User talk:Matthew Proctor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Anti-heroes
It isn't an issue of whether those characters are different enough from the norm as there really is no norm. The term anti-hero has been applied to a wide range of fictional characters for very different reasons. If we started coming up with and differentiating types based on individual characters' motives we'd have a huge mess of an article since most of the characters are identified as anti-heroes for different reasons. I don't disagree with the logic of your addition, I just think that it's too specific and detailed to benefit the article and would set a precedent for other, equally specific and lengthy additions. If we began listing how every anti-hero fit the definition of anti-hero the article would become far too long and unmaintainable. It's just that with a tricky term like this conciseness and clarity seems better than going in depth into specific examples. Maybe you could try something shorter and more succint while avoiding being redundant and merely adding another example? --TM 02:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article rename
I went ahead and renamed encapsulation (pharmacology) to capsule (pharmacy) partially on the basis of your support on the talk page. MaxEnt (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Women writers / female writers
Hi! I see you're having a go at changing 'women writers' to 'female writers' in article titles and category names. I don't have strong feelings about this, but there are quite a few changes to be made in order to carry this out thoroughly! In case you run the risk of making a change which others will feel strongly about (though I see no one responded to your raising this at Category talk:Women writers), I've mentioned it at the talk page of User:scribblingwoman, who's been involved with several of these pages. Dsp13 (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers dude. Yeah, I realise it's a big task. But there are some bad English things that I let slide, and some that really fuck me off. ;) I plan on getting it (mostly?) finished tonight or tomorrow night. And as it's really a semantic thing, I doubt anyone will have any objections. But I'm glad someone noticed! :) --Matthew Proctor (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was coming here to say something about this too. The fact is that the female/women thing is a lot bigger than the writers. Consensus has largely been to go with common language references regardless of formal grammar rules, and it's gone on a case-by-case basis. So, for instance, "women writers" is the common term in use in scholarship, not "female writers". I would really hold off on these and instead propose them on talk pages and try to get consensus before changing them. ... Categories, for instance, if you're trying to rename them should be taken to WP:CFD (categories for discussion). It's good to be bold but you don't want to end up wasting a lot of your own and everyone else's time swapping back & forth if you're editing against consensus. So, I would try to seek consensus first in this matter (general advice for areas in which there has bee a lot of contention). --Lquilter (talk) 07:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think the normal way to do this is to propose a renaming by tagging the categories with {{cfr}}. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, looks like you're getting a lot of discussion on this. Moving these categories is a very, very complicated thing with far reaching effects. It's more complicated than just changing the one word: you have to create and organize each new category you have created, as well as redirecting all the old. For the time-being, I'm going to revert as many of these changes as I come across. Please enter into the appropriate renaming discussion at WP:CFD. (As a matter of fact, I already posted something there suggesting that these be merged back together, with "women" winning as it is better developped.) If people agree with you, you'll need some help. Let me know, and I'll work on it with you. Portia1780 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah... I seem to have got it into my head from somewhere that categories couldn't simply be renamed. I will head off to WP:CFD and make the recommendation there. I'd ask that anyone who comes across this though at least leaves Category:Female writers by century intact. I changed every page inside that category over, and the new categories are nested in exactly the same way as the old ones. The old ones are NOT redirected, because I had no idea such a thing was possible with categories... Thanks guys. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because categories affect so many articles (and other categories), you should propose new names/mergers before setting off on such a large, time-consuming effort by yourself. (And you cannot redirect.) Wikipedia guidelines specifically to look for similar categories before creating new ones. They encourage you to use what's already there. Wikipedia:Categories#Look_before_you_leap
- I've already reverted all of your changes, as they were problematic. If the discussion decides on "female writers," I will personally help you revert MY changes. However, in the meantime, let's wait for consensus before making such widespread changes (it took me about 3 hours to fix everything back the way it was). To participate in the discussion, click here.
- I appreciate all your hard work, and I'm sorry to be OCD.Portia1780 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah... I seem to have got it into my head from somewhere that categories couldn't simply be renamed. I will head off to WP:CFD and make the recommendation there. I'd ask that anyone who comes across this though at least leaves Category:Female writers by century intact. I changed every page inside that category over, and the new categories are nested in exactly the same way as the old ones. The old ones are NOT redirected, because I had no idea such a thing was possible with categories... Thanks guys. --Matthew Proctor (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, looks like you're getting a lot of discussion on this. Moving these categories is a very, very complicated thing with far reaching effects. It's more complicated than just changing the one word: you have to create and organize each new category you have created, as well as redirecting all the old. For the time-being, I'm going to revert as many of these changes as I come across. Please enter into the appropriate renaming discussion at WP:CFD. (As a matter of fact, I already posted something there suggesting that these be merged back together, with "women" winning as it is better developped.) If people agree with you, you'll need some help. Let me know, and I'll work on it with you. Portia1780 (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- As someone who tagged many many Australian writers with this category, I'd like to add my two cents' worth. As lquilter says, the issue is wider than one of grammar. I'll add another perspective. I am a librarian. Subject thesauri (and Wikipedia categories work somewhat similarly to the way subject headings do in libraries) used by national institutions such as the National Library of Australia and the US's Library of Congress use subject headings like "women writers", "women composers". For that reason among others, I was happy with "women writers". If I can remember back far enough, the headings used to be "Women as writers" etc. I think some of these still exist but I believe that, over time, these have been concatenated/simplified. It may not be grammatical but the use of "women" is, I believe, preferred terminology in the wider world and so is used in the concatenated form even though an adjectival term may seem more correct. Hope this helpsSterry2607 (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think the normal way to do this is to propose a renaming by tagging the categories with {{cfr}}. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] speedy nom
A tag has been placed on Category:Australian female writers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. ⇒ bsnowball 07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
re the above, please go about major changes such as this through the appropriate process. & please think about whether it's necessary at all before you do so. there's been a lot of boring going around in circles discussion about these cats at cfd in the past :) thx ben ⇒ bsnowball 07:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks...
...for your support in trying to make out of Uruguay a good article. It's a featured article on the German wikipedia. I wonder if it would be the same here someday. Greetings, --Góngora (Talk) 01:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WP:AUK
 |
This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us. |
