User talk:Leolaursen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Leolaursen's talk page.
  • I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your Talk page (or the article Talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to Watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.
Any sections older than 21 days are automatically archived. Sections with fewer than two timestamps (no replies) are not archived.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] John Levett

Thank you for pointing out that this article is uncategorized. I suppose he should probably be called 'politician, landowner and investor,' or something along those lines. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I searched for a landowner category, without result. Perhaps Category:Investors is apropriate. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. He also fits into the politician category, having served in Parliament. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahayana Canon

I was thinking of the article as being rather in the nature of a disambig, since there are different canons. Part of the problem is the inconsistent ways Western scholars use words. See the beginning of Buddhist texts for examples where they use the terms "scripture" & "canonical" in opposite senses. That is, each uses "scripture" to mean what the other means by "canonical". I think we need to consider carefully how we deal with this in a whole range of articles.

Mahayana Sutras is not really the place to deal with canons, since the sutras are only part of the canons.

I'm not sure whether there's an appropriate place for discussions on all these articles to be integrated. The Buddhism project is not very functional, & the religious texts one barely notices the existence of Buddhist texts. Peter jackson (talk) 09:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I see Your point. Styling it as a disambig will in it self, show the ambiguity of the subject. I'll have a go at it. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry Template

I did look at it, actually (I've got it watchlisted and looked at it when the uncat template went in), and there simply is no cat on WP that the template fits into properly. What I can tell you, though, is that religion is not the right category for it, and from the tone of your question (unless it's sarcasm), you seem to imply you don't know anything about Freemasonry. Why would you try to categorize something that you don't know about? MSJapan (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have to fit properly, it just have to be useful/helpful. By reverting you deny an honest attempt to categorize and at the same time request categorization, so why not simply find the best one in your opinion. I didn't feel like using "Category:Social science and society navbox templates" or any of its subcategories, so I chose "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates"; not implying other than that's where I would look.
Constructively, how about creating "Category:Organization navbox templates" under "Category:Social science and society navbox templates", and use that? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 01:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the first question, there simply isn't a "best one" - Freemasonry isn't just any one of those categories, and to overcat the template is just as bad. To create an organizational navbox cat under social science would also lump in a whole lot of professional organizations as well, which is also not what Freemasonry is. It simply doesn't fit well in any category, and to give it one of its own is sort of meaningless. MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are putting too much importance in the categorization. The category should be general until there is a (foreseeable) need for more specialization. As the cagegorial tree grows, the categorization will become more and more specific. Please also remember that the template may be in more than one category; up to about four I'd say. Can we move further discussion to Template talk:Freemasonry2#Categorization? – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 10:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As of October 3, 2007, the California Court of Appeals and U.S Appeals Court have classified Freemasonry as a religion. As the original creator of Template:Freemasonry2 I say it should be "Category:Religion and belief navbox templates" Zef (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, way to overgeneralize. Try reading the case document first. MSJapan (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to Template talk:Freemasonry2 Zef (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] follow up question

A follow-up question... you say it isn't really a WikiProject template... Given that we have been using it on every article relating to the Freemasonry project, I think it is. But perhaps my concept of a project template and your's are different... so what would you call it? Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the text on the category page, it is a Wikiproject template, i assumed that it was only for Wikiproject name space templates.
It is the rule to find as specific categories as possible, and since Category:Navbox (navigational) templates is a sub cat of Wikiproject templates, that can be regarded as more specific. Then we are back to square one. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Venetian style shoe

Hi Leolaursen, the problem is that I see this as simply another way of displaying the same information: that is "the references" from the main article. Putting this on the talk page does not seem like an appropriate place because I believe we want the content to remain focused on the bibliographical material. Though I believe the talk page has its merits, I see more merits to make a "seperate" article or "template". I've even categories the article according to other wikipedia precedents that also display bibliographical information. Perhaps changing the title from Venetian style shoe/references (Venetian style shoe/References) to Bibliography for Venetian style shoe or Bibliography for Venetian style shoes would be more appropriate? --CyclePat (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to look at this differently. Although I do see what you mean with things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada/References which tend to make one believe we shouldn't split references from the main article. Nevertheless, both formats are quite usefull, one is in alphabetical format which help to easully find the references in this havard style reference formated article and the other is by "material"... So I'm not sure if the example I just gave would apply to this. --CyclePat (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Hand Held Speech

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Hand Held Speech, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Justpassin (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Norvergence

Hi Leo -- Interested in your connection to Norvergence. I notice that you edited the Norvergence article in April in which a number of highly biased statements and emphases were included. Being fairly new to Wikipedia, perhaps I interpreted the tags incorrectly? As a former manager in the Norvergence organization and having followed very closely the media coverage and legal proceedings, I am confident in saying that much of the bias in this particular version of the article is very much unfounded (eg. It was a scam...)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsprnt (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 June 2008

I have no connection to Norvergence. I just came upon the article because it was tagged as uncategorized. The text mentioned "alleged to be a pyramid scheme", and I felt that there was insufficient evidence to categorize it as Category:Finance fraud. I did a little clean up, and added some wikilinks and categories, nothing controversial. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 08:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)