User talk:Lquilter/Archive 013

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

URGENT - need help

Following your suggestion, I have created a template in replacement to the Down Beat category which had just been deleted. This user has deleted the Template I had created as a replacement and after spending many hours in the process. Could tell me, in plain English, what is wrong this time. Better yet, could you restore this template? I am starting to get very angry and frustrated. Jazzeur (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to warn you that I have just re-created the templates. I am in shock. Please explain, my motives to the 2 users that are responsible for this savage deletion and tell them to refrain from doing so in the future. The world of Wikipedia is insane. Jazzeur (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Now we are here. I need your assistance. Jazzeur (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

category edits on orgs

Hi Carlaude -- I reverted two sets of category edits you've been making on Category:Organizations based in the United States. First, it appears you're depopulating Category:Organizations based in the United States by subject. Can you explain why you're doing that? Second, on some of the categories, you did other things that aren't helpful; for instance, on Category:Medical and health organizations based in the United States, you deleted Category:Medical and health organizations by country entirely. What's going on? --Lquilter (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I also reverted this edit on Category:Organizations by country and subject. The convention on categories like this one is to have both "by X and Y", and "by Y and X", and have them cross-listed. If you have some concerns about the structure, I suggest you talk about it on the specific category talk page first. If you are still concerned, then WP:CFD is the appropriate place for discussion of categories. In particular, the REDIRECT magic word that is appropriate for articles is rarely appropriate for categories; category redirects are done very differently. The organizations in particular have been difficult to get organized, and still need lots of work; however, it's unhelpful to have people working in different directions. Collaborative editing is particularly useful in category schemes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Category:Organizations by country and subject‎" in an empty category except for the "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" and "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is totally redundant with much larger an more used "Category:Organizations based in the United States" These category are not needed and WP will be better with out them.--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If "Category:Organizations based in the United States by Subject" is WP:fork with "Category:Organizations based in the United States" how is it better to have both?--Carlaude (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a fork; that applies to contents of articles that are controversial. The "orgs based in the US by subject" is the beginnings of an effort to diffuse the category, along the lines of Category:Organizations more generally. This is normal categorizing practice. ... Since you're interested in working on the organization categories, and have opinions, it would be great to have your help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Organizations. Figuring out how to categorize organizations has been a long-term process, and it's still ongoing. ... Another thing that would be incredibly useful would be diffusing the contents of Category:Organizations based in the United States into the various subject-specific subcategories. --Lquilter (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, please leave my comments together, as I posted them. Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For a more fleshed-out example of a similar category tree, see Category:Companies by industry. That might help you better conceptualize the structure. --Lquilter (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No-- "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." It is not just a controversial topic. If you wan to diffuse the category (Category:Organizations based in the United States) you should work with that category , not make a new one.--Carlaude (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what diffusing means. To diffuse the contents of a category, you move articles in that category into subcategories. In some instances, the subcategories exist; in some instances, we create them. Also, please note that fork discusses "articles", not categories. Categories are organizational schemes; automatic indexes. CAT and WP:CATFAQ explain more. You might also be interested in looking at the template Template:Parent cat, which applies to categories that are used solely as indexes and cross-references for other categories -- such as the category you were trying to depopulate today.
I realize that it may not be wholly intuitive, but again, I suggest that you look at Category:Companies by industry for an example of the sort of cross-referenced category that we are establishing in Category:Organizations based in the United States. See also Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Organizations by location. --Lquilter (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebooting WikiProject Fictional series

Hello...WikiProject Fictional series is in the process of getting a new start by attracting task forces. I am currently getting things set up for this and other project building areas. Please stop by and take a look. Your suggestions will be appreciated. - LA @ 01:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

fundamental discussion of categories

which may interest you, at [1] DGG (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered by SatyrBot around 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC) SatyrBot (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Using Template:Cfd-notify

Hi Lquilter, I just discovered that you ran into a slight problem with Template:Cfd-notify a while back, due to not "substituting" the template -- which causes the newly created section to link to Template:Cfd-notify! (yikes) Anyhow, I've clarified the instructions for using the template, so hopefully future users won't run into that problem -- you weren't the first! :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I often just hand-write a note, since it's friendlier and I often want to explain the specifics anyway. But sometimes I template and it's good to have it usable for sloppy users like me. --Lquilter (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada

Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – GreenJoe 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

MedCab Case

Heya. i was wondering whether you could be interested in continuing to participate in the 24 characters medcab case. I believe that this dispute can be resolved given a little time and more patience from the parties involved. Seddon69 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Museums WikiProject

Hi! You expressed an interest in a Museums Wiki Project and after working in a number of articles and wanting to add a template that didn't exist, I went ahead and launched the project:

You have been invited to join the Museums WikiProject, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of museums. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

I'd appreciate any feedback you have (this is my first project} and any help in project related 'stuff'. Thanks TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll look into it -- I'm a little busy right now. In general I'd suggest new projects focus on doing useful things, like developing best practices, or categorizing, relevant items, rather than spend a lot of time developing cute templates. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries, I just wanted to extend the invite since you'd said you were interested. We'll be there when/if you're freed up and want to work on it. We're off to a good start with assessment and categorizing so I think we're entitled to some play time ;) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Replaced the wrong invite template as your talk page was showing up in the list to be assessed.— Rod talk 13:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Gay villages

I seem to recall from an old CFD that you were interested in generating a list of gay villages so I wanted to point you towrd List of gay villages. Otto4711 (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:sexism

Maybe you've seen this[2] but as that thread is naming you directly I thought it appropriate to let you know that this has been posted about you. I mentioned it User:BrownHairedGirl earlier as well in regard to User:Blackworm's post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias which is directly related to a convo he had with myself and BHG at WT:GS[3]--Cailil talk 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks Cailil -- looks like BHG is on the job! That editor just needs to understand that wikipedia articles reflect the balance of study and work in other fields; not our own interests. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Difference between Lists and Categories

Hi - I don't want to clog up the CfD on Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_March_15#Category:Association_of_Theological_Schools_in_the_United_States_and_Canada. and I'm not ready to !vote there yet. So here is my question: Although I'm very comfortable in AfDs, CfDs and categories in general are mostly new to me (but it's time that I jumped into that pool) and I need to better understand the pragmatic differences between categories and lists. I can understand your point about policing cats, and that makes a lot of sense and leads me to think that your argument may be the more compelling between you and Orlady. Can you either explain the other differences, or point to/explain elsewhere? I'm also going to read elsewhere, including Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. I !voted to relist this CfD more on procedural grounds in the DRV based on good reasons from Orlady, but they may not be sufficiently good to keep here after seeing your arguments. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Hi Becksguy -- I'll be happy to talk about this more.
The first place to start is WP:CLS, which distinguishes between categories, lists, and series/infoboxes. To my mind it's not as good as it could be, and I think it would be great to hear from you what you find unclear, contradictory, redundant, etc., on that guideline -- it would give us some good starting point to work on revisions.
Second, if you want to more or less follow what I did -- just as one approach -- I basically started reading the policies, trying to apply them, and then got pulled into CFD by someone who proposed (and succeeded) in deleting a category I created. I followed discussions more than contributed for a while, and over time began contributing more frequently. And having lots of side discussions with people! And sometimes when CFDs don't find consensus, so the category continues as is but with some unhappiness, I start discussions on that category talk page to try to has it out. So that's been my approach and what has informed my thinking about how categories are used. I admit that I have perhaps a bit of an advantage, in that I'm a librarian and interested and knowledgeable generally about methods for organizing information.
Another thing that I've wanted to do for some time is write an essay that clearly sets out the differences between categories and "tags". Many, many people come to wikipedia and become editors, thinking of categories as a type of tags. Their functionality is pretty different, though, and that causes a lot of confusion with editors who first start trying to delve into the categorization system.
--Lquilter (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question

Dear Lquilter; Awadewit suggested that you were the right person to ask the following question: for the article general relativity, we are considering using the image Image:GeneralRelativityTheoryManuscript.jpg, which was taken from these sites:

The manuscript that is photographed is certainly old enough to be in the public domain. But does that mean the photograph of the manuscript is also in the public domain? I know that something like that is the case for two-dimensional art; we're just not sure whether that applies to (scientific) manuscripts as well. Many thanks in advance, Markus Poessel (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Markus -- To my knowledge, there is only one firm case in this question, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and that found that a simple duplication of a work would not be sufficiently original to be independently copyrightable. Bridgeman certainly supports your use, and if anything is stronger for a copy of a text than the images at issue in Bridgeman: in your text, all or virtually all of the copyrightable content is in the text itself, not the cursive writing.
That said, let me just take a minute to explain the status of Bridgeman: This is a US District Court case (not a Circuit Court of Appeals case or a US Supreme Court case), so it's not binding authority on any other court, and no higher court has ruled directly on the question nor reviewed Bridgeman directly. So it would be incorrect to say that Bridgeman is definitive; the best you can say is that it's influential, persuasive, established the standard of practice, etc. Bridgeman has in fact been relatively influential in practice -- museums and libraries and photo businesses pretty much take it as settled law. As for other courts' acceptance of Bridgeman, no other court has addressed the same issue; however, when courts have addressed similar issues (e.g., photographs of 3-dimensional objects), they have taken pains to distinguish Bridgeman -- a sort of approval by negative inference. ... Anyway, in the absence of any other case law on the matter, it's quite reasonable to take Bridgeman to support use of photographs of 2-dimensional works (texts or graphics).
All that said, while I imagine most copyright lawyers wouldn't raise an eyebrow at the use, Wikipedia policy is sometimes aimed at something even more extreme. So, while I imagine it would be fine, you might want to check at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights. And, of course, this isn't legal advice, yadda yadda ya. <g>
--Lquilter (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

399 to go

We are almost done, Category:Articles lacking sources from June 2006 is down to less the 400 articles to find references for. I would like to thank you for listing yourself as a volunteer at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and would like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the project again and work on getting the last few articles referenced. We started with 5,572 and we are in the home stretch, please come and try to do a couple a day and we can finish it up in no time. Jeepday (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Philip K. Dick and Category:Christian writers

I've invited you to a discussion about this topic, here. Viriditas (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your great comments. I've listed the article for peer review and would greatly appreciate your input and suggestions for improvement. Thanks again for your time. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your last comment and I've left you a question about C. S. Lewis. Viriditas (talk) 06:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but given your knowledge about books and biographies in general, I'm wondering if you could comment on how to best represent the religion of an author through their personal life and their work. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Emma Goldman

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism#Emma Goldman. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Leibovitz-DemiMoore-VanityFair-150px.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Not orphaned. I put it back in the article where it belonged. --Lquilter (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Worker rights categories

Hi Lquilter,

I've nominated a couple of "Worker rights" categories that you created for possible renaming. It's only a slight change, but of course I want to see what you have to say about it! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

NGO Cats

Hi again, This isn't my CFD, but I spotted it and thought you'd want to know about it. Cgingold (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger Discussion Page

Long time since we've talked. First of all, I replied to your comment on the Merger Discussion page. That page is one thing I set up when I restarted WP:24. Along with the Article Drive. Have you seen Martha Logan by the way? Also, you will be interested to know, I've made a truce to Lucy, and hereby am shielding her from the tiresome attacks she gets. Surprise, eh? Awaiting your reply, Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 13:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear of your help to lucy. i'll check out the page. --Lquilter (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks for looking. Decided to take a stand against her being attacked, it's uncalled for and against our policy. Say, would you mind joining our project? I could use someone who has a balanced head on their shoulders, one who is neutral. I'd also ask, about the current mergers, that they be delayed until we can find references for the remaining articles. Lan Di has found quite a few for Chase Edmunds and Edgar Stiles, I just need time to rewrite th articles. And I understand that these have been proposed for ages, however, I've had little time to rewrite these articles, and I brought Martha Logan to GA status practically by myself. Is this OK by you? Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, I don't think I'll join the project, since I'm not likely to be able to commit any particular amount of time or effort to it. However, I'll continue to look in on 24 related articles as time permits. Good luck with your work. --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I know as an administrator you would have little time on your hands. But the request for, well, some time, as the situation stands, is that OK with you? I just need some time, doing things mostly myself isn't easy. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)