User talk:Mayumashu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

Eberhard A

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 16:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


hahaha gay people were all happy lol lol


Matthew, regarding your recent edit at Canada, please review Wikipedia Style Manual. It advises that you shouldn't over-link, and you shouldn't link ordinary words like "soil". Just link to articles that readers would likely want to follow up on. After you've read this, perhaps you could reconsider those edits. Thanks. Kevintoronto 17:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i know a cow its u hahahahaha

[edit] Edit summary

Thank you for your categorisation work. I have a small request. Would you mind putting an edit summary, if an edit is not minor, or clicking the "minor edit" checkbox if it is a minor edit. Edit summaries serve a very useful purpose, they notify other people what you have changed and it can save us the trouble of actually taking the diffs to see what is going on. Thanks a lot. Oleg Alexandrov 19:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And a quick remark. If a math article is in a math category, it is kind of unnecessary to put it in Category:Mathematics too. This makes Category:Mathematics quite big. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov

[edit] will oblige on categorizing

i see your point now on how better to categorize articles, in particular with the calculus article. regards Mayumashu 01:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could have been more diplomatic though. I hope the reversion in calculus did not make you too mad. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov 01:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Finals" tournament

Hi Mayumashu, "finals tournament" is just not proper English. "Tournament finals" is, but it's also a bit over-complicating things. In fact, "final tournament" is correct, as opposed to "final match". Also, when you say "Euro 2004", you imply the final tournament, so no need to add the word there. Sorry to nitpick. --Dryazan 12:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mayumashu, I completely understand what you're talking about. The way "final" can refer to either the game or the tournament is confusing. However, "Finals tournament" makes NO SENSE in American English, whereas "Final tournament" can make sense in British English, as far as I know (and "Tournament finals" makes sense in both, but it also sounds a bit cludgy). While there's no need to push one time of English over another on Wikipedia, it just makes sense (for me, at least) to avoid a phrase which is gramatically incorrect for a larger percentage of Wikipedia's readers. And since RSSSF uses "Final tournament", and so did these pages for months without anything complaining, we should probably go with that. --Dryazan 14:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japan Intro

Please explain why you changed this paragraph. Check the facts before changing things. As I wrote, there are a FEW island chains extending away from the mainland, but there NOT a few islands extending away from the mainland. Check how many islands there are in Okinawa. Not few (over 300). Also, mentioning Ryūkyū Islands and Okinawan islands in one sentence is also redundant because the Okinawan islands is part of the Ryūkyū islands. Change it back. Photojpn.org 04:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid getting it "straighter" compared to getting it "straight" is not enough. You introduced another misleading element by saying "some islands." I wouldn't call hundreds of islands "some." There is no need to quantify it. And your sentence "the lower portion of an island chain known as the Ryūkyū Islands, which comprise Okinawa prefecture," is too wordy and unnecessary.

The reason why I included Izu/Ogasawara is because the previous version implied that there was only one island chain (Okinawa) extending from the mainland. I wanted to affirm that that wasn't the case.

Please change it back to my original text. There was nothing wrong with it. Photojpn.org 23:44, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot even fully understand your replies. "i resent being told i have my facts wrong when i had but one so." What does that mean? I'm sure you're a nice guy in person, but obviously you are not a very good writer. This matter is not even worth posting on the Japan discussion page. Photojpn.org 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Flags

Hello, the flags are where the players' home towns are, not where they are born. I used the Canadian Soccer website for this infor, and when it was not listed, I did an internet search. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics

You can use the characters below the edit box - not as fast as typing but it still works. So for example the first five are ÁáÉéÍ. --Henrygb 10:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] footy terminology

Dear Forbsey, a quicky if i may - do Scots call an international (someone who plays for the national side), an internationist? i ve run into the term now a few times and saw where you used it when starting up the page for my favourite soccer player, Gary McAllister, that you used the term. i m wondering if it s a term particularly Scottish or what, as far as you know. appreciate the help, Mayumashu 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mayumashu. The term 'internationalist' is used by be personally but I wouldn't say that it was generally used by Scots. More people probably say 'international' when describing an international player but both terms are palatable. However feel free to change it if you feel that 'international' is more relavent in terms of common football jargon.
Forbsey 22:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Statlers

Yep, they were great, and I was a huge fan of their comedy. Rlquall 02:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nova Scotians by Occupation

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you have been using a lot of "Nova Scotian by occupation" type categorizations. While there is precedent for having a People from Nova Scotia cat, breaking it down by occupation is way way overdoing it. There was considerable debate even if occupations should have been broken down by nationality. I strongly recommend that you depopulate these categories (move to the appropriate Canadian by Occupation cats) and put them up for Categories for Deletion. Fawcett5 11:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you added the CfD notice to the categories, but didn't list them at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up for deletion, please re-add the tag and list it properly. Thanks. BTW, if you need help with this, I'll be happy to lend a hand. --Kbdank71 17:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


  • Hi, I noticed you marked Category:American tennis coaches for deletion but never added it to WP:CFD. I've removed the tag for now. If you definitely wanted to delete this category, please make sure you complete both parts of the procedure. Thanks! --Kbdank71 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and parents

I noticed you added Nova Scotia to Halifax Int. Airport. However, that article is already in Nova Scotia via the Airports-->Transport-->Nova Scotia route, and by policy we don't add articles to parents of cats that they are already in. Hope this clears this up. Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 23:44, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

  • You have to dig a little bit, but here it is "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory" Cheers. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 08:45, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United/History of Manchester United

Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:

  • Manchester United pre-1945
  • Manchester United 1945-1968
  • Manchester United 1968-1986
  • Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.


Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For your information...

Blanking pages does not delete them; I'm refering to your blanking of a few redirects to Professional Tennis Championships, ie Hans Gildemeister. There is a procedure for deleting pages: WP:RfD, WP:IfD and WP:VfD. Please follow it next time. Thanks! humblefool® 03:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruce Barnes

Please do not blank articles without providing some rationale in their discussion page. To do otherwise is vandm at WP:CFD. Just wanted to let you know that if they aren't listed there, they won't be deleted. --Kbdank71 16:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletes cats

Hi again Matthew - I see you have been continuing your good work with categorization. For the Canadian track athletes cat though, what do you think about the idea, for consistency, of removing the Canadian track athlete cat from Occupations by nationality and make it instead a subcat of Canadian sportspeople cat? Fawcett5 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that simply adding the cfd notice to a category will not delete them. You need to also list the category at WP:CFD. I'll remove the tag for now. If you definitely want to bring the categories up

[edit] Central Economy

Page 33 L16 of my Atlantic Canada Road Atlas First Edition by MapArt Publishing. I can scan it in for you if you want to see it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, alright I will scan it in. I have to install my scanner again, since I havent used it in a while. I reckon it's just an alternate name for economy, as I dont believe my atlas shows Economy. Best regards. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mmmkay, I wasnt able to get the software working, because my computer collapsed while I was trying to load it, but I did take a photograph of the page, which works just as fine. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:DSCN0355.JPG

[edit] Categories

Regarding your edits to Category:Cape Breton Island, I just wanted to clarify that Wikipedia actually has very explicit rules about how the category system is applied -- namely, an article should never be simultaneously filed in both a category and a subcategory of that same category. The rule is always that you file an article only in the narrowest appropriate categories that don't directly duplicate each other's informational purpose. In this case, the actual appropriate category is Category:Islands of Nova Scotia; since it's in there, it doesn't also go in "Islands of Canada", "Nova Scotia" or "Canada" since "Islands of Nova Scotia" is already part of the subcategory tree of all of those. This isn't just a matter of my own personal opinion, by the way -- it's actual Wikipedia policy regarding category management. Bearcat 04:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories and double spacing

I've noticed that while you've been adding cats and footers to articles, you've been double spacing between them and all the sections. This is not necessary, is non-standard and in truth, makes the article harder to read. Could you please refrain from inserting double spaces between sections? Thanks. Wyss 16:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you said you'll continue to insert double spacing into articles even though you're aware most do not contain it? Are you aware you're not following consensus? Wyss 09:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Double spacing is not a good idea, for several reasons. The most important one is that the convention (implicit or explicit, it doesn't matter) here is to use single spacing. Whether or not there is a rule that specifically prohibits it is irrelevant: by using double spacing you create more work for other editors, because they will feel compelled to clean up after you. So please try to follow the conventions and editing practices employed in the best articles on Wikipedia. Insisting that you are right and everybody else is wrong is generally unwise and doing things your way could easily be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Re-adding blank lines is an especially bad idea.

"Whoever" this is that made the above reply, let me say that i have never i conveyed (explicitly nor implicitly, whichever) that others are wrong and i am right on the aesthetics of single versus double spacing between sections. the truth is i should not edit the way articles written by others are spaced nor should wiki editors (i m guessing you have this or a similar position) edit for so-called blank spaces. i ve been disruptive according to the policy you ve cited above ([[WP:POINT|disrupting ...), true. Ironically enough however, the first point the page makes is that there are inconsistencies through the encycl.. editing out double spacing for single spacing because of a consensus among editors and the like (not users at large) is equally disruptive. i will set my default style sheet as suggested by the user who s replied below and i wonder why you, my fellow pedantics, will do the same. - Mayumashu 04:16:59, 2005-08-04 (UTC)

The above was the first paragraph of my message. People remove extra blank spaces all the time. The reason is consistency: if I want more space, I can adjust it in my user stylesheet. But that only gives consistent results if the underlying text uses single spacing. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Other reasons why adding blank lines before section headings is bad are that it creates inconsitencies across the project and that it takes control over the layout away from readers. The latter is because you can easily adjust the layout of articles by using a custom CSS style sheet. If you prefer double spacing when reading articles, I suggest you modify the default style sheet according to your preferences. See m:Help:User style for further details. Cheers, --MarkSweep 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You need to edit User:Mayumashu/monobook.css. Try adding the following content (copy this from the rendered HTML page, not from the raw wikitext, though):

 /* <pre><nowiki> */
   
 h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6 {
   margin-top: 2em;
 }
 
 .firstHeading {
   margin-top: 0px;
 }

 /* </nowiki></pre> */

If you want more or less space, adjust the "margin-top" property. --MarkSweep 05:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Edward Knatchbull

Hello there. Edward Knatchbull belongs in Category:Baronets in the Baronetage of England because the baronetcy which he inherited was created in 1641. Why did you change the category? Mackensen (talk) 10:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Same thing with Robert Peel. The baronetcy was created in 1800, right before the Act of Union, which places it in Great Britain, not the United Kingdom. Mackensen (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I shouldn't have removed the Natives of Lancashire category. That was my mistake. I'll restore it at once. Mackensen (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argentine people

Please, bear in mind that Category:Argentine people should not be just categorised by their city/province of birth, but also by more important things such as Category:Argentine people by occupation. If the article has no other Argentine category, perhaps it would be better to give it a (id needed new) sub category of by occupation. thenks, Mariano 12:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category change on Robert Clark (actor)

I'm curious as to why you changed one of the categories on the article Robert Clark (actor) from "People of Ontario" to "Toronto people". As the article states, Clark was born in Oakville, Ontario (which is in the Greater Toronto Area, but is not in Toronto itself), and then moved to Florida, and then back up to Ontario (but not to Toronto). I could find no evidence to suggest that he ever lived in the city of Toronto. Although I backed up my contributions to that article with references, I'm wondering if I got it wrong, and hope that you can clear this up for me. Thanks! Extraordinary Machine 14:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't live anywhere near Toronto, and I'm not familiar with the geography of the area, so if you think the category should be changed back, then I won't object. Thanks for the information! Extraordinary Machine 18:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erroneous entry

As with the above entry i am requesting that you remove the name of Thomas Browne from your list of Cheshire people. Browne was born in London and lived in Norwich from 1637-1682. I am curious as to how you acquired this misinformation. Please remove entry. From reading the above entries this seems to be a persistent mistake of yours,is Wikipedia really about creating lists, or propogating mistakes. Please ammend.Norwikian

[edit] Category:Canadian linguists

I saw your changes to Category:Canadian linguists. Since you objected to the use of Template:Fooian scientist types, I've changed it back to Template:Fooian fooers. This moved Category:Canadian linguists back into Category:Linguists by nationality where it belongs, instead of Category:Linguists. I have a Template:Fooian social scientist types that is in use on Category:American linguists that could be a better pick than the fooers template. Would you mind me using that template? The problem with not putting Linguists under Scientists in the national subcategories is that not all national categories have a Social scientists subcat (e.g. Category:Canadian social scientists does not exist, but Category:Polish social scientists does).

Also, I don't think that Category:Canadian anthropologists is accurate, but I left it there. Not all linguists are anthropologists. Mike Dillon 17:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. take a look at Category:Canadian scientists. It already has a number of social scientist subcats under it: anthropologists, psychologists, and sociologists. I think that linguists belongs there too until Category:Canadian social scientists exists. Mike Dillon 17:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've started a Category:Social scientists by nationality. Please add your new Category:Canadian social scientists to this category. Mike Dillon 17:29, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian mathematics professors

Hi Mayumashu. I saw that you created this category. I just wonder why you think it was not enough to categorize those articles in Category:Canadian mathematicians. From what I know, most mathematicians are mathematics professors. And I think that the absolute majority of mathematics professors who are not serious mathematicians don't deserve an article on Wikipedia. So in my view, Category:Canadian mathematicians should have been enough for categorizing the notable Canadian mathematicians who are math professors. I wonder what you think. You can reply here, I will keep a watch on this page. Thank you, Oleg Alexandrov 02:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello Oleg. I agree 200% with you, and would now like to do away with the math professor cat as well as all professor cats. i created it to form a link between Category:Canadian professors and Category:Canadian academics, but i ve since changed my mind about the matter. i think that being a prof (in itself) is NOT encyclopedically noteworthy and therefore that there should be no Category:Professors cat. anyone who happens to be a prof and encyclopedically noteworthy because of their research contributions should be catted as an academic, according to their field, shouldn t they. i would like to see Category:Professors done away with. i m considering doing away with all the canadian prof sub-cats, but it ll take a bit of work and there are other cat work (my little wiki activity now) i m working on. -Mayumashu 02:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, all you need to do is remove the mathematicians from there (put them in Category:Canadian mathematicians) and then put a speedy tag in the category, that is {{d}}. That will work because you created it. You can explain in the edit summary or on the category talk page that you don't find it useful anymore. Oleg Alexandrov 03:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Hanna category

How is Jack Hanna's relationship to Knoxville more important than his relationship to Ohio? Category:People from Ohio isn't just for people who were born there (it's not called "Ohio natives"), and the only subnational place that he's notable in connection with is Ohio, as the director of the Columbus Zoo. His connection to Knoxville is merely trivia to us because he didn't do anything notable there. If he's going to be in a subnational category, Ohio is the only state with which his notability has a significant connection. Postdlf 03:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing people by city

I notice that you've created a few of these—why? What do you think is accomplished by categorizing individuals by cities? What do you think the ultimate effect will be? What are your criteria for including them in each city category? Simply having lived there at some time during their lives? Presently living there? Postdlf 14:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Categories "Natives of Split" and particularly "Natives of Sibenik-Knin" are pointless (the latter is a modern-day county, not a city, even). Please don't do it without prior discussion. --Joy [shallot] 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] formatting of stub notices

If you wish to make {{hoopsbio-stub}} indented, do it there, don't indent it in individual articles using it. --Joy [shallot] 07:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Canadian Wikipedian Expatriates for instructions.--Rmky87 01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Chicagoans

Hi there. If you are still interested Category:Irish Chicagoans is currently nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 12 JW 16:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edmond Lapierre

Just a minor note on a recent edit of yours -- the Canadian notice board discussed it long ago and decided that Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons should not itself contain any articles about individual members, past or present. People should only be filed in one or more appropriate subcategories, because the main category would just be too large and unwieldy otherwise. So the main category should contain only the subcategories and the list-of-members articles. Thanks. Bearcat 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page

You put an AfD on a page I wrote in my own userspace -- accusing me of vandalizing my own page. See Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space. "Assume goodwill" we are told. So I am going to assume this was an honest mistake on your part. Can I count on you fixing it? I'd like you to remove the entry from the AfD list. -- Geo Swan 05:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. When I wrote you I didn't see what attracted your attention. But afterwards I did.
I have been monitoring newspaper articles about the detainees in the US "war on terror". And, when I come across an article or two that have enough information in them to write an article I start an article, or contribute to their existing article, if they have one. I started the article on Omar Khadr. And in the last two months a whole bunch more. 48 so far.
Well. about three weeks ago I had an article I started nominated for AfD. Actually four of them at once. "Not notable", "Anti-American bias"... One of the four was deleted. As part of that discussion someone suggested a "List of Guantanamo Bay detainees". A good idea. I started it. It was nominated for deletion almost right away. It survived. Overwhelming keeps. Just a few deletes. One user cryptically said they had a "concern about sourcing". I made several attempts to learn what this persons concern was -- thinking that they were also going to assume good will.
Wrong. They misused the copyright violation procedure, submitteing it in bad faith I believe. I continued to be polite, until they started lying in the wikipedia copyright problems page. I became more blunt, and said I thought they were showing bad faith. They didn't respond directly. But they promptly nominated an article I had written about a US soldier, Jeffrey Waruch, who is under investigation for killing a young girl, and seriously wounding her sister and mother. Later today they nominated a second article I had written about a US soldier, Carolyn Wood, the officer who drafted the illegal interrogation procedures that caused so many problems in Iraq. I think this is not a coincidence.
Anyhow. I made copies of all those articles in my user space. But I overlooked that the links in those article would show up in the "what links here". And it would mess up the categories, etc. So I should tank you for triggering my understanding that I should surround my backup copies with a nowiki...
When you nominated my backup copy for AfD I did consider that there was a conspiracy to delete or suppress all content that showed the war on terror in a bad light. Lol. --- Geo Swan 06:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Osias Godin

People are not supposed to be simultaneously filed in parent categories and subcategories of the same parent. We do not file MPs directly in Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons; we file them in subcategories by their province and political party only. Bearcat 18:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry...looks like you did this before I noted this above re: Edmond Lapierre; I just can't figure out why it wasn't showing up in the master category at the time. Bearcat 18:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Any mistakes i have made in filing MPs is merely accidental for i do a lot of filing and fully intend to file MPs by province. Apologies for my carelessness with the one or two you ve brought up. -Mayumashu 02:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish British category vote requested

Hi I noticed you voted to keep Scottish-Americans I would appreciate your help to retain Category:Irish British people, as I feel is perfectly valid to point out Irish people or people of near Irish descent who have contributed to life in Great Britain (England Scotland and Wales). Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks!! Arniep 01:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Would you consider voting for a rename Category:Irish diaspora in Great Britain, Irish diaspora is a widely used phrase and doesn't place an indication of citizensip which the other name gave so I think this is acceptable. Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people Thanks Arniep 10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Manhattanites, etc.

Hi. When you add Category:Manhattanites, e.g. to a person who already has Category:People from New York City, you should delete the latter category, since Category:Manhattanites belongs to Category:People from New York City. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 00:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been - i apologize if i missed one.-Mayumashu 03:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Irish British eureka moment

Hi Mayumashu I think I've finally worked out the best solution to resolve the disagreement on this category. We should split this category into Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain, and Category:Irish people in Great Britain for people who live in Great Britain who call(ed) themselves Irish (whether they were born or grew up in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Irelandor born to ex pats abroad who now live in Great Britain). I would appreciate if you could support the new proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Irish_British_people_to_Category:Irish-British_people__Category:Britons_of_Irish_descent_Category:Irish_diaspora_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop!

Please stop creating new categories for traditional counties of Scotland, and re-allocating people to them from modern council areas. This has already been a subject for debate at Cfd recently, when Category:Natives of Lanarkshire was deleted. Please raise the issue at Wikipedia Talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board. We must come to a consensus on this one, because having two parallel systems is very confusing. It must be pointed out that traditional counties have not existed for 30 years, and the new council areas seem here to stay because no political party wants to change them.--Mais oui! 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

i m only relocating individuals who were dead long before there were coucil areas - it s far more confusing to have 19th century people in coucil area cats!! -Mayumashu 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish American actors

Hi, I noticed your vote on this. I just wondered whether you realised that this category contains many people in it have only one parent (or even grandparent in some cases) who was jewish, do not identify themselves as Jewish American and are in other (ethnicity)-American categories. I think it needs to be deleted because it doesn't make sense that a person who does not identify as wholly jewish could be described as a jewish american actor such as Carrie Fisher, Patricia Arquette, Robert Downey Jr., Michael Douglas. Arniep 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

it s a problem with all similar categories - the point does not warrant getting rid of the cat, just the pages you ve mentioned plus an explanation as to why you ve removed them as discussion on the page -Mayumashu 12:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi, thnks for your comment on the cfd page. People are being included in Jewish American categories not using the religious requirement that you have a jewish mother but regarding jewish as an ethnicity. So, even if only their father or grandfather was jewish they are being added to this category. It just seems totally non sensical to have people described as jewish american actors if they do not identify as jewish and are also of mixed ancestry like Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Michael Douglas, people like these should be in a category like Americans with Jewish ancestry to avoid these sorts of labelling problems, the same should be done for all the other ethnicity categories. Arniep 13:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American geography by state

You agreed with me that Category:Hawaiian geography should be renamed Category:Geography of Hawaii. I have now nominated all the American states for renaming, and if you could find the time to vote in favour, I would be very grateful. CalJW 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat Lowther

We've been through the thing about Wikipedia's categorization rules before: Category:Vancouverites is already a subcategory of Category:People from British Columbia; accordingly, a person cannot be simultaneously filed in both categories. Bearcat 04:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

North Vancouver is a separate city and Category:Vancouverites is necessarily both for people of Vancouver and Greater Vancouver, thus the overlapping -Mayumashu 04:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
If you feel strongly that the possibility of confusion exists, the other alternative would be to put her in "People from British Columbia" instead of "Vancouverites"; the fundamental problem is that if you worked hard enough, you could find a reason for absolutely every article on Wikipedia to get exempted from the categorization rules. If a category scheme creates too many problems of this type, it doesn't mean we should allow exception after exception; it means the category is badly thought out and should be fundamentally restructured. Bearcat 04:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
having her in both is a perfectly fine exception to allow and there aren t that many (perhaps 5%) of pages catting people by their province/city of origin that have this kind of overlap. not everything is always black and white - shades of grey do exist - Mayumashu 04:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it really isn't; Wikipedia rules are quite explicit that we just don't simultaneously file an article in both a subcategory and a parent of that same subcategory. When it comes to categorization, a shade of grey just means the contrast needs to be sharpened. Categories should be defined and structured in such a way that "exemptions" are never even needed. Bearcat 07:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
then these so-called rules may need to further evolve to reflect realities that exist. there are other cases too. most states have a state writer's subcat. but if a writer happens to also be an actor too, then she or he should rightly appear in both the sub-cat for state writers and its parent cat for people from the state. the rules are but rules of thumb anyway and can be changed given a great enough collective will. User:Bearcat, i come across your edits and commits fairly often and i can tell you we re of different minds on many issues - i know we re not going to sway the other person to change their mind. to sort out the Vancouverite sub cat issue without an overlap, i ll go and start up sub-sub-cats for North Vancouver, New Westminister, Maple Ridge, and other small cities in the Greater Vancouver area despite feeling personally that they are rather smally populated to have cat for the time being - ideally though i d like to all cities eventually have a cat for its natives/inhabitants so now will suffice. i hope despite our differences no hard feelings at all. Regards, -Mayumashu 02:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Creelman

How funny that you're related. I'm actually just now reading a book called The Yellow Kids about Creelman and other contemporaries. It's fascinating stuff. Feel free to expand the stub if you can; I plan on expanding it quite a lot when I find time next. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hi, sorry I missed your comment on my talk amidst the whole kerfuffle. I agree that sometimes it would be useful to have browse a whole category of many occupations like writers, artists, actors, singers without country specifity and much faster thanis currently possible. I think this would need a software change so maybe I or you could suggest it somewhere? Also Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:LGBT_criminals I would be very grateful if you could reconsider your vote as this category is meaningless as gay people have lived in many eras and countries with different laws (the same applies to Jewish criminals, Catholic criminals etc.). I don't think any blanket criminal category should exist unless it is just a parent cat for more specific crimes. Regards Arniep 00:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cats for Alyn McCauley

Hi, just wondering if there's any particular reason for your change of [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|McCauley, Alyn]] to [[Category:Canadian ice hockey players|Mccauley, Alyn]] (without capitalizing the second C). The C definitely is capitalized... Heck I just saw him playing a game against the Leafs last night on HNIC and his sweater definitely had it capitalized. (Very technically speaking, I suspect the first C should be in superscript, resulting in McCauley, but that's a minor detail).

The name after the pipe isn't displayed on the category page, so I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious if there's a rule I should know about. --Qviri 19:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! --Qviri 04:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn

You goofed the AfD for Kerri Yascheshyn, putting the text inside your AfD for Horses Eat sugar. I'll fix it. Jamie 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NS Communities Project...

Would you like to join the Nova Scotia Wikipedia project I am about to start with PlasmaEast? We are planning on launching a NS Community templates for Counties, Towns/Municipalities, and HRM, similar to the template that started appearing this week on county pages Halifax County, Nova Scotia. Also, have a bi-weekly "Nova Scotia Project Page" to focus efforts. Interested?WayeMason 11:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

sure. templates is not really my interest but they look good to me Mayumashu 23:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Good! Templates are just my thing. I feel strongly that we could focus our work a bit and bring the whole Nova Scotia section to a higher standard. WayeMason 23:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has started on the talk:WikiProject Nova Scotia article, please head over there and watch the project page! WayeMason 00:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian university and college chief executives

Hi Mayumashu,

I am in the process of merging the categories Category:Canadian university and college rectors, Category:Canadian university chancellors and presidents, and Category:Canadian university and college principals and vice-presidents into the new Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. I find it very confusing to have three categories for essentially the same position with just different names. I have also created the Category:Canadian university and college chancellors since this is more of an honorary position. Let me know if you have any issues with this.

--YUL89YYZ 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

sounds great. i rather hastily created them without having sorted out the distinctions such as the one you mention of chancellors being rather ceremonial. appreciate that you mailed me on it too. best regards, Mayumashu 09:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr.Ann Duggan

Hey, I was wondering if you can comment on this page since you have added to it. Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ann_Duggan

Anakinskywalker 7:30, 06 January 2006 (UTC)

i simply added a category. i d have to say i don t think she s notable enough, so i ll refrain from voting. regards Mayumashu 10:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Blanking

On 18-Jan, you blanked Columbusites. Your edit summary stated that redirects to categories are inappropriate. While that's true, page blanking is also a bad idea. I've changed it to be a redirect to List of people associated with Columbus, Ohio. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 15:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cinema in scotland

Have you seen this re-nomination at Cfd: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_28#Category:Cinema_of_Scotland_--.3E_Category:Scottish_actors_and_filmmakers--Mais oui! 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada

Hi Mayumashu. What was your logic for putting Category:Asian Canadians as a supercategory of Category:Aboriginal peoples in Canada?

If you're referring to the idea that aboriginal peoples came across the Pacific from Asia, well, that's true, but it happened so long ago that classifying them as "Asians" doesn't make sense. By extending the same logic a few millenia backwards we might as well all be Africans. --Saforrest 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

hi there. you re right. i checked to see when humans migrated into Europe and like you suggest it only happened recently, c.40 000 years ago compared to the migration of proto-Native Canadians, Americans, etc. which was 15 000 to 30 000 years ago. i think you ve raised a perfect point for changing the sub-catting i did. i ll change it and apologies for my not checking to see when the European migration occurred 222.228.97.207 05:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Would you please not apply redlinked categories to articles? Wikipedia has a rule about this — if you want to apply a category that doesn't already exist, you have to create the category immediately. You cannot leave red category links on articles under any circumstances. Bearcat 20:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there!--DarkEvil 17:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irish in GB cat vote

Hi, it would better to vote rename for this cat, otherwise someone would have to go through and change all the people in the cat by hand (the Irish in GB cat can then be recreated or just make the England Wales and Scot cats as sub cats of Irish emigrants). If the cat is renamed a bot will automatically change all the articles Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_30#Category:People_of_Irish_descent_in_Great_Britain. Thanks Arniep 18:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Football Aid

I've noticed you did an edit on Owen Hargreaves back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. Kingjeff 00:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks but no, i m not a fan of his. took a peak though and his article looks a lot better than it did a year ago. just needs the stats table filled in Mayumashu 02:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Categories: Phoenixers and Tucsonans

I have proposed renaming this, for the express purpose that people from Phoenix, Arizona are not called Phoenixers at all. The proper usage, as attested in all local newspapers, is "Phoenician". However, this coincides with the adjective for residents of ancient Phoenicia as well. (Also see 1 2 3 4) The only people who refer to residents of Phoenix as Phoenixers are out-of-towners, and the vast majority of hits for "Phoenixers" on Google refer to clubs based in Britain.

Similarly, the proper term for a resident of Tucson, Arizona is not Tucsoner, but Tucsonan (see 1 2 3).

Both of these terms (Phoenician and Tucsonan) are widely attested in local media, whereas Phoenixer and Tucsoner are absent. I think this is pretty good grounds for speedy renaming.

Cheers! -- Miwa 22:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Carnegie

Hi. I reverted your category blanking on Andrew Carnegie. It sounded from your edit summary that you were seeing the categories as redlinks or something, but they are valid categories as far as I can tell. If I read your summary wrong, feel free to explain more what you're trying to do. Thanks! :) --Syrthiss 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

hi. no,　his category page Category:Andrew Carnegie already links or should link to these same category pages whose links i blanked. its just rather needless duplication Mayumashu 13:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I think from a categorization point of view, his article should have the categories applied to it. When his category (which is kind of odd in itself) has categories applied to it, that makes it a subcategory of those categories. So, I'd rather see Category:Steel Magnates point to Andrew Carnegie than Category:Andrew Carnegie because there are no other steel magnates that would go into the subcategory Category:Andrew Carnegie. Does that make sense? If so, I'll try to move some of those categories from the Category:Andrew Carnegie over to the article. While there is some duplication, it isn't complete. --Syrthiss 14:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
i agree that there is some oddity in it and think what you suggest doing here is good Mayumashu 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actually non-straightforward category name changes

Hi there, I just lodged a "complaint" about the "nationals by ethnicity" category name changes which unfortunately happened before I was aware of the related discussion and vote. Please take a look at the comment, and feel free to respond, at the Norwegian Canadians category talk page. --Wernher 23:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Oakland

Hi. Can you inform me as to why Category:People from Oakland was redirected to Category:Oaklanders? This doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I could be wrong, but I don't think "Oaklander" is a word that is used by anyone other than the person who created this cat. —Viriditas | Talk 00:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. the term 'Oaklanders' is used in like the fourth paragraph of the article Oakland, California, so it seems at least some people use the demonym. Mayumashu 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. As it turns out, the City of Oakland and the media (Oakland Tribune) use the term on their websites, but I don't think anyone from Oakland ever uses the term, nor have I ever heard someone from Oakland refer to themselves as an "Oaklander". —Viriditas | Talk 03:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
interesting. i personally like using the demonyms because they tidy up page names but there is the issue of their dissuse amongst everyday folk. there was a vote on the issue of using demonyms for people of California sub-cat pages back in the autumn, which ended no consensus to change, hence the redirect as it is - to get a date for that vote and debate see the history of the Category:Oaklanders page (i checked and the debate occurred around 27 Nov. '05). best regards Mayumashu 03:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robyn Regehr

As regards you saying there's no evidence he holds Brazilian citizenship... he was born in Brazil, and a quick Google on the subject says Brazil, like most countries, automatically grants citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of the parents' nationality.

That said, I haven't re-added the category you removed since I highly doubt he identifies himself as "Canadian-Brazilian". But just thought you should be aware that many countries grant citizenship by birth and unless he has renounced it Regehr is indeed a Brazillian citizen, as well as Canadian. --Legalizeit 08:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i would then prefer to have him listed as a Canadian-Brazilian and will restore the cat link as i think self-identication is too vague a way of determing the matter Mayumashu 11:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indianapolitans

I see you created Category:Indianapolitans. I have lived in Indianapolis for 28 years and have never heard the term "Indianapolitan". Where did that come from? --rogerd 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. it seems to be the most commonly used demonym to refer to people from Indy - a search gets 50 or so unique hits. demonyms allow the page names to be more concise as well as less "sterile" - the problem is though that demonyms are (i m now learning) not so commonly used in some (perhaps many) Ameican cities. go ahead and put it up name-change nomination if you feel "people from indianapolis" is a more appropriate way to name the page Mayumashu 05:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, before I do, I will do some more research. My wife, who was born here (I came after college), has also not heard the term. There is no need to act in haste. --rogerd 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] C. S. Lewis

Please don't remove categories like this. Both are accurate. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

other categories links listed on this page (such as Category:Irish writers or Category:Natives of Belfast) are sub-categories for the supra-category Category:Irish people. it is conventional practice across the encyclopedia to not list supra-category links on article pages Mayumashu 14:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for th misunderstanding, but a more accurate edit summary would have avoided this; you wrote "removed improper cat link", which – in light of the current debate on the Talk page – didn't look as though you were merely pruning parent categories. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
that was for a second edit of my own goof - i had added an improper cat link, realized it later, and then edited it out. i made two edits and the first edit summary i gave, "removed supra cat link, ..." accurately describes my removing the category:Irish people link. (i see that the supra-cat link has been re-removed) Mayumashu 01:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prospector categories

Someone created Category:Prospectors today and peopled it mainly with Australian gold rush prospectors. While poking around, I noticed you had previously created Category:Gold prospectors, with only William Barker (prospector) in it, who was also put in the new category. I made the Gold prospectors category a sub of the new one & categorized the new one under mining. I'm thinking of putting in four or five Klondike Gold Rush figures in one of the two categories, but before I do that, I'm wondering whether we should merge the two categories at this point, given the relatively small number of articles. What are your thoughts? Luigizanasi 06:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for asking. i guess merging given the small number of prospector bios out there would be the better choice, but i wouldn t be bothered the slightest either way. regards Mayumashu 11:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
After giving it some thought and poking around a bit more, I think we should keep both categories as they can both easily be populated a bunch of people who already have articles. Luigizanasi 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Babstock

Hi! Do you know that being from Newfoundland is incidental to Ken? Just wondering. --Robert Turner 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

hello. my point on the matter of "people from" category pages is that a person is not from a place he or she wasn t raised in. it s where a person is raised that contributes to how they become "shaped" as people. Mayumashu 01:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. Your point is well taken, however that distinction seems a bit arbitrary. A person's birthplace can also shape them even if they are raised somewhere else. Giving a rather depressing example, suppose someone survived the bombing of Nagasaki as an infant, was raised in Toledo, and suffered from radiation sickness their whole life? Would they not be 'shaped' by their birthplace? I'm sure that any survey of biographical literature will reveal many other kinds of less dramatic but still significant 'birthplace-only' influences.
Perhaps most importantly, people are shaped by their internal imagery, which can crystallize around a tiny kernal of information. My point is that the statement "that he was born in Newfoundland is incidental - he was raised in Ontario and is therefore native to to there" has an authoritative tone to it which I am challenging. KB has travelled to - and written poems about - Newfoundland, and I don't think that's just by chance. --Robert Turner 16:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Irish people

Hi. Please take a look at my comment on your rename nomination Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 1#Category:Northern Ireland people to Category:People of Northern Ireland. Thanks. --Mal 20:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian musicians categorization effort

Hi, I notice you were responsible for creating and populating much of the structure under Category:Canadian musicians. Just thought that you may be interested to know that we're currently continuing to build on this structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians/Categorization. –Unint 03:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country subdivisions

...IMO splitting the cats into a group of "Administatrive divisions of some countries" and "Political divisions of some other countries" is not useful.

could you maybe change your vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4#Category:Subdivisions_by_country_to_Category:Political_divisions_by_country

and let's discuss this on the project page

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms

first? It is really is mass rename, since it not only involves the cats and subcates but also lots of articles. As Lorenz pointed out it seems important that we first find clear definitions of what all the terms mean. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Canadian Britons

I've nominated this category for deletion (or, possibly, renaming — though my preference is for deletion) at [[1]]. Please comment there. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wp:point

why do you claim Category:Former country subdivisions was a point creation? such a cat simply did not exist. best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i meant merely to vote for the renaming of the cat page and neither support nor refute the wp:point claim of that the user has made on the cats for deletion page. apologies for any misunderstanding. best regards Mayumashu 23:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I see, best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Professors

I agree on the change from professors to academics, but please note that "faculty" as a collective for academic staff is only used in North America. Elsewhere "faculty" generally retains the traditional meaning of a subdivision of a university. As it also has this meaning in many American universities (e.g. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences), using it in a category name is not ideal. Uppland 21:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

then we should name the supra-cat Category:Academics by university. i nominate the change Mayumashu 00:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] University CFRs

Hi Mayumashu. Three things about your newest CFRs:

  1. I was preparing a mass renaming proposal similar to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#university category pages named with abbreviations .2F non-English for after my speedies went through. Mine was a subset of yours, though, so... good job!
  2. Regarding Category:Faculties by university in the United States, I'm still thinking about the proposed change, and its siblings', to Academics, but I think I like it. I do think I'd like its subcategories to remain faculty (singular), though. Is this compatible with your vision, or is that your next step?
  3. Though the cats in other countries are less standardized, Alumni, which includes graduates and non-grads, is dominant in Category:People by university in the United States. The exceptions are:
Bucknell should certainly be renamed, but I've been hesitant to decide whether to try to change the military academies. One nice property of unified alumni categories is that the the football player and other athlete categories (which can be extremely large) can serve as subcategories. A compromise might be to make alumni categories for the academies with grads and non-grad subcats. What do you think?

×Meegs

hi there. nice to see two people in near complete agreement!, as it seems we are. i just yesterday nominated 'Category:Faculties by university in the U.S.' (as well as Canada, and Mexico) be changed to "faculty", just as you point out. and yes, i d make "Fooian (uni.) graduates" cat pages sub-cats to "Fooian (uni. name) alumni pages". Mayumashu 01:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, wow, we do agree on everything: I didn't read you first proposal well enough and though it called for all the country cats to go to academics. I will make an alumni supercat for the each of the military academy graduates cats, but I think I'll still CFR Bucknell. Cheers. ×Meegs 15:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Former country subdivsions

with respect to your vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_11#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former country subdivisions

Why do you want to delete this cat? if you write per WAS but then say you don't follow his POINT claim, then only two WAS claims stay:

  • The term is non-standard, having one badly translated reference in one document.
  • The category itself is not notable, as these few articles are already categorized in their respective countries.
    • The cat grew and has now 7 articles and 14 cats in it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subdivision category debate

The original debate for renameing the country subdivision categories was closed and a new debate on the subject has now been listed. The results of the old debate are shown, but will not be counted when the current debate is closed. You are being notified because you were involved in the previous debate. If you still have an interest in the outcome, please come and participate in the new debate. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth and death categories

Please stop moving these to the top of category lists as they are patently not the most useful defining categories. Indeed they are the least useful unless the person in some trivial category which probably shouldn't exist. Osomec 20:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it is common practice to put years of births and deaths first - look at bios that have been feature articles Mayumashu 00:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English professors and their ilk

I've noticed the professors --> academics CFD since several affected articles have popped up on my watchlist, and by and large I'm in favor of it. However, some of the people being moved from English professors to literary critics of English are not literary critics, but rather poets or fiction writers (Keorapetse Kgositsile, for example). In these cases the category should probably just be dropped. Is it too much to ask, since you proposed the CFD, that you go through this category and weed out some of the poets? I will try to do a bunch of them, though most likely not for a couple of days. Thanks. Chick Bowen 12:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Only partly related to the particular issue above, but last time the category was under discussion, I suggested to rename it Category:Anglists, as it would cover specialists both in English linguistics and English literature. Somebody did not recognize "anglist" as an English word, but as I pointed out, it is in the Concise Oxford Dictionary with that exact meaning. Uppland 12:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think from what s been said here then the best name would be Category:Literary academics of English. i don t feel anglist is prominent enough lexis to be of benefit to most users and i don t think mixing linguists and academics of literature is the way to go as in many if not most (but not all) cases the two kinds at a university are in separate academic departments. How about going with this? Mayumashu 14:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either of these terms are good (I've been in the business for many years and I've never heard either), and I think the problem is that there's no such category of people. When we were calling English professors, i.e., teachers of English, that made sense, but if, given that being a professor is not in itself notable, we're converting the professors to academics, then we run up against a problem, because in the US at least writers who teach in English departments don't think of themselves as academics--they're just writers who teach in English departments. So I think the category should be left as it is, and the writers should be removed from it. Chick Bowen 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Category:Historians of English literature for those fitting that description? Uppland 17:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
i say if they neither hold advanced degrees nor publish in academic (literary) journals, then writers included in the category should be removed - i ll take a look, the population of the page presently is small. at any rate, i ve put the name up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. i don t think that English professors should be described as 'historians' (although like all humanities specialists, they implicitly consider history and the history of literature in particular in their work) Mayumashu 01:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I ve rechecked wikipedia's literary criticism article and i think the original name i gave the page is indeed best. any who has taught literature in post-secondary education would qualify. again, i see an academic as an advanced degree holder who has publishs in academic journals or even who has published (even non-academically, in the case of some English profs) and teaches in post-secondary ed. as well, there are some other categories of "scholars" who are/were not academics that have been included through category page linking (theologians and amateur historians and astronomers come to mind). i think it s not perfect but English professors are literary critics and nearly all literary critics are, when "loosely" defined, academics Mayumashu 02:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll weigh in, for whatever what I say may be worth. It's true that all Engl. profs do literary criticism in their classrooms, as "english" above the introductory level is some form of literary exegesis. However, if I am known to the world at all, and if I pass down to posterity in any form, it will be with books and articles that are what we call "Scholarship." Now, that's vague. What it would be better called is literary history or, and this is the old term for it, Philology. On the other hand, I have a friend who never inks her fingers with old editions, never cares much about when politician X wrote Y and how Queen B's actions of 1739 might have influenced Author F's novel. Instead, she is concerned with the 'paradigms' and the ideology and the unconscious ideology and the structural fissures of Author F's work. She will be known to the world as a "literary critic," because how she is known to the world is her work in exploring the literary meaning. In the trade, she's called "a critic" and I'm called "a scholar," and "critics and scholars" are at a low-level war in the academy (for no good reason that I can see except ego and missionary zeal). No one will remember her for what she did in the classroom, nor me, at least from an encyclopedia's point of view. Similarly, some professors are also novelists and/or poets. Their fame (their "notability") is as a poet or novelist. There are overlaps, of course. Tolkein was a "scholar" and novelist, and CS Lewis was a "critic" and a novelist. There are even some people whose work in the classroom, training several generations of scholars or critics, overshadows their own works (such as Pottle up at Yale). Therefore, I would suggest categories of Philologist, Literary critic, Poet, and Novelist, and let each of these live as subcategories of Academic. After all, it's not the day job that gets you in an encyclopedia in a case like that, but the books and articles written. Geogre 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
very imformative input for me anyway, as i m not in the field. the only trouble i see is including novelists without post-sec teaching experience as academics, which they are not. then maybe my withdrawn nomination should be restarted - i prefer a descriptive name that is accurate even if it s not a commonly referred to one (ie. Category:Academics of English literature should be used to house what was "Cat:English Profs")

[edit] Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia

Hi! I noticed you are from Nova Scotia and you have edited on the Lieutenant-Governors of Nova Scotia page. I have done a couple of articles, Thomas Caulfield, and Matthew Henry Richey (not very well) and done a bit of link repair. If you know of anyone interested in the contents of that page, I would be interested in making contact. Thanks! Stormbay 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey there. i don t unfortunately. my interest is in linking bios to category pages and it all starts with nova scotians and canadians, naturally, being native to there, but i m all over the place really. quite sure the best place to ask would be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia page. Best regards, Mayumashu 04:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] double level categories

I notice you are effectively reverting my work in removing double level categories in American ethnic and national origins. The Wiki rule, as I understand it, is that double level categories should not be used. If an article is in category x, and category x in category y, then the article should not also be in category y. For example, the 'German Americans' category is in 'European American' category and the 'European American' category is in the 'American ethnic and national origin' category. Nothing else is needed. There is also a Wiki rule that a category with too many subcategories should have intermediate categories created (such as European Americans, Asian Americans) if there is a logical grouping present. Please explain what you are doing here. Thanks Hmains 02:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

hi there. the problem is ethnic identification can be double-levelled. i would argue the rule is a rule of thumb and that by giving the continental ethnic groups prominence by listing them first, then putting the national sub-national groups in the list proper, you achieve a ethnicity list that better represents reality Mayumashu 03:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are asserting, nor why 'continental ethnic groups', whatever those are, should be treated in any way differently than other groups. See Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories. I do not see that your changes meet the duplication rules. Thanks Hmains 03:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I see and understand what you are doing, I just do not agree with it, nor do I see that this has been done with other categories. This should have been discussed on the talk page first and consensus obtained to do or not do this. Thanks Hmains 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

some if not quite a few "European Americans" for instance identify more with being "Italian American" say or "Swedish American" than European American. add to this that the word "national" is in the name of the cat page ie. "American people by ethnic or national origin", not American people by continental or pan-national origin". so just because few category pages are in the manner does not mean that there shouldn t be ones that are (as the wikipedia page on catting considers a few, though of a different sort admittedly) Mayumashu 14:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Scottish monarchs

Hi Mayumashu, I saw you helped me with the Scottish Catholics category, enriching it and expanding it, so I'm asking you one question now: I had added some Scottish monarchs who were Roman Catholics, and now I can only see Bonnie Prince Charlie there... The House of Stuart (as we all know) was almost entirely Catholic, I think we should add their members in the page, and I was going to do it before the page switched on to "Scottish Roman Catholics" and the various "James of Scotland" (also Mary Queen of Scots!) disappeared. Please, answer to my question as soon as you can. BTW, I do have Scottish relatives, and they're...Protestant to boot, so I really have no other aim rather than historical and cultural development Gianmaria Framarin 18:37 2 June 2006

[edit] Jack Donohue

Hello! Stumbled upon the article and thought it needed a big rewrite....I started and then noticed in the history that it is only 2 days old!!! (Amazing for someone like Mr. Donohue).... Would you like to continue this or shall I? I have added (cut and paste) alot of info from which you/I/we can rewrite into a good article. Let me know. Didn't mean to step on your toes. KsprayDad 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

go for you. i just wanted to get something started and, for as it sounds like you d agree, the man is deserving of a write-up here. i actually don t have any special info on him, i just took the basics from a couple bios that come up from a net search. Best regards, Mayumashu 03:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] duplicative emigrant/descent categories

In Category:People by ethnic or national descent, there are mostly sub-categories named 'People of Foo descent'. In Category:Emigrants by nationality, there are mostly sub-categories named 'Foo emigrants'. Looking down further into these sub-categories, they are both populated with sub-sub-categories named 'Foo Goo', where 'Foo' is the origin country and 'Goo' is the destination country. Examples: see Category:People of Canadian descent and Category:Canadian emigrants, having Category:Canadian Americans, Category:Canadian Australians, etc. Sometimes, in the matching sub-categories, the sub-sub-categories are the same; more often, there is partial or even no overlap.

Something is wrong here. There should be either be categories named 'People of Foo descent' or 'Foo emigrants', but not both. Which is it? Thanks Hmains 05:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i disagree that this is an 'either or' choice and that both kinds cannot exist with one a sub-category of the other but given that all fooian emigrants are of fooian descent then the later cat pages are more important. i agree though that the present set-up and cat page linking is in disarray. the problem is we can t easily at all use the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion page to change one kind over to the other because many voters will vote to delete rather than rename and things will either end in stalemate or even possibly in deletion with a lot of work lost. part of the problem i created when i created a number of Fooian emigrants cat pages without realizing that many people listed in the North American pages are second or greater generation, not emigrants. Mayumashu 05:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I can work on sorting things out if we agree on the direction. I think the the Descent categories should remain and be fully populated and the Emigrant categories should be depopulated so they disappear. What you think? Thanks Hmains 03:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
i d support that. best regards, Mayumashu 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks Hmains 19:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcheline Bertrand

Marcheline Bertrand was born in Waukeegan,Illinois in 1950 and mostly raised by her grandparents, who ran a bowling allee there. There is little reliable information available on her parents, though we know that her father was French-Canadian and her mother of Iroquois/Six Nations heritage.

Marcheline's life path is sketchy from her middle/late teenage years. She may have first gone California (there is a report of a Social Security Card issued in her name during the late sixties) and then to New York to work as a young model and struggling actress.

[edit] Dance capitalization

I noticed that you listed yourself as a linguist. There is currently a dispute at the Lindy Hop article the Dance WikiProject about the capitalization of dances that could use the expertise of a linguist. If you think you might be able to help, we would certainly appreciate your comments. Thanks! --Cswrye 05:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine people by ethnic/national origin categories

please see what one editor has done to all these categories and my comments on this in the 'Category for Deletion' talk page and the 'Village pump' page. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

sour loser vandalizes. i reverted a few back, but presumably the same user emptied all of the sub-cats of their bio links. Mayumashu 13:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I find that the editor is actually a new administrator! In any case, I examined every article and reverted nearly everything he did. Now look at my and his talk pages so you can see he is proposing a "comprise": to wait a week and he will delete everything again. I have no resources to find fact; I just work on copyedits and categories. Thanks Hmains

i commend you on the hard work and hope he doesn t do what he may, as you ve suggested. if some of the ethnic links are too distant and therefore obscure then they should be discussed and handled on a one by one basis, but that was utter vandalism and the user should have their admin. status revoked, shouldn t (s)he. best regards, Mayumashu 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed incorrect category

I reverted your addition of category:Deaths by firearm to category:Duelling fatalities. Somewhere around 1/4 of the current entries were sword duels, and there are many more that can and should be added. I hope you agree that it would be rather odd to list a 12th Century judicial duel between mailed knights as a death by firearm. That is why I removed the category some time ago. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

sword duels, of course - apologize for the daft oversight. Regards, Mayumashu 04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
NP, someone had made the oversight before you, and the problem didn't really dawn on me until I noticed Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun was classed as a death by firearm. This is the famous sword-duel that involved such severe and repeated injuries to both combatants (neither would yield) so that nearly all subsequent duels were by pistols. I took death-by-firearm cat out of duelling-fatalities and then went to some effort to add it individually to those bios where warranted. In some cases, this involved research to confirm which type of duel. Now, I watch the cat. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
splitting them up into two sub-cats would avoid having to "keep vigil" but its nice to show what s not a large number as one list, isn t it. i readded the death-by-firearm link i d removed from the bio i was looking at, btw. Mayumashu 13:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I also thought about splitting, but there aren't nearly enough articles yet. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by political orientation

Could you weigh in on the purpose you created this category for, please? There seems to be confusion as to what it's really about. — ChristTrekker 14:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political Theory/Philosophy

Have you considered beginning a stub or article on the various aspects of "political theory"? Your comment regarding political philosophy and its relation to political theory peaked my interest.--Quoth the Raven 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

afraid i don t follow - sure this was me? Mayumashu 15:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Gardner

I tried to search Google for an Australian tennis player named John Gardner, and I was unable to find any (my search on Google). Can you provide any source or article about him? - grubber 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

go to the ATP official site and enter Gardner in the search box in the upper right of the page - he ll come up Mayumashu 19:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He doesn't seem very notable. Even that site is severely lacking in information. There is no picture, no information about him, very little about his record. The Google search I mentioned before did not return any pages about him that I could see. I'm tempted to remove the reference on the dab page until there is enough info out there to justify a wiki-entry. What do you think? - grubber 22:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
he s as notable as a large number of players with pages now Brian Vahaly, Tommy Ho, Eric Amend, Eric Fromm. He doesn t have a picture and info because of the era he played in, which should not be reason for exclusion on wikipedia. He reached the second round of the U.S. Open in '71 and players who haven t done this have pages, so he d pass notability (perhaps unfortunately) Mayumashu 02:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Wikiproject

I see you've made a large number of edits to tennis-related articles over the past few days. If you're interested, I've recently started a Tennis Wikiproject --Dantheox 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the invite. i may in the weeks ahead look into joining but am about to become busier for the next while. best regards, Mayumashu 09:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American football players

Hi Mayumashu. I would not work too hard populating the category. It was just deleted a few months ago (here), and very likely will be again. Sorry to have to bring the bad news. Best regards ×Meegs 16:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Figured something was up that it didn t already exist. so why isn t there this? sure, 80% or whatever of all football players are Black, but the same is true for basketball players and it exists. anyway, i ll see what the reasons were from the link you ve given - cheers. Mayumashu 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
actually, i don t see why it was deleted with a 2-2 vote. but, yeah, i ll hold off populating it like you suggest Mayumashu 07:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the basketball cat nearly went down earlier this week. It's only a matter of time, if you ask me. I don't feel strongly either way, but I'm tempted to mass nominate all of the similar cats just to get it over with, and to prevent people from wasting effort in the meantime. Best ×Meegs 08:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
yeah, i saw that later. I don t really care either way either I guess - i kind of like having ethnicity cats but can understand the argument against too and kind of like sub-catting huge ethnicity cat page lists but can understand the argument that doing so is to list trivia. but at some point most humanities data collection is trivia, it seems to me. anyroad, thanks for pointing out what s been happening and saving me from wasting time. Mayumashu 14:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Canadian football players

Do you really think this category is needed? It seems redundant and it looks sort of dumb. How about "Canadian Canadian football players playing in the Canadian Football League born in Canada." I'd suggest DELETING it. Mundster 18:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

we disagree Mayumashu 04:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I must agree strongly with Mundster: this category is redundant. The assumption should be that "Canadian football players" are Canadian, not unlike the assumption taken with Category:American football players. Please see my earlier comments at Category talk:Canadian Football League. heqs 06:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, your thing about ethnic categories can go too far. The way I see it, heck, you are adding to Wikipedia and seem to be doing no harm, other than burdening the category system with junk, so knock yourself out. But, recently I edited the Bob O'Billovich entry when I read he had "Serb bloodlines." Say what? No evidence was provided. So, when does fun with ethnic categories stop and become "ethnic profiling," which I find replusive, but at the least, is utterly useless. Who cares if Dallas Smith is of Scottosh origin. He is Canadian.Mundster 02:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kelly Marie Ellard

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Kelly Marie Ellard, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Kelly Marie Ellard. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Argyriou (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese name ordering

Some of your recent edits have violated the Japanese article manual of style which states that people born before 1868 should be named "last first". If you want to discuss that, please bring it up on the MOS talk page, and don't do a mass movement of articles like that. Also, the nihongo template is not just for names which are in the reversed order. It can be used for any Japanese word, to indicate the kanji, etc. and in general, should not be removed from any article unless the kanji is superfluous (ie, if it is kanji for a word which is linked to another article, etc). Neier 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

sincere apologies - I realized the pre-Meiji / post-Meiji births split after doing some edits and will revert the erroneous edits i made. regards Mayumashu 03:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I took care of a few this morning, until I hit Tōgō Heihachirō, which had to have some admin help to sort out. That's when I gave up and went to the office. Neier 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please also revert Manjiro Inagaki back to Inagaki Manjiro. This may also need an admistrator's assistance to avoid loss of the edit history page! --MChew 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--MChew 14:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ron Flockhart

Hi Mayumashu. I notice you moved Ron Flockhart to Ron Flockhart (auto racing). Would you mind updating all the pages that linked to it as well? Thanks. DH85868993 04:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the list Mayumashu 04:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done them for you. Cheers. DH85868993 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
righto - thanks Mayumashu 13:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Danny Graham

An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Jerry lavoie 05:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Mayumashu 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

There is a request for comments on the Robert Latimer page; please see Talk:Robert Latimer#Request for comments. Rosemary Amey 23:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Mayumashu 04:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your edit at Wojtek Wolski

Regarding your edit summary at Wojtek Wolski (diff): I have no idea if Wolski has dual citizenship (not sure if Poland has jus soli law a.k.a. citizenship via birth) but he definitely has Canadian citizenship (requirement to play on Team Canada). Just wondering, do YOU know if Poland has jus soli law? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

no idea. someone put him in Category:Polish ice hockey players and since it doesn t seem that he s ever played for Poland, i wondered this aloud. if he s not played for Poland nor a dual citizen, he shouldn t be on this cat page (despite his name and birth), should he. regards Mayumashu 06:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Americans

I agree with the work you are doing in this cat. If you need assistance, let me know. Kevlar67 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Feel free to pitch in if you want - I going at it in alphabetical order so if you wanted to why not sort from Z in reverse order and we d meet somewhere in the middle. I intend to do the same thing for all subcategories of Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin, in the end having for instance Category:Brazilian immigrants to Canada a sub-cat of Category:Canadians of Brazilian descent, doing away with all "Fooian(-)Hooian" category names which people cannot agree on if they should be spelled with a hyphen or not and more importantly which suggest a common identity of the ethnic group within the country which may not exist, and is therefore misleading. Attributing descent simply as descent is on the other hand factual when sources are given. Mayumashu 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
We have to be careful, though. What information do we want to convey exactly? Ukrainian speaking Canadian immigrants from the Austro-Hungarian empire are Ukrainian Canadians, even if the best legal description of them is "Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada" (a category I intend to create, BTW). WP should convey both legal status but also cultural affiliation. Kevlar67 02:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Such immigrants would be listed under both Category:Austro-Hungarian immigrants to Canada and Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent, wouldn t they. exactly, WP should convey both sets of info - and where they overlap, one becomes a sub-set of the other - Category:Ukrainian immigrants to Canada as a *sub-set linked to Category:Canadians of Ukrainian descent. It s going to take a lot of work to see it through though Mayumashu 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but the challenge is to convey both sets of information in a way that readers and also other editors will understand, otherwise they will undo all your hard work. Here's a question for you: would "Canadians of Fooian decent", "Fooian immigrants to Canada", and "Fooian expatriates in Canada" have one common category they could be found under? I'm worried that trying to get rid of Fooian Hooians will meet with too much resistance, afterall, there are lost of WP articles that these cats are based around, and people will be hesitant to change them. Kevlar67 03:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry User:Kevlar for not replying earlier. I ve been busy revamping the pages for Canadian ethnic and national origin. When I get this finished, I ll tackle the same pages for other countries where I ll feel it least likely to encouter resistance - the key is to change enough pages without one going to a WP:Pages for discussion and then to do a block rename once the majority of pages are named as we d like them to be. to be honest, category delete/rename users do not seem too interested in these cat pages. they d like to see them deleted but are too reluctant to try a block deletion as deleting them as a whole has not been accomplished in the past. so i think i can get enough changed over - we ll see! Mayumashu 17:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nate DiCasmirro

Just wondering if you can explain your reason(s) for deleting the biographical information I added about Nate DiCasmirro's hockey career. It's not liked it was inaccurate or wasn't sourced. Also, your category change is based on an unsourced assumption, that he holds U.S. citizenship. I haven't found anything that he says he does. Categorizing articles based on assumptions doesn't seem like a very good idea. I look forward to your response. Cheers!--Vbd | (Talk) 18:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry - will undo the damage Mayumashu 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
went to the page - does your info tell you if he also holds American citizenship or ever played for the States? if neither s the case then he shouldn t be characterized as an American player Mayumashu 02:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I went back and searched for a source that confirms that he is a U.S. citizen. I have added the reference.--Vbd | (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael J. Fox

Please see discussion page.--Vbd | (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Boyce Richardson

Huh? Let's see: Ian Billcliff (Ian Shaw Billcliff (born October 26, 1972 in Williams Lake, British Columbia) is a 'Canadian of New Zealand Origin' but Boyce Richardson is an immigrant from New Zealand? Go figure! Why the nit-picking? Let's just go with 'New Zealand Canadians' shall we? (Actually I'd prefer Kiwi-Canucks, myself!) Macadavy 09:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Macadavy

we could but it s better this way both to have a comprehensive list of immigrants and to avoid any possible implication that all people listed as "(New Zealand) Canadian" say belong to a "Kiwi Canuck" community with particularly shared values. many may in fact do but how can this be known in most cases? simply stating ethnicity or citizenship as fact is better reflected "of origin" or "of descent" naming, the way i see it Mayumashu 11:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking page in my userspace

Please do not blank articles in my userspace, as you did to User:SigPig/Bruce Carruthers. I consider it vandalism, especially given your edit summary "(some kind of nonsense page - blanked)". The information is a stub being worked on about the founder of the Canadian Corps of Signals, and is verifiable as well as cited; while a stub, it is far from nonsense. If you have some kind of problem with items in my userspace, I would appreciate the common courtesy that you take it up with me first on my talk page. You seem to have been here long enough to know better about processes and procedures. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 04:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise. The page is linked to the encyclopedia proper through it s category page links and as it looked like a WP:BIO page but was also a user page, I wrongly thought it was some kind of nonsensical blend of two kinds of pages, as I thought i had encountered this phenomenom here a few years ago. At any rate, I ve resurrected the Bruce Carruthers bio page. Mayumashu 05:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill White redirect

Hi there. I noticed you redirected Bill White (politician) to William A. White. These are two completely separate people, although they are father and son. I reverted the page back to its pre-redirect form. What was your reason for the redirect?Abebenjoe 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hey there. oops! thanks for the spot and apologies! Mayumashu 05:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadians of Armenian descent move

Hello Mayumashu, I saw your move of Armenians of Canada to Canadians of Armenian descent move. While I see the logic behind the move, I must disagree with it because this was in accordance with other Armenian diaspora articles. What do you think? - Fedayee 17:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. Yeah, I know it goes against the convention as it now but I m in the process of changing all relevant article and category pages to this more logically naming and this is going to take weeks. Could we change other Armenian diaspora articles over to this naming? Or we could change the one I changed back. However, I do intend to change all pages for all diaspora over time. It just makes no sense to call every third or fourth generation Canadian of Armenian descent Armenian(-)Canadian for we can t know how much they identify themselves as such as the naming suggests a sense of common identity. We can however know simply (in verifiable cases of course) if they have the lineage or not, and the naming I m proposing reflects this Mayumashu 04:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadians of Indian descent move

It may be a logical move, but it might have been polite to at least mention moving Indo-Canadian to Canadians of Indian descent before doing so. One problem might be the double meaning of "Indian" in Canada, which was solved by the prior title, but is now somewhat ambiguous. Usually, these moves are proposed and discussed first, for just this reason. - TheMightyQuill 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning behind why you have decided to rename many articles, such as Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent, since it covers everyone with that heritage, but I to have to agree with TheMightyQuill, the double meaning associated with the term Indian within Canada is why People of Indian descent in Canada are referred to as Indo-Canadian.

The purpose of a redirect as well, from the redirect page help page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Redirect#How_do_I_change_a_redirect.3F is as follows:

"Purposes of a redirect

   * Allow access in the case that a pagename is provided:
         o which is an alternative term for the subject
         o which is a term for a subtopic (in this case one may use a redirect to a section)
         o which uses alternative capitalization and hyphenation
         o which uses alternative spelling
         o which has a common misspelling"

Since the terms Chinese Canadian, Indo Canadian, Filipino Canadian etc. are the terms that are in common usage within Canada, such as in the media and scholarly articles, they should serve as the main title of the article because this is the main title people are familiar with searching with. It is not incorrect to create a page called "Canadian of xxxx descent" since it is an alternative, but because it is not the common term, it should not take precedence over the widely used term. Instead, Canadian of Indian descent should be redirected to Indo-Canadian, and so forth for the respective articles such as Canadian of Chinese descent, instead the current redirect, which is the other way around.


- Parihav 05:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco-Ontarians

While it's true that not all Franco-Ontarians are of French descent, not all Franco-Ontarians are francophone, either, so Category:Francophone Canadians is problematic for the exact same reason that Category:French Canadians is. Can you think of an alternative way to handle this? Bearcat 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

no, not without having a Category:Franco-Ontarians of non-French descent, which I m sure no one would want including me. one improvement would be having Category:Franco-Ontarians include just francophone Ontarians and linking it to a Category:People of Franco-Ontarian descent for anglophones with Francophone parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents from Ontario - I did this for Category:Acadians and Category:People of Acadian descent recently. so I take it from this that "Franco-Ontarian" is used quite liberally and perhaps differently by different people, unlike in the case of Acadians. Mayumashu 01:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English-Canadians

Same comments as those re Indo-Canadians and Franco-Ontarians. The article on English Canadians is about more than 'Canadians of English Descent'. I, for example, consider myself English-Canadian under the most generally used meaning of the term, but have virtually no actual English ancestry. There are French-Canadians of Irish ancestry. The Scots-Irish include more than Irish of Scottish ancestry. The approach you seem to be taking makes sense when one is dealing with recently arrived groups ("Swedes of Ethiopian Ancestry") but becomes much less accurate when there has been movement from one point of origin to another over several generations and the population in the new homelands have begun to intermingle with the local population or have been in the new location for so long that they have developed or are beginning to develop their own sense of self-identification. I don't think that this relabelling (as logical as it may seem in the abstract) is really going to work in all cases, and shouldn't be carried out without some discussion. The problem may be a lack of nomenclature for these relatively new populations. "Québécois" or "Acadian" work well to distinguish some populations, but "Franco-Ontarians" or "English-Canadians" don't yet have such descriptors. People just don't always fit into neat categories. Corlyon 02:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Corlyon

I admit that the page I renamed from English-Canadian and Indo-Canadian should be reverted to reflect colloquial use and I will in the next two days contact an administrator to see about getting it done. The category pages are (or certainly should be) a whole different story reflecting ancestry based on lineage and not self-identity (far too unconfirmable, POV), colloquial use ("English-Canadian" to a non-North American would not mean the same thing if anything at all), or what generation one is removed from the country of one's ancestors. Regards Mayumashu 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Mayamushu. The move back still hasn't happened, leaving Wikipedia with the anomaly of having an article on "French Canadians" but not "English Canadians". I don't think we would want to see the articles on "Acadians" and "Quebecois" tossed into a generic article on "Canadians of French Descent", so there must be some consideration given to discussions of people who are associated by affinities other than pure lineage. CheersCorlyon 23:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Corlyon


[edit] Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_15#People_by_Italian_provinces

It looks like there was an error in the original nomination, and as a result the natives of the Province of Pavia got added to the Category:People from the Province of Parma. I guess you'll have to sort them out by hand. It's not too bad, there's only 37 of them. -- Prove It (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

oops! will get on it shortly - thanks! Mayumashu 04:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Elisha Cuthbert

Please stop adding Category:Canadians of European descent to the Elisha Cuthbert article without a reliable source. It is considered original research. If you feel other categories violate the original research guideline, be bold and remove them from the article. --Kevin Walter 07:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that you are being way too pedantic in denying she s of European descent - there s even pictures on the page to back this "claim" up - are they not reliable? be reasonable Mayumashu 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Northern Irish Immigrants to Canada

Hi there. Can you be careful when adding this category to articles as not everyone is eligible to be in it that you have added it to. There have been several cases where you have added it to people who cannot possibly have been described as Northern Irish immigrants as they either moved, or died, before the establishment of Northern Ireland. In those cases they should be in the Irish immigrants, not Northern Irish immigrants. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

true enough - shall move them over. Thanks Mayumashu 13:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
That's okay, I've already done so, just letting you know the whats and whys. Keep up the good work. Ben W Bell talk 14:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Wilson (writer, horticulturist)

I've move this page back to its original title. Wilson didn't - as you stated in your edit summary - write (only) on horticulture, he wrote on many issues and anyway, was known equally as a writer and landscaper/gardener (these activities were, in fact, intertwined). Make sense? Pinkville 17:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

alright Mayumashu 01:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Belkin

Greetings. You ask "did he acquire Mexican citizenship?" yes, he did! I would not consider him an English Mexican or a Russian Mexican as noted in the categories.. A Mexican of Russian descent-yes! Best, --Healkids 21:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I m in the process of listing Canadians of fooian descent and Fooian Canadians separately as they are two different things, aren t they. Regards Mayumashu 03:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intersection by location

Hi. I wanted to point out to you a new overcategorization guideline. It calls into question the appropriateness of some categories that you have created, such as Category:Alberta actors or Category:Nova Scotia actors. Before emptying these and similar categories, I thought I would check in with you first. --Vbd (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

don t mind seeing these go. and appreciative of the notice Mayumashu 02:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page moves

It would have been nice if you posted a comment on the talk pages, or better yet, used WP:RM for all these Foovian Canadian pages you're moving. IMO your stated reason "moved Chinese Canadian to Canadians of Chinese descent: page describes Canadians of full AND PARTIAL Chinese ancestry" is very weak. For example, people of partial Chinese descent may still identify as "Chinese Canadian", there is nothing inherent in the term which implies that they are of full Chinese descent. Also WP:NC(CN). cab 22:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

these pages should not be based on self-identication - few people proclaim their identification to the point that a citeable source can be found. I think that someone of partial identity who does profess such self-identity where citeable should be included, point taken. this is however something inherent to some including me in the term that does suggest dual citizenship (see below on this page), full ancestry, or self-identification, and some people with fooian ancestry are none of these. the renaming is an improvement on all of what is described on the page, I m certain of this. where a source is available, however, I agree with you that self-identification should be a criterion for inclusion of an individual being refered to as "Fooian Canadian", regardless of the extent of the ancestry. Mayumashu 11:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
To comment further and ask for your opinion: I'm personally not very much in favour of the "Fooian-nationality" naming scheme either (mainly because, except in the cases where the name is well known, as in Chinese Americans, it's unclear as to which is the country and which is the ethnicity, and generates endless debates about which should come first; e.g. Talk:Malaysian Chinese). However, I don't think the "Fooians of Bar descent" naming scheme comes closer to making the page title match the content that should be in the page; the main problem is that the title seems to exclude people of Bar descent living in Fooland who aren't Fooian citizens. My guess is that when someone goes to the "Chinese American" page, they might be interested in finding information about issues of Chinese immigrants (who are often represented and assisted by activist group with names like "Organisation of Chinese Americans"); they probably don't care about people of 1/8th Chinese descent like Lisa See.
Hi. then, the page should be "People in Canada of Chinese descent", to include expatriates (who are not technically Canadian, give immigrants prominence, and mention to people like Keanu Reeves Mayumashu 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I was personally in favour of a naming scheme like "Ethnic Barians in Fooland", but the "Ethnic Barian" terminology caused a major ruckus (see Talk:Japanese diaspora). So lately I've just been using "Bar people in Fooland" (e.g. Japanese people in North Korea, Vietnamese people in Russia). Any better ideas? cab 08:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. "People of Fooian descent in Barland" is the best I can think of 10:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Indian Americans

There is a debate on whether there should be subcats for ethnicities in the maincat. As you were a contributor to the above mentioned cat, I would like to know your views here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_9#Category:Tamil Americans.Bakaman 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

afraid I have to agree with keeping it. it does mean some people having two cat links. but there aren t too many supra-natural ethnic groups - Arabs, Basques, Huquenots, Kurds, Jews, Polynesians Mayumashu 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People by ethnic or national origin

Hi. I know you've done a lot of work on revamping the sub-cat Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin. Thank you!

I started to draft a proposal that would apply your paradigm to the many other similar sub-cats of Category:People by ethnic or national origin, but I ran into a problem. I don't understand the distinction you have made between "Canadians of American descent" and "American Canadians." The former is for Canadians who have one American parent or grandparent; the latter is for those who have two American parents, right? This seems like a false distinction -- the difference between one or both parents. Can you articulate your reasoning? Also, when I was trying to figure out how this all worked, I looked for a discussion of the changes you have made but couldn't find any. Was there one? Cheers!--Vbd (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Fooian Canadians are of full Fooian descent as I ve set up this scheme, where as Canadians of Fooian descent is of partial descent. One parent therefore means "partial descent" whereas two equates "full descent" (not a perfect distinction but wholly workable). In the case of America-Canada this does seem rather a petty distinction to make but it is in keeping with the scheme as a whole as saying someone whose of 1/4 Scottish ancestry from 100 years ago is somehow "Scottish Canadian" (suggesting one is both, in rather equal proportations) is more nonsensical. No discussion took place. I don t think a lot of users care much about having these categories whereas it is my pet interest (human migration). Mayumashu 08:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Aha! I see what you are getting at. Well, I guess it would have been overkill to call the cat. "Canadians of partial Scottish descent." ;-) And your example that someone who is 1/4 Scottish should not be categorized as "Scottish American" makes sense. But consider your example the other way around. It is not nonsensical to say that someone who has two Scottish parents is "of Scottish descent." And a person who has two Scottish grandparents is also "of Scottish descent." Why not put them both in the "Canadians of Scottish descent" category" (rather than the "Scottish Canadian" category)? My inclination is to lump the partial and full descent together (Foo-ians of Goo-ian descent), and keep the "Foo-ian Goo-ian" cat. for the dual citizenship cases we so offer encounter, especially between Canada and the U.S.
that was my actual original intention, to lump them together, but then I thought and still think the one parent / two parent division is significant. of course, someone with two Scottish parents is of Scottish descent and as such "Fooian Canadians is a (*prominently put) sub-category of "Canadians of Fooian descent", with an explanation is given on each page. Dual citizens fall under immigrants, a prominent sub-cat of Fooian Canadian" Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think you are mistaken in your assumption that a lot of users don't care about these categories. Check out the debate about Nicole Kidman here, here, and here. This debate has been going on for more than a year, and continues even after having been through mediation! The mere use of the word "Australian" to describe her in the lead paragraph now merits not one but two footnotes.
this makes sense in that she is a dual citizen - American by birth with Australian parents and Australian by nationality with American national origins (nationality) (Mel Gibson too) Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess the problem with these labels is the blurring between citizenship and "national origin." To me, the word "descent" neatly makes that distinction possible. That's why I was thinking about proposing that your paradigm be applied across the board, but stopped when I realized that your paradigm wasn't quite what I thought it was.--Vbd (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I m in whole-hearted agreement on this main point, that descent is the better terminology to use of the parent level of category pages. I wouldn t mind that much to see all partial and full descent go together, but my sense is that there will be a lot of users who will want to keep the "Fooian-nationality" scheme. the scheme I ve been setting out to have allows for these users to keep these pages as sub-categories. Mayumashu 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll probably go ahead and propose a major overhaul and see how it goes. You are right that people think in terms of "Italian Americans" or "Scottish Canadians" as representing ethnic or national origins, but I don't know if that is true in other places. I'd just like to come up with a schema that works for categorizing people by nationality versus citizenship. But I may need to think about this a little more. --Vbd (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is largely limited North America. But I think the overall scheme now does hold "nationality" ("origin of cultural heritage") over citizenship in how we list people by occupation where people are listed both by where they have worked as nationals or expats and their nationality. Look forward to seeing how the proposal goes, regards! Mayumashu 05:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of high school dropouts

A tag has been placed on List of high school dropouts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how List of high school dropouts is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on Talk:List of high school dropouts saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we ask you to follow these instructions. Calton | Talk 02:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Bruneau

I'm not sure that "Anglophone Canadians of French Canadian descent" is a relevant category; Sharon is Metis, from Timmins, and like other Metis from that area French may be her first language; she speaks flawless English, but I'm not sure that she can be so easily sorted into "Anglophone Canada", or for that matter of French-Canadian descent; the French-name side of her may be entirely Metis, albeit francophone, but note "Frenchb-Canadian" tends to refer to the quebecois ethnicity, not to francophonesn general (though it's supposed to). I don't know exactly, but she's around town, so I'll ask her if I run into her; but I think trying to label people according to their hyphenated Canadian category is kinda dehumanizing; we are not our ethnic pedigrees. In Sharon's case I added the Metis tag because I know she's a Metis-card holder (like Kevin O'Toole (bodybuilder)), but I wouldn't assume that she's "Anglophone Canadian of French Canadian descent", and I'm not sure branding Canadians with their ethnic classification is all that valid of a pasttime, although typically Canadian in its own way. As is the assumption taht someone born outside of Quebec is "Anglophone Canadian of French descent" when there's a good chance their maternal language actually was French (as throughout Northern Ontario and in some of the West).Skookum1 19:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at what info I could on Timmins and could not find that there was a Francophone community and assumed (apparently correctly) that she's anglophone, although as you say without hearing it from her, despite Timmins' profile, it can t be known if she is francophone or not. And you mention that she and Kevin O'Toole are Metis cardholders - I ll undo an edit I made there. Thanks for the info, Mayumashu 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, Kevin's card I've seen in person and it's on his personal website somewhere; he's pretty proud of it; Sharon's I was just told about, though, but she'd probably respond to the query if I emailed her (she'll like having her photos up here, even if they're older). As for the francophone/anglophone thing I'll ask her that at the same time; other Metis I know from northern Ontario do have accents and French is their primary (household) language, but not all; "Anglophones of French-Canadian descent" would seem to be exclusive even of Metis anglophones, since Metis are (nearly always) of French descent. i.e. because she's Metis she's inherently of French descent, so isn't hte other category redundant (as well as possibly mistaken). Kevin should definitely be in Category:Canadians of Irish descent, as he's also as much that as he is Metis - I gather the distinction (?) with Category:Irish Canadians is the latter are born in Ireland - ?.Skookum1 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
it s not redundant 'cause there were also a fair number of Scots, evidently some Irish, and I believe some English too who were into fur trading and whose descendants became Metis - I ve got the category page now linked to Category:Canadians of European descent. Yeah, it seems to be to make better sense to call someone whose half, quarter or less Irish say someone of Irish descent, then "Irish Canadian". in truth, there aren t really rules though as to how we refer to people of ancestry other than that of the country of their citizenship - it s about what seems to make sense to the person, isnt it. and due to a lack of convention, I ve been changing over the names of pages to reflect a less-assuming naming scheme. Mayumashu 07:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian of English descent — clarification

Was it your intention that Canadian of English descent be moved back to English-Canadian, as the current text would suggest, or to English Canadian, as you actually stated in your move request? I realise that this question comes about a week later than it should have, but once I have an answer I can get on with shifting the article over. --Stemonitis 17:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I don t know and that s mostly because I don t care either way which is used, as I find using term either with or without the hyphen to mean anglophone Canadian to be utterly disagreeable. (I happen to be an English teacher and can tell you for what it s worth that "English Canadian" is in fact the grammatical correct expression as "English-Canadian" with a hyphen is a compound adjective, not a noun. again though this is about describing proper colloquial usage and not grammar, I acknowledge) Mayumashu 16:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
There is now a page titled "Canadians of English Descent" (recently created containing references to persons of English background) and a page titled "Canadian of English Descent" (the former page on English Canadians that you renamed). I missed the vote on moving the article back to its original title English Canadians, and most people who were opposed, seem to have been opposed because they also thought that there should be an article on Canadians of "English" ethnic background. (And now there is). See the recent discussion on the talk page. But "Canadian of English Descent" can't be moved to "English Canadian" because apparently there is already an article called English Canadian (but there isn't because that term now redirects to English Canada), which references "English Canadians" which redirects to itself. Could you please sort this out as I don't know how to undo the loop linking English Canada and English Canadians. Thanks very much.Corlyon 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Corlyon
I put in a request two weeks ago to have this reverted - I ll see what info I can get on its status Mayumashu 02:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
understand now what s going on. resubmitted request Mayumashu 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jordin Tootoo

I just noticed this edit. Yes he was born in Manitoba but he grew up in Rankin. I don't know at what age he returned to Rankin but he was there before the age of three and that I found a reference for. Now as a guess, and it's nothing I could add to the article right now, I suspect that his mother had to go to Churchill to have him. Very few Arctic communities are set up to deal with births and the mothers were sent to different places, Yellowknife, Churchill and MOntreal. This still happens today, an example would be both of my grandchildren were born in Yellowknife but are considered to be from Nunavut. Also he self-identifies as an Inuk. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I became reaware of what you are saying with the relocation, but I wasn t aware it was for childbirth and mistakenly assumed in this case that Jordin Tootoo grew up in Churchill. I think based on what you re saying that he should definitely belong to Category:Inuit people and Category:Nunavut sportspeople, even without a link to the source. Best regards Mayumashu 01:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No problem. You did the correct thing as now the sources are there which is better. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inuit people

You do know that there's not actually any such thing as "American Inuit", right? They're called Inupiat or Yupik. Bearcat 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Inuit says Inupiat and Yupik are. Is it wrong? Mayumashu 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of tricky to explain — they are all related peoples, but the Alaskan groups don't self-identify as Inuit; as similar as their culture is in some respects, the Yupik are actually of a different descent group. Canadian Inuit do tend to use "Inuit" as the umbrella term for all three groups, but the Inupiat and Yupik don't — believe it or not, the Yupik actually still prefer Eskimo as the umbrella term. It would probably be best to go for Yupik and Inupiat categories instead of Inuit for the American groups. Bearcat 02:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I see - thanks. I ll follow your advice Mayumashu 02:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Inupiat page uses Inuit not Eskimo as a descriptor - I ll leave what I ve done and let any concerned user put up the cat page for renaming Mayumashu 03:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English(-)Canadians

I just happened to still have "watch" on your page re our previous exchange, and happened to notice this; I've sometimes weighed in on the E-C pages, to summarize the titles; I'm both of English ancestry (1/4, although some of that includes "Shonfeld" which obviously isn't) and also of the camp usually described as "English Canadians" by dint of being an anglophone Canadian. But coming from the West, I do have to say that "anglophone Canadian" has alwasy smacked of "federally-correct language" and, er, kind of smacks of being a French-ism to many; so even if they're Ukrainian Canadians or German Canadians they're likely to say they're English Canadian, and will resonate on the term "English Canada", though not in the monolithic sense meant by that phrases context in Quebec/national politics. The part of Canada where English is spoken, Canadians who speak English, is what is meant by the usage, whatever the grammatical correctness of the construction (Wiki seems to avoid them, ie. hyphenated Cdn/Am ethnonyms, but not always). I find it disagreeable, too, for all I've just said; I only mean it in the linguistic sense and not the ethnic sense, even though I'm part-English (also Norwegian, Irish, French-from-France); but the sense I find it disareeable is the need to divide Canadians up by either nationality or ethnicity; I'm just a Canadian; it's only apposite to the French and the anglo-franco division of the country/s identity (if "division" is the right word - how's "dialectic"?) that I'm English Canadian, not in any other sense; other than that I'm just Canadian, and I know lots of people who'd say the same thing, despite a palette of ethnicities in their family tree (and with or without speaking any inherited language). It's the classification of people that I'm wary of, unless their ethnicity is a marker of their identity; there's a tendency (which I've taken part in) to look up people by their ethnic origin and then add "Irish Canadian" or "Norwegian Canadian" or "Scottish Canadian" on the basis of that; but ethnicity is also about self-identification; I suppose the cats have emerged because "Irish Canadian" can mean something different than "Canadian of Irish descent". Which brings us back around to this page: I'd say there's a fundamental difference, and with this one ethnonym in particular (English Canadian) there's a big need for a separate article because of the variable meanings, vs. the much more precise Canadians of English descent.Skookum1 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought a page with more accurate meaning was necessary too and created it a few days ago. I really think too that an "Irish Canadian" is of full (or near-full + self-identification) Irish ancestry whereas "Canadian of Irish descent" allows for those who are 1/4 or any percentage Irish to qualify, and that s why I ve been changing over Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin pages. It s interesting, what you say of how being in Western Canada plays a role in how the term "English-Canadian" is used for the reasons you ve said - I really think something of this deserves mention on the page English-Canadian. By the way, is the hyphenated version more prominent in the West? Mayumashu 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Descent" name changes

While I agreed with what you were doing with the categories, I have to say I oppose the changes to the articles. Articles are supposed to use the most common terms. Google "Irish Canadian" versus "Irish of Canadian descent". It’s not our job to change usage to make it more specific, we are only supposed to report what already exists. Kevlar67 02:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is changing usage and believe using "Canadian of Irish descent" to name the page in fact better describes reality. The page cites census stats that ask participants to report their ethnicity from a list that reads "Irish" - the term "Irish Canadian" does not appear on the form. Of course, census data could be removed from the page, but why insist on this - why not have these pages serve both purposes - describing those who are Irish Canadian and those who are of Irish descent. Perhaps separate paragraphs should be on the page to describe what are two different things Mayumashu 15:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I ve taken a look of the google hits for "Irish Canadian" and see nothing in them that changes my mind of this. I think the page Canadians of Irish descent uses "Irish(-)Canadian" appropriately in reference to what it describes of 19th century Irish throughout what became Canada. Again, I don t disagree that colloquial usage should be described, but it should be used to name a page unless there s unanimity for the name being unequivocal in what it s refering to, and this is not the case with these pages Mayumashu 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 14, subcategories of Canadian ice hockey people

Hello. The votes to rename "people" to "personnel" were miscounted, I believe. I count 2 in favour and 2 opposed. Could I request a recount? Best regards, Mayumashu 10:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, I would like to point you to Wikipedia:Consensus. WP:CFD is a discussion, not a vote. And in closing, an admin attempts to determine consensus from the discussion, if such exists.
That aside, I count 5, possibly 6 if I count the nominator, who oppose "people", and prefer personnel, with 2 specifically opposing.
I hope this helps clarify. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask : ) - jc37 10:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
yeah. I can see that the nominator and one other user do suggest personnel to people in light of what you say that it is not a hard vote, but a discussion. sorry for the misunderstanding

[edit] Discussion?

I thought you might be interested in the discussion I started at Wikipedia Talk:Overcategorization#Categorising by national descent, origin, nationality, etc.. Please feel free to let others know. --Vbd (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Applaud the work to get this started, Vbd. Will check it out for sure. Best regards, Mayumashu 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Murray

Hi; saw your move from George Matheson Murray to George Murray (British Columbia) which I think was inappropriate and also out-of-style for the other entries on the George Murray disambiguation page. Forbes George Vernon was known as Forbes Vernon, John Andrew Mara was known as J.A. Mara - but Wiki article-naming guidelines go with the full name; exceptions are when there's an appellation, as with George's wife Ma, or as in Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown, who was known as "Volcanic Brown" and never as Robert/Bob. Anyway, I'd suggest a move back; the "(British Columbia)" part should only be used if there were two George Matheson Murrays; otherwise it's enough to simply use his full name, which doesn't require any paranthetical designation to go with it.Skookum1 19:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It's moved back. There is now way that George Murray (British Columbia) is correct. Look at George Murray. It could possibly have been George Murray (politician) but not with a place name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I had a middle name for GMM I didn't bother with that when I created the article; and there are other George Murray politicians, although the Nova Scotia premier has a full name article anyway (I think, or a "[Premier)" dab?). BTW are what I did on Margaret Lally "Ma" Murray and Robert Allan "Volcanic" Brown wikistylistic, or should they ust have been Margaret Lally Murray and Robert Allan Brown?Skookum1 20:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I d say inserting the nickname is fine, as you ve done, and support any move to have this set in naming guidelines. Yeah, on second thought, including a person's middle name as a means of "disambiguating" isn t that bad an idea. Best regards, Mayumashu 02:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
When it's available, as often it's not, and some people don't have middle names. Ma Murray's was actually Theresa - Lally is her maiden name, so it helps to bear in mind that women's middle names might be previous married or maiden names, as can also be the case with men (well, not maiden names, but you get the idea).Skookum1 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball player naming conventions

I notice that you have renamed several baseball player bio articles from "XXX XXX (baseball player)" to "XXX XXXX (baseball)". I have put up an RFC here to consult the other members of the Players task force of WikiProject Baseball to decide how best to disambiguate baseball players (ie. using "(baseball)" or "(baseball player)". I'd like to get your input on the matter, too. Cheers, Caknuck 20:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to your comments and expanded the scope of the discussion, so please take a look and give any suggestions or feedback you see fit. Thanks, Caknuck 04:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a Request for Comments on Halifax, Nova Scotia

Hello fellow Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nova_Scotia member. I have recently lodged a Request for Comments on the Talk:Halifax, Nova Scotia page. I and several other editors have had a running dispute with user Lonewolf BC. The RFC is This is a dispute about whether it is accurate to continue to refer to the area of or approximately coinciding with the boundaries of the City of Halifax, which became a part of the rural/urban Halifax Regional Municipality in 1996, as a city.

Basically, as I say on the RFC, we all agree that this is no longer a City, but to use former City's boundaries when describing the current urban area as a "city" (note the lower case) is at best arbitrary and at worst a fabrication. The city is now a continuous area that wraps the harbour, from Portuguese Cove (outside of the city of Halifax to the west and south) to Cole Harbour (outside of the former City of Dartmouth to the east). People now refer to the entire urban area of Halifax Regional Municipality as 'the city' and 'Halifax'.

Anyway, the bottom line is at least five people have tried to change the wording of the intro since January, and every time this one user changes it back. I have tried to come up with compromise wording, and he won't dialog. Right now wikipedia says HRM and Halifax are the capital of Nova Scotia. This article is now factually incorrect, in my opinion, and I need your help, please chime in. WayeMason 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Checked it out and see what you mean - the user's language use suggests rather high education yet (s)he isn t getting what is a wholly basic concept, that a city can become a former city within a newly formed larger entity officially called to a "regional municipality" but commonly referred to as a city - and therefore the city of Halifax is of ten years ago HRM. Presumably, HRM refers to itself (officially) as a city - if it doesn t than I d say this user could have a reason for saying some of what he says (but it doesn t seem that this is the argument he s taken up). If even they refer to themselves as a city, than I d say administrative help is in order to somehow block this user from editing on this matter. Regards, Mayumashu 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HRM and all things

I have not been able to find anything in the legislation on the Canlii website saying that we have a capital at all. It is inferred not legislated! Ha! The question is, why say Halifax, Nova Scotia is the capital? Why not "the town of Halifax" which is the original name? Or "Downtown Halifax"? Or the "Capital District". I am just leaving it lie for a while, he refuses to respond to my proposals on his talk page I am going to float them on the Halifax talk page and we can vote it. WayeMason 16:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting Mayumashu 17:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Just for fun, I reverted the introduction to your version of 11:14, 8 April 2007. If he changes it again, he will have committed a violation of the 3RR. Lets see what happens now. WayeMason 01:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I somehow doubt given what s transpired on this so far that he d abide by this convention, but let s see as you say. Another small but interesting thing, if you search "capital of Nova Scotia" on yahoo, HRM s official site comes up second on the list. A cache of this though does not turn up the quotation on the website's home page. Mayumashu 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Got it! this could be a legitimate sourch for saying HRM is the capital - [2] stated explicitly in the first paragraph Mayumashu 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
After you found yours, I found this, which also helps our case![1] I reverted the page again to your version. If he changes it again, we need to escalate this to an admin. WayeMason 10:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
ARG. Anyway, I think this is the next step. Will you support this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct WayeMason 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category name

Hello. I saw that you've created Category:Swiss international footballers. Following the convention of other similar categories in Category:Football (soccer) players by national team, I've renamed it Category:Switzerland international footballers. The former category now redirects to the later category. Feel free to add players to the new category. Thanks! Chanheigeorge 23:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. A google search brings up more hits for "Swiss". same for "Canadian" over "Canada". otherwise the noun is used more for describing internationals, from what I can make of it. Mayumashu 23:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the rationale of using "Switzerland" instead of "Swiss" is that it is more accurate. "Switzerland international footballers" mean footballers who've played international matches for Switzerland, while "Swiss international footballers" may mean a Swiss footballer who've played international matches (potentially for another team). Chanheigeorge 00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. And the thing too with doing google searches is that it turns up misuses of language and well as proper use, and therefore should not be a final word at all on what use should be used. At some point the Canadian page should be changed over too, using your rationale to make the case. Mayumashu 00:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewish descent" versus Jew

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#"Jewish descent" versus Jew concerning the problems of using the term "Jewish descent" versus "Jew" as well as the related proposal. Thank you, IZAK 09:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Blum (hockey player)

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Blum (hockey player), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is not the athletes proper name. Correct article is at Jonathon Blum.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very 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. Nurmsook 06:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further explanation please?

You redirected Ainsworth Dyer, and Marc Léger to Tarnak Farm incident. But you didn't leave any explanation for why you did so. You didn't leave an explanation on Talk:Ainsworth Dyer, Talk:Marc Léger or Talk:Tarnak Farm incident. Nor did you choose the less desirable path of putting your explanation in the edit summary.

So, please offer your explanation for these edits. Geo Swan 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn t a memorial and the one page suffices to explain what happened. of course, revert if you wish Mayumashu 15:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, wikipedia isn't a memorial. And it isn't a hagiography. Very unfortunately some wikipedians seem to feel that they can remove material that, in their judgement, reflects poorly on their favorite nation, religion, political cause, or the policies of their favourite politician.
IMO, Wikipedians who feel entitled to remove material they don't like, which complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER, just beause it doesn't present their favorite nation, religion, cause or hero in a favorable light, represent a serious problem.
I've encountered wikipedians who seem unaware that this kind of suppression is a violation of policy from both sides of the controversial GWOT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Admirers of the Tablighi movement wanted to remove coverage of the US allegations against the movement, on the grounds the allegations lacked credibility. This is not our call to make. I felt the criticism merited coverage, without regard to its credibility, or lack thereof, given the source.
At the time the admirers of the Tablighi movement keep excising coverage of the US allegations those paragraphs were the only portions of the article that had any reference at all.
I think it was a mistake for you to perform the merge without discussing it first -- a possible misreading of WP:BOLD perhaps. I was hoping you could offer a better justification than the one you did.
  1. I'd like to recommend more caution, because WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground.
  2. I'd like to recommend you consider making more of an effort to discuss your concerns on the appropriate talk pages.
  3. I'd like to recommend you consider making more of an effort to explain potentially controversial edits more fully, at the time.
Cheers! Geo Swan 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Was lazy and apologise. Best regards Mayumashu 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I suspect that you need to read WP:V and WP:NOR. Edit summaries like "Ulster-Scottish descent?" or "a Jew?" lead me to believe you're simply adding these ethnicity categories based on people's last names, rather than based on WP:RS that state they have that ancestry. Every piece of content on Wikipedia needs to be directly backed by a reputable source. If the Wikipedia article on a person says they are of Scottish descent, there must be a source that says so, not an editor's assumption. Mad Jack 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You re right - I ll take a look at the policy you ve linked up here. Thanks Mayumashu 11:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Category:Canadians of European descent

Please don't recreate Category:Canadians of European descent again. It has been deleted per consensus at WP:CFD. Thanks. --Kbdank71 18:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don t the people who voted to delete it because they don t like having cat pages for people by ethnicity nominate to have them all deleted instead of just one that renders the schema incomplete? Anyway, I ll do as you say for the time being Mayumashu 09:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball player naming conventions

Thanks for your input into the proposed naming convention for baseball players (made either here or here... or both). Hopefully, the final tweak has been made to the proposed guidelines. If you get a chance, please review them here and add any comments/suggestions/feedback on the talk page. If there are no major issues, we'll put this thing to a straw poll in a few days, and if successful will then submit for inclusion on WP:NC. Thanks again, Caknuck 04:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mc/Mac

Why have you been changing the categories for various people from McX to MacX? JMiall₰ 12:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw other users doing it and it seemed a useful thing to do to improve navigatiion with lists of names on category pages, especially for pages listing Scots. I don t mind keeping them separate either though as long as there is consistency, which is what I was at last night with the list of Irish footballers. The question is also should a Mcx and a McX be separated or not? And the name Magill for instance presents a problem. Maybe in the end they should all be kept separate and a policy guideline put in place to support this. Mayumashu 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I wasn't aware of this. We have an article that mentions this at Collation. And MOS stuff gets mentioned here and several times on this page, this page and on some people's talk pages. So it looks like it has been brought up before, quite a few people seem to prefer this but there is not an overwhelming consensus and it hasn't made it into a policy yet. As per one of the comments on one of those pages I'd be tempted to try to get consensus on all these related issues, put something into the MOS mentioning it so people know what to do (even if the consensus is not to sort McXs as MacXs) and then if necessary get a bot to change all the names. JMiall₰ 17:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

Hi Mayamushu, you created this Category:Lieutenant Governors of the colonial Province of Quebec. I know there is not now a Governor of Quebec, but I think there might have been before 1791 as Hector Theophilus de Cramahé was Lieutenant-Governor from 1771-1782 and he was often described as deputy to Guy Carleton, 1st Baron Dorchester? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

==Why the renames?== You added "Canadians of (insert ethnic group) descent". Why not "Asian Canadian" only? Instead of "Canadians of Asian ancestry". Why doesn't Wikipedia have "Canadians of European ancestry" or "Canadians of African ancestry"? Are you a genealogist or what?

[edit] Canadians of Spanish descent

You will have to monitor this article and similar others better as some Spanish vigilante (User:Spain21) nostalgic about the imperial days thinks he could just impose his own names on Spanish-descended ethnic groups.

Thanks for the tip, but I m so active here now - busy. Mayumashu 15:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Meeks

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Michael Meeks, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. mms 01:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] national origin/immigrants and national descent/emigrants

I see how you tried to separate immigrants/emigrants from the national origin/national descent categories (which were to include both immigrants/emigrants and their descendants). I suggest this is too complicated and leads to the confused merge proposals going on at CfD. I think that the immigrant/emigrant categories should either be collapsed into their national origin/national descent categories or made the immigrant/emigrant categories be made subcats of the national origin/national descent categories at every level. Hmains 03:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports in Saskatchewan

Can you improve/edit/update this newly created article please? Sports in Saskatchewan I see you have started the Sandra Schmirler curling article. TXS SriMesh | talk 06:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devin Crosby

It seems that you have incorrectly submitted your AfD, so I have attempted to correct it for you. — Wenli (reply here) 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

sorry about that. thanks! Mayumashu 03:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subcats of Category:African American sportspeople

The edit histories show that you are the creator of several subcategories which have been nominated for merging into Category:African American sportspeople.

Seven subcategories are being considered for merging into Category:African American sportspeople in accordance with Wikipedia's category discussion policy. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page.

This CFD began on October 27, so don't delay if you wish to participate in the discussion. Cgingold 09:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for discussion nomination

I have nominated Category:People from Cardston municipal district, a category you created, for renaming. See the discussion HERE. Ubi Terrarum 04:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSL

If you want to split one page into two seperate pages, the only way I know of doing it is by cut/paste. If you split the page, I recommend moveing the information on the current league to Canadian Soccer League (active league) where it previously lived and moving the current CSL page to a new name. I also request a history merge for Canadian Soccer League at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen so please don't move anything until that is complete.

Also, I tried moving the original Vancouver Whitecaps page to Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) as well as the talk pages but it wouldn't let me. Could you also move Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps to Talk:Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) to keep the talk page with the original article.-- Cmjc80 19:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Basketball League players

Hi, I have noticed you have changed the nationalities of many of the BBL players to England/Scotland/Northern Ireland etc. As the league is under the banner of BRITISH Basketball League, and the national team plays as GREAT BRITAIN, I think that it is more suitable to display the Union Jack flag for nationality rather than to segregate them into England and Scotland etc. This is also the way it reads on the official BBL website, as British and not English/Scottish. As I have done most of the pages related to British basketball, I think that this is the best and most ideal way. I appreciate the politics regarding the identities of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people, but as this is the BRITISH Basketball League, it should display the British flag. Cheers! HappyFace (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the name of the league has anything to do with it. it is useful to know each player's home nation as they do play for their home nation for the Commonwealth games for instance. how about a compromise with the home nation's flag in brackets after the Union Jack? Mayumashu (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Hockey League players

Hi why did you change all those AHL player categories without mentioning it first? Right now we have a huge half completed mess for a simple change that really doesn't provide any benefit. The proper thing to do is file a WP:CFD. There's a bot that will perform all the tedious work if the proposal is actually agreed upon. Thanks ccwaters (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. The player categories are now a huge mess for a change that doesn't really help anything. When making changes of this magnitude you really should consult WP:CFD or in this case WP:HOCKEY. -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I respectively disagree that the change doesn t help. European clubs change divisions and even leagues, so players should be listed both by club as well as competition (ie. league). Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
And if you would have brought your opinion to WP:HOCKEY you would see that we had recently devised a way to handle this. -Djsasso (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, where on the page - couldn t see a heading that looked the likely one Mayumashu (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hasn't been implemented yet because it was a pretty recent discussion. But its at the Swedish ice hockey task force section of the wikiproject. I don't have a problem with having a by club category. But I do object to putting it between the league and the team category when it will end up the only thing in the league players category in most cases. My only point is that major recatting like this should always be brought up at the applicable projects. -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
okay, thanks. Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Mari Saris

A tag has been placed on Mari Saris requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please read WP:DATE for correct formatting instructions

I have modified your edits to Jack de Heer so that they are compliant with the guidelines set out in WP:DATE. Please note that, per these guidelines, places of birth and death are not to be entangled within the lifespan of the individual. Thank you and Cheers, CP 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall henceforth comply Mayumashu (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice hockey categories

To be honest, I'm not sure if I like what I am seeing here. You seem to be setting up a new structure of categories... but I don't feel it is fully adequate. My big problem is your usage of the broad word "Amateur". I would like to personally like to suggest a different approach to you that removes this word:

  • Category: Ice hockey
  • Category: Ice hockey teams
  • Category: Professional ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Senior ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Collegiate ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players
  • Category: Junior ice hockey teams
  • Cat: Players

The usage of the term "Amateur" is quite skewed in Ice hockey. A lot of junior leagues are not considered amateur, some are (but only arbitrarily). Senior leagues and pro leagues have been known to jump back and forth from "amateur status". I hope you find what I am saying agreeable and we can hopefully fix this. DMighton (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

right. don t mind if it goes then. regards Mayumashu (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC) I d prefer to have it but I m probably in the minority Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
"Amateur" is best described as an obsolete term when describing levels of hockey. That is my feeling on it anyway. These days the term only establishes whether or not a player is eligible for NCAA participation. DMighton (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just cos

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Canadian people by lifestyle

I have nominated Category:Canadian people by lifestyle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Under-20 sportspeople

I have nominated Category:Under-20 sportspeople (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Western Hockey League (minor pro) players

Thanks for expanding the subcategories for WHL (minor pro) players. Can you think of any other significant minor leagues that deserve such a category? I do not want to get too specefic as they would just call for deletion. Keep up the good work, I will continue to populate the categories. -RiverHockey (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ve been cleaning up category links for players one player at a time, jumping around (having fun!) and as I go I ve been adding these pages for players by league using hockeydb and eurohockey.net. But to answer your question, I m not that familiar with the history of leagues, just doing it as I m going Mayumashu (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Categories

You might want to be carefull when you add categories to pages. A page should not be in both the parent category and the sub category. It is fine for them to be in two differnet sub categories but pages should never be in a parent category and a sub category at the same time. For example you have been adding Category:Ice hockey centres onto player pages that already have the category Category:Canadian ice hockey centres. This is a nono as it causes category clutter and defeats the purpose of having sub categories. -Djsasso (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Molnar

I added one of the football player infoboxes. Do you know of more information? I also added a citation template for references and removed the error tag from the page. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 03:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Vann

This article also received a tag for improvement for references. An infobox and inline citation template were filled in for references so that the tag could be removed. Please have a peek to save your articles from bother by tags. Kind Regards...SriMesh | talk 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.
As you have shown an interest in Steve Molnar / Cleveland Vann we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.
We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Smiths

Just one question about your moves of the Steve Smith ice hockey players ... Why? They were both born in 1963 and they were both defencemen, so adding those facts to the disambiguation term adds nothing and does not help. Snocrates 06:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. because the change I made follows a (near) convention for naming bio pages, step by step - first step to disambig, state occupational field - ice hockey - second step - state year of birth - or - state occupation within occupation field. for both of them all this is the same (ice hockey defenceman b. 1963). next step, nationality(=citizenship), again the same, so finally add on place of birth. I know the way it was provided of more concise statement of disambig. in the title of the page, but not a more concise disambig. I prefer use of convention even if occasionally it results in lengthiness. Mayumashu (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Something to be aware of is there was already a decision on how these players were to be named by the hockey project. We had found the way that created the least amount of issues. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
If several users concluded that the way it was is better, then I would suggest a revert. Mayumashu (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The discussion referred to by Djsasso did not follow the conventions. We don't use full names when the person wasn't known by that name. He also committed a no-no by moving the pages in the middle of a formal move proposal, and somehow managed to reverse the talk pages in some of the links by forwarding the pages to the wrong ones! Snocrates 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your page moves

Mate I don't understand some of your page moves. For example you moved Jimmy Allan (cricketer) to Jimmy Allan (cricket) when WikiProject Cricket's naming conventions clearly state that for when someone of the same name already exists then (cricketer) will be used. You've also reverted some pages of Australian rules footballers when again, those that contribute to the project are in agreement that (footballer) is to be used. Please don't moving these pages without discussing it with the relevent Projects in the future. Thankyou. Crickettragic (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

i did them in hopes of starting an eventual change across all sports and occupations with disambiguation naming convention. there are a few now, tennis players and ice hockey players are John Smith (tennis) and John Smith (ice hockey) (and not John Smith (tennis player) and John Smith (hockey player)) the advantages are that a number of formal players become coaches, managers, etc. and second, its often (but not always) provides for a bit more concise naming. I guess I need to do what you suggest first and go through the various project groups talk pages. Mayumashu (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Red Maple Leaf Award
For your long running contributions to Canada related topics, I offer you this red maple leaf. --Qyd (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


wow - thanks!

[edit] Tallulah Bankhead

Hi Mayumashu, I am wondering why you put Tallulah Bankhead under European Americans? How many generations of a family should be born in the US before they are just considered Americans? Poodle Girl (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Americans of English descent category

Hi there. You recently added the Category:Americans of English descent to Ronald Reagan and Nelle Wilson Reagan. The category appears to be empty, however, and was previously deleted. Per the deletion discussion, the cat was merged into Category:English Americans. Just a heads up: you might want to change the ones you added back to the deleted cat and change them instead to the other cat. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

didn t realize it had been deleted. thanks Mayumashu (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Chinese Americans

Regarding this edit [3] (which you'll notice User:HongQiGong has further changed) ... I appreciate the need for some standardisation in category definitions, but as you go off on your campaign for which there's been no canvassing to gain the opinions of editors who work on related articles, you're promoting new definitions of commonly-used terms which doesn't actually match with how those terms are used in the real world. This is not the first time I've seen you doing this either --- your moves of many xyz-Canadian articles last year did not have wide support (as can be seen by how many of them were put up for WP:RM and moved back to their common titles, or simply moved back without discussion by editors who came along and found your names to be very strange), but again you forge ahead without talking. This goes beyond boldness into reckless unilateralism, and frustrates other editors. So again, would you mind stopping what you're doing and initiate some discussion with other editors who work in this space? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Asian Americans as well as talk pages of individual articles would probably be a good place to start. Thank you. cab (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I admit now that my move to rename Fooian Canadian to Canadians of Fooian descent was rash. I was prompted to do so by the inclusion of data that in part describes, and reference to the wikipedia pages for, individuals who are of partial Fooian origin, but think now that the wording of how this info is included on the page can be wholly done with the proper wording (which I havent attempted btw and do not intend to for now). I promise you that I will not attempt to rename Chinese American or any Fooian American page. I simply wish to not have people of less than 50% Fooian ancestry described as "Fooian-Fooian". This is admittedly an arbritary distinction but so is any description any of us choice to settle on. Again about the Fooian Canadian page change attempts, I apologize for my rashness. Mayumashu (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese Americans

Please take it easy on blanking Vietnamese Americans categories, okay? A little discussion first at WikiProject Vietnam would be very good. Most Vietnamese who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years are U.S. citizens. Please refrain from such large-scale changes without first making an appearance and discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poe

Are you sure Edgar Allan Poe wasn't Scots-Irish? It seems like that claim was sourced to reference #4, but I don't have access to that book at the moment. I've started a discussion at the Poe talk page, if you want to go there. Zagalejo^^^ 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:People for Assyrian descent

I have nominated Category:People for Assyrian descent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 23:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic origins

When writing about individuals' ethnic origins, please bear in mind that many common adjectives for ethnic groups, including English, French, German, and many others, are ambiguous because they could refer to languages and/or political entities as well as to ethnic groups. The specific titles linked above, and many similar ones, are disambiguation pages, and you should avoid creating links to these pages. Instead, please try to link to the appropriate article about the ethnic group, such as English people, Germans, etc. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Russ (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

okay, thanks for the tip/reminder Mayumashu (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Americans of English descent

Hi Mayumashu, can you advise what category a person should be put in if their great grandparent was born in England even though they may also have other English ancestry further back on other lines? Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gustav. I ve been (re)categorizing people with less than half Fooian ancestry as Category:People of Fooian descent and those with more than half as Category:Fooian People. so, regarding the particular case you ve asked about here, the person would have 1/8 English ancestry from their great grandparent, meaning that s(he) would need the equivalent of 3 other English great grandparents (for instance, 6 great, great English grandparents) to reach 1/2 to be classified as, for the sake of categorization here, "English American". when unsure, according to the scheme I m suggesting (by my attempt to revamp) if English American proof, that is 1/2 ancestry / national origin, cannot be provided, then the person in question should be placed under American of English descent. Mayumashu (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Irish of Greek descent

A tag has been placed on Irish of Greek descent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 03:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to foo-american lists

I do not agree with the renaming you have been making to foo-American lists such as List of Swiss Americans to List of Americans with Swiss ancestry. In the US, f00-Americans always encompasses both the original immigrants and their descendants and no distinction is made in the language. Nor do I why such a distinction need to be placed in WP since it would be an artificial imposition that does not exist in the real world and I do not see what good purpose it would serve. I do not agree with the similar changes you have made to the articles in Category:American people by ethnic or national origin for the same reasons. These articles are difficult enough to keep them from being deleted by the anti-Ethnic deletionists and to keep them maintained properly than to complicate things as you have done with the Canadian articles and seem now intent on doing to the US articles. Please refrain from this activity and change them back to what they were before you started. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Hmains. I ll no longer try to rename any of the List of Fooian Americans to List of Americans with Fooian ancestry, as you like. There were a few more I had done and I ll revert them back. Mayumashu (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] No content in Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Norwegian expatriates in the United States, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] diaspora categories

The 'foo diaspora' categories are designed to have articles about the fact that people have left one country and moved to another. One subcat of the 'foo disapora' category is the 'people of foo descent' which conains the actual people who have moved. And this is is a proper subset of disapora which is inclusive of all migrants. Hmains (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. The way I see now is that 'Foo diaspora' would have two subsets 'People of foo descent' and 'Foo expatriates', as it's true isn't it that diaspora is a broad term that includes both immigrants (that is, people who have become naturalized citizens of a second or different country) and expatriates who migrate but do not immigrate. I know I had linked 'Fooian Canadians' and a few 'Fooian Americans' to Foo diaspora, but see now that that is too restrictive an application Mayumashu (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Diaspora includes all people who have moved from one country to another country for whatever reason and for whatever length of time. This is shown in the diaspora article as well as in numerous 'foo diaspora]] articles so you are correct that both immigrant and expatriate categories belong. I have made corrections everywhere I found they were needed. Hmains (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay Hmains. Best regards Mayumashu (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta

You created Category:People from Lethbridge County, Alberta. A discussion is underway regarding the deletion of this category.[4] As the creator of the category, please feel free to provide your opinion. --Kmsiever (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:New Zealand expatriates

Category:New Zealand expatriates, 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. –-gadfium 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, for Category:Britons of New Zealand descent, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 29#Category:Britons of New Zealand descent.-gadfium 07:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Owen Hargreaves

He's still an english footballer irregardless of citizenship. He plays for England thus making him an english footballer. However, the category that you put in is still correct. There should be both. Kingjeff (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He s an England international footballer (thru nat. team respresentation) and a Canadian one thru nationality. English footballers have 'English nationality' (ie. British citizenship and choose their home nation as England). But I m not bothered if you want to revert Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey player cats

Hi, I thought you'd be interested to know that you're not alone in your views on those oddball nationality categories that were added to some of the hockey players. I came across them yesterday while I was looking through Category:Ice hockey players by country, and ended up removing those cats from 8 or 9 articles -- my edit summaries said they were "silly & misleading". (And I'm seriously considering taking a bunch of (now-empty) sub-cats to CFD for deletion.) Anyway, after looking through the edit histories I discovered that I wasn't the first editor to remove them. Hopefully it will stick now, seeing as it's not just one editor's POV! Regards, Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. I tried a couple times taking on the hockey crowd and gave up (for the time being). I ll keep an eye on them now to see if/when you put the sub-cats up for CFD and vote along with your nomination. all the best Mayumashu (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] immigrants/emigrants

I know you are interested in people who move so I will ask you. What is the use/purpose of the Category:Immigrants and Category:Emigrants and all their subcats when we have the more fully populated descent, origin and expatriate categories? Should we undertake to examine all the articles in the immigrant and emigrant cats and: 1) make sure they are properly placed in their descent, origin or expatriate; 2) remove them from the immigrant/emigrant cats? Hmains (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I ve added many if not most to these articles to these cat pages - I personally don t want to remove articles from them, Hmains. i think they are useful firstly simply in the information they provide (as any cat page useful) and secondly and more to the point here in reducing category page link clutter at the bottom of article pages as "Immigrants to Booian" (or "Naturalized citizens of Fooian") and "Fooian Booian" links are replaced by "Fooian immigrants to Booian" Mayumashu (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Taking just the Canadians who moved to the US, I see nothing but category clutter, unsustainable in the long run. There are currently four categories involved with purpose/scope that you appear to have invented but which I do not see support for in the categories of the other 200 some countries or in the natural language.

In the natural language, immigrants are anyone who moved from Canada to the US (1st generation), maybe not expatriates. Americans of Canadian descent may indeed mean the 2nd and so on generations of the first generation, but nowhere in the natural language is this term used to refer to partial descent. That seems to be your invention and not supportable. Canadian Americans is the style that the US uses to refer to all people who are now in America, whether citizens or not, whether first generation or whatever generation. As far as usefuless, I only see a use for two categories: 'Canadian Americans' and 'Canadian expatriates in the United States' Anything beyond that lacks the data in articles to determine the facts and, any any case, who cares? What WP useful purpose served by the two extra categories: none. What category clutter is there on articles: none; either the person is a Canadian American or a Canadian expatirate in the US. Hmains (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

my personal preference is only for having the first three - having the fourth is a compromise for me for, as you ve indicated, the term "Canadian American" is in relatively common use. But this common use is restricted to the U.S. and a lesser extent in Canada. Hmains, my argument, to be explicit, is that Fooian of Booian descent is more neutral a naming (irregardless of whether one is using American, British, or whatever English variant, from whichever country) that moreover circumvents discussion as to whether a person of 1/4 or 1/8 ancestry 1, 2, 5, or 10 generations ago qualifies - all cases qualify Mayumashu (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of what you think, it is well established in WP that terms such as 'Canadian American' will be used. What you are doing is creating an excess of categories that have no obvious purpose to WP and are just an invitation to the ethnic deletionists to attack. Categories in this case should be limited to 'Canadian Americans' and 'Canadian expatriates in the United States' There is usually enough information in articles to place people in these categories; there is not enough to split the people into four categories. Such categorization is just guessing and has no place in WP. Accordingly, I plan to move all the articles to just these two types of articles Hmains (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav emigrants

Category:Yugoslav emigrants, 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav immigrants to Canada

Category:Yugoslav immigrants to 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Yugoslav ice hockey players

Category:Yugoslav ice hockey players, 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the repetitiveness of these — just trying to be comprehensive ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Réunion

You made alterations to the Réunion article, noting "since 2003 a region and not a department". You'll see that someone reverted your changes. In fact, Réunion is both. France is divided into both regions and departments, with each region comprising one or more departments. Réunion has been a department since 1946 and a region since 1974, according to a page outlining Réunion's history, which also affirms, "Form of state: Département d'Outre-Mer (DOM) (Overseas Department) of France, with additional status as a région (region) of France." The other three overseas departments (Guadeloupe, Martinique, and French Guiana) are likewise regions as well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. The article was not at all clear on that it was both but your explanation certainly is - cheers. Regards, Mayumashu (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Please note that categories aren't like article links — you're not allowed to add an article or a category to categories that don't exist (e.g. Category:Caribbean Canadians, Category:Jamaican diaspora). You have to either create the category immediately, or don't use it at all. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of racing driver articles

Hi Mayumashu. Please don't rename any more racing driver articles without discussing it with the relevant WikiProjects (WP:MOTOR, WP:F1, WP:AUSMOTOR, etc) first. Currently you're introducing a lot of redirects for no (apparent) good reason. DH85868993 (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's to have a univerisally named disambiguation term. "auto racing" for people involved in auto racing either "motor racing" or "motorsport" for people involved in both auto and motorbike racing, and "motorsport" for those involved in even more general endeavours in motorsport. I ll do as you ask for for now. Mayumashu (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Probably best to raise it just at WP:MOTOR first, to keep all the discussion in one place. DH85868993 (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added a new section to the existing discussion on this topic at WP:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I note from earlier sections in your talk page that you've attempted this with numerous other sports before and been pulled up several times. Maybe now you'll stop trying this? --Falcadore (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope that you will suggest this at the applicable WikiProject in the future. It saves everyone work in the long run if consensus decides that it is not acceptable/unneeded. Royalbroil 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, how are those reversions going from all the race driver pages you moved? Have you moved them all back yet or are you trying this on with another sport like golf? How about you fix your messes first before creating a new one? --Falcadore (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

just did one golf article to test those waters. yeah, the discussion at WP:MOTOR on this is for the status quo (I mean for it the way it was, with "racing driver"), isn t it. right thenMayumashu (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Italian footballers

Please stop adding footballer of Italian descent to Category:Italian footballers, the Category:Italian footballers for the people born in Italy and/or played for Italian national football team. Matthew_hk tc 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven t been. I ve added Uruguyan footballers with dual Uruguayan-Italian citizenship, but not just any Uruguayan footballer of Italian descent Mayumashu (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:revert to "racing driver" it is, isn t it

Hi Mayumashu. I wasn't sure whether the consensus was to revert the articles to "racing driver", or to revert them to whatever they were called before you changed them, i.e. thereby fixing all the links. You might want to seek clarification at WT:MOTOR. DH85868993 (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't revert to something that it was not previously. Alan Jones can't be reverted to (racing driver) because he was not (racing driver). The definition of the word revert is to restore to previous. I don't see that as an issue at all.
And if you don't revert but choose another term, then that is still going to leave behind masses of double and triple redirects to clean up. Revert removes those redirects. --Falcadore (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Upon reading it again, it's clear that the consensus is for you to revert the articles to their previous names. DH85868993 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've done them all for you (except the ones which had already been reverted by other people, or where the new name was as good or better than the old one). If you plan to move other articles in future, please take care to preserve any accented characters, unlike what you did with Gonzalo Rodríguez (racing driver) and Marcel Fässler (racer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Congo-Kinshasa diaspora

Category:Congo-Kinshasa diaspora, 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. – I've also nominated related "Congo-Kinshasa" categories that you've created — I won't pain you by including this notice for each one of them, because there are quite a few of them and this would get redundant really fast. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Smith

Hi Mayumashu. Regarding Roy Smith (auto racing): If you go to the article and click on the heading "What Links Here" (on the left side of the article page), you will see that many other articles link to the old Roy Smith (racecar driver) page. You may want to change all those other articles to link to your new title. Thanks, Lester 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lester. I m not sure but it s likely that I ll revert this chance unless you feel that it should stand - please look here two entries above (and also another a bit further up) on this page and aslo on the talk on whether to have a universal 'disambig tag' or not for motorsport bios at WP:MOTOR. Mayumashu (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I didn't notice all the prior discussions. I guess it's better to wait for the article name to settle before changing the links. Bye, Lester 14:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:People from Provost municipal district

Category:People from Provost municipal district, 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced categories

Please do not add categories of ethnic or national descent in biographical articles, as you did here and here, unless there is information in the article that backs up the category and has a citation to a reliable source. As with all information on Wikipedia, categories must be verified with reliable sources, especially biographical articles. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Would I have to source that they are white too (ie. of European ancestry)? the more obvious something is, the more unlikely it is that it s going to be stated in (the) writing (of sth published). The idea of sourcing is the support views that contain a degree of controversy - the Michael J Fox edit does not. I grant you that it is possible that McAdams is not her paternal ancestors real surname, that it was acquired at sometime as an anglicized one to replace another; however, given that this is the more unlikely, the burden of "proof" (ie. of providing a reliable source) should be on the person who disputes that her surname is indeed that of her ancestor's Mayumashu (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
"degree of controversy - the Michael J Fox edit does not": I think you are assuming ancestry based on last name only. That is simply wrong. Last names can be deceiving and subject to a lot of modifications over the decades and centuries. People have sworn that my last name is French (and have even argued with me about it), but my ancestors are from Germany. You need evidence that Fox has ancestry from the British Isles. That's the way it works on Wikipedia. An editor cannot assume an unknown (that's original research). It must be sourced. What is your evidence, besides his name, that Fox has ancestry from the British Isles?
"the burden of "proof" (ie. of providing a reliable source) should be on the person who disputes that her surname is indeed that of her ancestor's": Again, you're simply wrong. The burden of proof for verfication of the accuracy of an edit by citing a reliable source is on the person who adds the edit. Now, if I remove something that is properly sourced, then it's my burden of proof. But if you add something that isn't already there, it's your burden of proof. If any other encyclopedia operated on the assumption that anything can be added unless a reader challenges it, that encyclopedia would be the laughing stock of the world.
"Would I have to source that they are white": I don't think I've ever seen any bio article with the simple category of "White" or "Caucasian". But even if there were, you cannot assume anything by a person's last name or the way they look. Just as one example, look at G. K. Butterfield, whose parents were both African-Americans, who has always self-identified as African-American, and who is a member of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucas.
No offense, but frankly I'm quite surprised that you are editing this way after being here for over three years. These are fundamental Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


None taken. Yeah, if I reconsider the wikipolicy on WP:OR original research in connection with deductive genealogical work from near common knowledge (within well-done genealogy) and unpublished sources (Canada doesn t have the same history of fairly widespread anglicizing of Slavic and other 'less easy to pronounce' surnames; then that I have a good source for Fox not being Jewish and two poor ones for his being British Isles either Scottish, one source, or Irish, the other) is improper on wikip, and appropriately. my pet hobby here is tidying up category page links on biography pages, so instead of adding the links that I deduce to be (most likely) true, I ll go about severing those that have not been properly sourced (ie. provided with a published source). now, if I could convince some users that category links should be listed alphabetically at the bottom of pages (with the exception of ones such as Category:George Washington and Category:Michael Jordan), because it is (too) POV to presume knowledge of order of importance of them when users implicity accept their fundamental importance via WP:Categories for discussion, then I d be wholly straighten out, I think. Thank you too. Mayumashu (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Immigrants by nationality

Category:Immigrants by nationality, 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:African American baseball players

Hello, Mayumashu -- Would you be kind enough to have a look at my response in the CFD for Category:African American baseball players? I'm hoping you will reconsider and withdraw your nomination. Thank you. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Category:Black Canadian sportspeople

A tag has been placed on Category:Black Canadian sportspeople, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

discrimination

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. 200.121.212.61 (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Le Haut-Richelieu

It's spelled with a regular hyphen, not an em-dash. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Expatriate footballers in England

I have nominated Category:Expatriate footballers in England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming style in article

Want to add your opinion on naming styles? Talk:Hollywood_blacklist needs more opinions about whether a style unique to this page should be used or not used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] El-Din Hilaly

El-Din Hilaly was born in Egypt - why have you changed category on his page from"Egyptian Australians" to "Arab Australians"? I also ask why you did this with a misleading edit summ.? Your edit summ reads "(+cat)". If your edit was an error please correct it. Otherwise please supply source for Hilaly being "Arab Australian". SmithBlue (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven t. I changed the cat link from Egyptian Australian to Egyptian immigrant to Australia, and added Arab Australian as well as one other, if I remember right. Sorry for the vague edit summary though Mayumashu (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat: Australians of British descent

You have created a category " Australians of British descent" into which you have placed Craig Johnston. This article makes no such statement. Please give a source showing that Craig Johnston is of British descent. I have concerns as to the notability of the category you have created and will raise them at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. SmithBlue (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnston played for one of the British home nations (England, his choice) in international football, and to do so (at the time) required having a British grandparent. (now it requires receiving citizenship) as for the "notability of the cat page", if you mean the legitimacy, it just needs to be filled in / merged with Category:British Australians. "of British descent" is a better name as it is more inclusive (and therefore easier to keep), as it can include both British immigrants (people who are in a true sense British) as well as those who are Australian (of any number of generations) with British ancestry. Regards Mayumashu (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are saying that if Johnston only had Boertrekker forebearers and had his own British passport he would have been prevented from playing? SmithBlue (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
of course he could through residency requirements (the three, five years or whathaveyou) leading to naturalisation. point taken - although the likelihooed of Afrikaner forebearers picking up the surname Johnston, or that his footballer dad was aborigine or Eastern European (that the surname was again acquired) seems remote to nil, a (good) source is necessary to uphold one's edits Mayumashu (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is more inclusive. But as roughly 70% of Australians are of British descent, somewhere if you go back five or six generations, it also makes the distinction meaningless. If you make something vague enough, for example, 'of primate descent' would include 100% of the worlds human population, and does not teach us a thing. Without a boundary the category is relatively meaningless. --Falcadore (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that last comment (by Mayumashu 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)) but probably come to the opposite conclusion as to who needs to provide the cite in the first place. (Humour)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 29 has a on-going discusion on this category. Please come and convince me to change my opinion. (Not humour) SmithBlue (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) I think it best that we take this to WP:NOR/N. Please come over and put your view of this. I'll put a diff to our discusion above but leave you to put your own version on the page. SmithBlue (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Didnt realise you'd removed Craig Johnston from cat. thanks. SmithBlue (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expatriate Players

I believe you have incorrectly categorises dozens of expatriate footballers. For example foreign players who played in Spain should be categorised as La Liga players and not as Spanish players. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

hello. Yeah, I was a little unsure about how best to link them. La Liga doesn t cover all pro football in Spain, does it? if not, there would be the odd article page on a player who s played in Spain but not in La Liga. relinking them then to Category:Football in Spain is the other choice

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paul James (rugby player)

Moved back as that is the standard for a rugby union player.Londo06 17:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Hi there. I notice you have moved Neil Roberts (footballer) to Neil Roberts (Welsh footballer). I'm going to go through the pages which link to the former and redirect them to the new page. Just a quick note, that if you move any pages in the future, it might be best for you to correct the internal links. Peanut4 (talk)

[edit] Problem with categorization

Hello -- I see that you've done a lot of good work with the ethnic and/or national categorization of people. You've done an excellent job so far, and those of us who work with all of the ethnic or national categories appreciate your work; however, I'd like to point out an error that you and another few editors have repeatedly made in regards to Category:American people by ethnic or national origin. You and these other editors seem to be removing that category from the MAIN categories dealing with, for example, Category:Chinese Americans or Category:German-Americans, and placing the category in the much smaller and less developed SUBCATEGORIES which only contain American people of PARTIAL descent, for example Category:Americans of Chinese descent or Category:Americans of German descent. It's pretty clear that Category:American people by ethnic or national origin should be placed in the MAIN CATEGORY of a given ethnic or nationality category (e.g., in Category:Chinese Americans) and not in the SUBCATEGORY (e.g., Category:Americans of Chinese descent). I'm going to start fixing some of these and hope that you will do the same. Thanks. --Wassermann (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I disagree respectively however, that Fooian Americans is / should be the main category, as you describe it and Americans of Fooian descent is the subcat. someone who is of full descent is by default also of partial descent and not vice-versa. Also, the partial descent categories should over time become the ones with most people linked to them since more Americans are of more than one ethnicity than one. Personally, I d like to see partial and full together in Cat:Americans of Fooian descent]], but sense that many users are partial (no pun intended) to the Cat:Fooian American naming scheme. But to describe someone with a quarter of fooian ancestry as Fooian American seems just wrong Mayumashu (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese city naming

Here are links to the discussion about this issue. [5] [6] [7] [8] I wasn't involved in all of them but you can see there is extensive discussion already. I think the current naming style should be changed to something like Fukuoka (city) rather than Fukuoka, Fukuoka but you should be aware that many of the people who prefer disambiguation using the U.S. style are still around. --Polaron | Talk 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Irish of Iraqi descent

I have nominated Category:Irish of Iraqi descent (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for merging into Category:Iraqi-Irish people (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] naming convention for Canadian places

Re. page moves to un-disambiguated titles, please be aware of Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Style guide regarding naming conventions for Canadian settlements. Thank you. --Qyd (talk) 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Race/ethnicity cats

After a long while of trying to see how they can work and be useful have come to the conclusion that they cannot work and are not useful. First, it presupposes that those of different race/ethnicities are different in a defining respect, which is really racism in disguise. For if someone were to try to articulate how one ethnicity differs from another such sweeping generalities will offend some, be over inclusive and also under inclusive, and generally of little use to any one. Second, there is no measure: is being X% Fooian get you in the Fooian- type categories, where X-1% doesn't; and how, pray tell, is someone who is one percent more or less Fooian distinct for such difference. Third, how far removed does one need to be from Fooland - immigrants? first-generation? second-generation? It's difficult to put a NPOV limit on the issue, and if one subscribes to the Out of Africa hypothesis, then we are all African- somethings and the distinction is again rendered meaningless. Fourth, in Fooian-Booians categories, why if Fooian is so uniform a group to categorize them then allow XYZ-Fooians? shouldn't we be having XYZ-Fooian-Booians, like the great American-French category up for debate: where is the French-American-French and the German-American-French, as American is homogeneous. I am Mexican-American, but alas some of my ancestors were no doubt from Spain (and many of them may have ancestors from Italy as Rome ruled Spain for hundreds of years or from North Africa and more remotely Arabia), others descendents of those who crossed from Siberia 20,000 years ago, does that make me Asian-American? European-American? Arab-American? Because we cannot with NPOV and objectively categorize these people (remember BLP) categories, they should all go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • A lack of sources? There are more than 20 in Recent African origin of modern humans, so if WP is not concerned with how being Fooian-Booian matters, only that there is a source for it - as you contend - shall we add African ancestry categories to all biographies based on the citations in the article that describe the descent, rather than pretend it's not so, and perpetuate the concept that "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents." (see Loving v. Virginia) Racial classification ignores our unity and perpetuates racism. Yes, we are miles apart. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ethnicity/race articles as you describe it are not reflective of (assumed) "shared cultural experience, as seen in linguistic and to a lesser extent religious aspects to culture" as you claim. Someone who hates people of, for exmaple, Irish, Jewish, Spanish, or German descent is a racist whether any of those groups are "races" or "ethnicities" in some scientific parlance. What cultural experiences should we expect all people of certain races/ethnicities share? Is Barack Obama's experience - the son of an African father who voluntarily came to the US and married a white woman who were equal in their marriage - the same as the descendents of Africans stolen from their homes, made slaves, raped by masters, and subject to unequal treatment afterward? Hmmmm... that's a leap of illogic. What cultural experiences do Tom Cruise, Ellen DeGeneres, Cameron Diaz, Paris Hilton share (all being Americans of German descent) that their next door neighbors didn't share? The sheer uselessness of this is manifest. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tomasz Radzinski

Hi there MAYUMASHU, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,

Thank you for the corrections in this POLISH FOOTBALLER's article. If i inserted some teams he actually never played for, it was because of FOOTBALLDATABASE.COM link (if you check it out you will see, for instance, reference to TORONTO LYNX), i was just trying to help. So were you, GOOD WORK!

From Portugal, have a pleasant weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --217.129.67.28 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

no, his record is confusing, probably mostly cause Canadian soccer teams change names, leagues, come and go so often. I looked into it pretty carefully, so I think I ve got it right now. Regards Mayumashu (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete category renaming nomination

On May 8, you added the template {{cfr}} to Category:American-Irish people, but you did not list this nomination on WP:CFD for comment. I therefore have relisted the nomination, and you might want to add your reasons for nominating it on the discussion page. --Russ (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People vs. Peoples

Hi Mayumashu, when a category is for individual people, like Category:Akkadian people it should be classified under "Ancient people", not "Ancient peoples", which is for the whole groups (like Category:Akkadian Empire). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see this as flawed then. There is no such thing as an ancient person, unless one wishes to be rather unsympathetic to someone aged. Mayumashu (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This isn't my field, so I don't make decisions about this, but I think it's only unsympathetic to call an elderly person ancient, not people who lived in antiquity - I assume there's also a classical people category, etc.

[edit] Nouns vs. Adjectives.

Mayumashu, Categories should be nouns, not adjectives i.e. "Amorites", not "Amorite". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also don't take out the carriage returns - it makes the categories unreadable for other editors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Categorystuff (talk • contribs) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - what about Category:Aztec? Sorry if I took out the carriage returns, it wasn t at all intentional. And sign your comments, please - type ~ four times Mayumashu (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the category Aztec, and I would have used "Aztecs" if I did. Categorystuff (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category Amorite people

The Category:Amorite people is for notable Amorite people, not for the "Amorites" umbrella category. Categorystuff (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

these namings are synonymous. Category:Amorite would serve as a better named page to serve as an umbrella Mayumashu (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The group is called the "Amorites", and there's no reason to change an existing category with a perfectly good name to a synonymous adjective. Categorystuff (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Gutium people

Could you change that to read "Gutian people". "Gutium" is the state; "Gutian" is the adjective. Thanks Categorystuff (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

you re right - will do Mayumashu (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Immigrants

Hi!

You're working a lot on the ethnic/national categories, so maybe you can help me: Should categories like Category:German immigrants to the United States be categorized as subcats of the several ethnic/national categories or not? Problem: Not all immigrants became naturalized citizens and there seems to be an difference between expatriates (see for example Category:German expatriates in the United States) and non-naturalized immigrants. We have Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States, Category:German immigrants to the United States and Category:German-Americans. A naturalized German immigrant like Eberhard Anheuser would have to be listed in all these three categories (the immigrant category was a former subcat of Category:German-Americans, so all those articles have to be transferred to German-Americans too, a lot of work). Maybe we should create just one category like Category:Naturalized German immigrants to the United States as a subcat of those three categories. What do you think?

Greetings, --Wulf Isebrand (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wulf Isebrand. I started up many if not most immigrant cat pages from two years to a year ago especially, about when I realized just what you ve mentioned, that some immigrants become naturalized citizens but indeed many do not. I sense that nearly all contributors feel that there are too many kinds of cat pages, ones for expats, immigrants, naturalised citizens, and ethnicity. I think now, although as yet I haven t began any work in this direction, that the immigrant cateogry pages should be scrapped and upmerged into expatriate category pages. I would recommend therefore that there be, eventually, a Category:German naturalized citizens of the United States, which would be a sub-category of a Category:Americans of German descent as well as the sub-cat page Category:German expatriates in the United States. At any rate, with having the 3 types of cat pages, ones for expats, naturalized citizens, and people of descent, there should not need to be any listing of an article to more than one cat page, because the three cat pages would interlink with one another. So, I agree with you that we should have a 'Naturalized German immigrants to the United States' but, again, I would use the name it "German naturalized citizens of the United States' Mayumashu (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Canadians taken hostage

Category:Canadians taken hostage, 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. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CPSL/CSL

Hi I was working to clean up the links to the Canadian Soccer League disambiguation page and noticed you were the one to do the page moves on it. I was wondering what you thought of this idea: keep the 1983 page where it is, move Canadian Soccer League to Canadian Soccer League (disambiguation), then move Canadian Soccer League (current) to Canadian Soccer League. As far as I can tell, the current CSL has the most links to it and appears to be the most likely search if a person was searching for the CSL. What do you think? Metros (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I got things confused on the two disambiguation pages (the one for the CSL and the one for the CPSL). Metros (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CANVAS

Hi. You probably did not know, but this is unnaceptable per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate canvassing. In the future, please abide by these guidelines. Thank you. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi. No, I didn t know. Thanks for letting me about. Mayumashu (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Kaliningrad

It seems that you forgot to add this to the actual list of CfD nominations. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case I would ask you to reconsider doing so (the main reason why I pointed out that Kaliningrad is missing an entry is because I wanted to oppose). "Kaliningrad" and "Kaliningrad Oblast" are two different entities, and since the latter should never be referred to as simply "Kaliningrad" (without any qualifiers such as "Oblast", "province", "region", etc.), there should not be any ambiguity and hence no need to disambiguate the city. Same goes for all other federal subjects you intend to nominate (unless, of course, they conflict with something else besides the federal subjects for which they serve as administrative centers—cf. Kirov, Kirov Oblast). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. You are, of course, welcome to go ahead with the nom; I just wanted to save you time on doing something that is unlikely to succeed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irish categories

I have removed Dean Kiely from Category:Irish people of English descent. Kiely is English-born and is already in Category:English people of Irish descent. Please could you explain exactly what Category:Naturalised citizens of Ireland is for? There is no evidence of Kiely ever becoming an Irish citizen or living in Ireland, even if he has represented them at international level. --Jameboy (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ishmael Miller

What evidence do you have that Ishmael Miller is of "Black African descent"? (as opposed to West Indian or whatever) If your assertion is correct then I would like to add such information about his background into the article, so please could you let me know your source? Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)