFD

I really liked the way you explained the notability aspect of lists on the American Idol contestants afd... would you mind having a look at the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazing Race 5 contestants and seeing what you think? (similar discussion). -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 21:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look in the middle I already commented on this one and made the same observation. (My comment is about the third one down :) ) Dugwiki 21:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree

I agree that more specifics are warranted, and I will work on that. One of the generic problems with most of the recently proposed guidelines is that these generally restate the same justification in the introductions and then restate WP:N. In the end the core information distills down to very little added value. I don't mnean to belittle your efforts or intent, but the collective effect of the permutations from WP:N is getting as complicated as the tax code and encouraging wiki lawyering. A good test is to apply these proposed standards and WP:N to several test cases and see whether the results would vary significantly and frequently enough to support a whole new guideline. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 21:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up, Kevin. Just to clarify, WP:NOTNEWS isn't exactly "my" guideline. I'm not the original author and only got into it a couple months ago. The main reason I'm trying to move the general proposal forward is that it appeared to have some measure or acceptance on the talk page and hasn't undergone changes in quite a while. So it seemed time to get some wider feedback and possibly consensus to become a guideline.
As far as whether or not WP:N directly covers news stories, there's a lot of discussion about that on the talk page. The issue is that WP:N doesn't differentiate between "multiple articles" when the articles all are written cotemporaneously by different news source in a very short time period, and then nothing is written afterward. For example, when you have a one-shot news story that gains a fair amount of press on the day or two or maybe three after the story occurs, but then has no follow-up in later weeks or months and falls completely off the public's radar. WP:N doesn't quite handle that sort of case, and so WP:NOTNEWS is attempting to fill the gap on handling news stories which gain temporary press but not any measure of recurring coverage over time. Dugwiki 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)