User talk:Roman Spinner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hey there, Roman Spinner. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Three tildes (~~~) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more people dizzy in Italy. :) Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 07:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I got your email. It's no problem. Many of the problems here at WP are the small, minor errors that are sometimes the hardest to recognise as errors. Good job on catching those. Keep up the good work, if you feel so inclined. Cheers. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hitchcock episodes AfD

Don't worry if people don't agree with you on an AfD, that's why we have the debates. :) I agree it's pretty lame that the lists contain almost no other info; I guess Hitchcock doesn't have the fans Pokemon and Buffy have, but that's systemic bias for ya. I think the main point, though, is that articles that need improvement generally don't improve by being deleted. Anyway, I've been working lately on an Introduction to Deletion Process because I think newcomers to deletion don't always know what to read and are confused about some simple things. It's still in the very early stages, but I hope it will be informative. Mangojuicetalk 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Once the AfD is over, let's try to improve the lists. My thought is that we should expand the information in whatever way is possible, and take it out of that table format (which is actually why the article is so "long", it's because of all the HTML code). If it gets to be too much we can split it up by season. We can note things like who directed what episode and so on. My feeling is, List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes directed by Alfred Hitchcock is only borderline-encyclopedic, but List of Famous Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes is a much more reasonable prospect for a secondary list. Still, lists of all the episodes should be here. Mangojuicetalk 13:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnie Lee

Hi RS, for future reference, there's no need to wikify stand-alone years, or to wikify a title, and then immediately after it to wikify its abbreviation and redirect (e.g. British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and BUAV). [1] Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

RS, I see you are systematically linking stand-alone years. The MoS allows editors to decide whether to do this or not. There is no need for it, and editors should not systematically go through articles either linking or delinking. Dates only need to be linked when there is a month and day, or month, day, and year, in order to allow editors' preferences to work. Otherwise, it makes no difference. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking of dates and edits to Ronnie Lee

I do apologize, SlimVirgin for some of my edits on Ronnie Lee. My normal practice before editing is to check the history of the entry to ascertain the standing and length of service to Wikipedia of its creator before proceding with the edit. Unless I see an obvious error or missing very specific, non-date links, I tend to leave the articles of established editors untouched (obviously inapplicable to entries with multiple edits by numerous editors, which are fair game). Unfortunately, in applying myself to this recent spate of edits, I deviated from that practice, primarily because of the number of articles I had to go through and the time involved.

My primary goal in this endeavor is to re-alphabetize the names in some of the Category listings, particularly in "Category:Date of birth missing", "Category:Year of birth missing" and "Category:Year of death missing". To use the Ronnie Lee example, or for that matter Jeane Ireine Biya or Alexander Preis, as you well know, unless one enters "Category:Year of birth missing|Lee, Ronnie", the Category will alphabetize "Ronnie Lee" under "R". Many users, possibly the majority, don't know, or disregard that fact. This accounts for the unusually large number of alphabetically-corrective edits I had made at a single sitting. As a rule, I do not make small edits on large numbers of entries, but focus on editing a single, longer entry. Furthermore, unlike some editors whose contributions may amount to simply adding a comma or an additional Category, I tend to read and revise the entire entry. In the case of my most recent edits, even though my main aim was to streamline the Categories, I felt that each entry deserved a thoughtful scrutiny and re-evaluation. If you care to check my edits for the previous months, you'll see that most of them are rarely reverted—the majority of them concern poor syntax, sentence construction, missing words, spelling errors and the like. When I am reverted, it's because the original author feels strongly about a personal peculiarity or a particular stylization, such as in the case of the "Ingrid Newkirk|Newkirk, Ingrid" formulation in "Ronnie Lee". When that happens, unless the revert is done by an anonymous vandal or makes no logical sense, I accept that it's a personal preference on the part of the other editor and drop the matter.

Some editors don't like the red non-links, such as in the Kim Stallwood instance in "Ronnie Lee" and I try to avoid those myself, except when I feel that the link might or should already be there. I always test the links in the preview before saving the page, but unfortunately the red non-link in the "Stallwood" case escaped my notice. Also I don't normally put links on both the full names of organizations and the acronyms or abbreviations that follow, e.g. (PETA), (BUAV) and (SHAC). These were merely entered to ascertain whether a redirect to the acronyms existed, and were meant to be removed after the preview. Again, because of the sheer volume of work involved, I overlooked them.

Such reverts of some aspects of my edits that did occur, were for the same reason that you pointed out—linking of isolated dates. I do not make such links arbitrarily or wholesale, but primarily to emphasize and call attention to the year or era that a particular event happened. Jayjg took issue with my date links in the Robert S. Wistrich entry that the two of you have created, but let my other changes stand. Also, I do not "systematically go through articles either linking or delinking". As I indicated, I normally concentrate on one or two articles—this was the largest number of edits I've done in one day, all for the purpose of putting the names in the Category in alphabetical order. Most of my links are not for words or ideas (unless they are very specific to the theme of the article), but to people and places that have an entry, but have not been linked, e.g. the previously improperly linked De La Salle College in the Warren Fellows entry.

I am not a serial date linker and have in fact removed many more isolated date links than I have put in. The lists that I have created or contributed to, e.g. List of playwrights all have unlinked birth and death years. Many novice editors are under the illusion that all dates need to be linked—thus whenever I see in an entry that I am editing, a film, a book or a play followed by a linked date in parentheses (2006), I take care to delink, unless it points to something specific, such as "2006 in music|2006".

Finally, I am disappointed that someone such as you, who has devoted so much time and dedication to Wikipedia, has treated some of my edits as if they were made by a vandal. Jayjg retained what appeared to be useful in my edits to the "Wistrich" entry and only reverted my date links, but you made wholesale anti-vandal reverts in my edits for Jeane Ireine Biya, Alexander Preis, Luke Sutherland and Jo Jo Laine, without seemingly even bothering to read them and keep the "good parts", not to even mention the Category additions and re-alphabetizations. A number of unique links to people and places in the reverted entries, e.g. Yaounde, Jimmy Miller and Berklee College of Music were thus disregarded. Even my corrected typo of "Laine" as "Lain" was reverted. Incidentally, within an hour of your "Sutherland" revert, it was reverted back to my version by Mais oui!, another "Barnstar" recipient.

You were fair, I must admit, with my edits to the Frederic Seaman entry, only properly changing another editor's derogatory word, but I don't think I'm being thin-skinned in feeling that the anti-vandal reverts were unjust and quite unwarranted. Romanspinner 12:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Clancy/"Category:Year of birth"/"Category:Date of birth"

Greetings, Dudesleeper----same as you, I'm working on a big project and, as they have it in that stub-sorting line, you can help just by continuing to do what you've been doing. My giant project, as I've written in my previous message to an administrator, is to properly organize the thousands of mis-alphabetized names in all of the "Category" listings. As you know if, at the bottom of "John Doe"'s stub or full bio, a "Category", such as "Category:Living people|Doe, John" is input as "Category:Living people" or "Category:Living people|John Doe", then "John Doe" will be alphabetized under "J", instead of "D". You've been doing it properly, but scores of other editors haven't been.

There is also another "Category" problem. We met at the Kyle Clancy edit, over the Category:Date of birth missing/Category:Year of birth missing uncertainty. Ideally for the sake of clarity, but awkwardly sounding, the Category:Date of birth missing should have been called Category:Year of birth present, but month and day missing and the Category:Year of birth missing should have been called Category:Day, month and year of birth missing.

There are nearly a thousand biographies which begin with either, for example, "John Doe (born 1950)" or "John Doe (1950—August 26, 2006)". Since the year of birth is not missing, these can only go into the Category:Date of birth missing. On the other hand, there are about ten times as many bios, especially stubs of present-day individuals, like Kyle Clancy, which then can only go into the Category:Year of birth missing.

Many editors hedge their bets by putting the no-date subjects of their biographies into both the "Date" and the "Year" Categories, reasoning that "Date missing" Category must mean only the day and the month (August 26) and the "Year missing" Category must mean only the year (2006). At first, it seems to make sense, until we realize that the two categories are mutually exclusive. If "John Doe" was only in Category:Year of birth missing, but not Category:Date of birth missing, that would mean that his biography would have to begin with "John Doe (born August 26)", which, while popular when movie magazines write about actors, is never done in Wikipedia.

Also, if we were to use that method, there wouldn't even be any point in keeping both of the "Categories" — I recently offered a proposal to delete the Category:Year of birth missing and merge its contents into the more-readily-understood Category:Date of birth missing, but withdrew the idea almost immediately, realizing that to search out missing dates, we need every detail sorted in a separate "Category".

For example, yesterday I sorted a short entry on "Samuel Cromwell (died December 1, 1842)", who was hanged on a US Navy ship in mid-ocean on suspicion that he might be planning a mutiny. His bio was under Category:Date of birth missing, instead of the more-correct Category:Year of birth missing. We know the exact date of his death, but his birth will probably always remain unknown. So I transferred him to a third, even-more-correct, Category:Date of birth unknown|Cromwell, Samuel, for long-ago individuals whose birth date will probably never be known.

I hope all of the above provided some room for discussion on the Kyle Clancy "Year"/"Date" uncertainty and you would let me know your thoughts on the subject and how you want to handle this "Category" in your future biographies and stubs. Romanspinner talk 07:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Year/Date of birth missing

Hello. I just noticed that you have been trailing me around the project removing double Year/Date missing categories I have been placing in articles. I also noticed on your talk page that these categories are intended to be mutually exclusive. To that end, I have revised the description for Date missing to explain its use. Now that I know better how these categories were imagined, I will use them in that manner. Hopefully, clarifying that intent on the category page will prevent others from misusing them. Erechtheus 07:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ray Heatherton

That took quite some rescuing. The original author did not seem to care, and never respinded to messages (yet). Good job well done. Now we can see the wood from the trees. Fiddle Faddle 08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the kind words. The original author has a very recognizable writing style and is a veteran researcher and historian of children's television show hosts of the 1950s and 1960s. I have seen his writings regarding these individuals over the past years on sites devoted to TV nostalgia as well as on IMDb biographical entries for the same people. I suspect he may not have regular access to a computer and possibly did these entries from a library, transferring his research from floppy disc Word files or some such, thus accounting for the formatting difficulties and also for his inability to respond. I have never seen him submit anything to Wikipedia before this clutch of articles appeared and over the next day or two or three, I will attempt to Wikify and clarify the remainder of his submissions. These personalities may mean very little or nothing to Wiki users in Britain and around the world, but maintain an aura of nostalgic affection to aging New York-area baby boomers who attach the memory of presumably happier days of their childhood and adolescence to these mostly-disappeared shadows of a long-gone past. Romanspinner 09:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
    • My reaction when I saw them is "Great content but oh heck look at the mess!". I reckoned it needed a US literate person to do more to them. Library and such I can understand. I wish he'd looked after he posted, though :) Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFD notification

This message is to notify you that a stub template and category that you created ({{WWII-bio-stub}} and Cat:World War II biography stubs) are up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Since your note is obviously in response to the emendations I made within the descriptive introductions to the four "Date" categories (but, most specifically, to "Date of birth missing"), I can only reply by the evidence of my words within those introductions.
Leaving your "CAUTION" in "Date of birth missing" unchanged, I expressly elucidated the purpose of this and the other three categories, since numerous editors continue to misunderstand that "Date" in Wikipedia terms means month/day or day/month. While I have been spending much of my time on the "Date unknown" categories, which far too many editors have inappropriately been applying to contemporary individuals, there is no implied encouragement in any of the words I used in spelling out the purpose of the category in question, for editors to inappropriately search out the month and day of birth.
I have been slowly attending to these, and a number of other, unrelated, categories for the last eight months and while I originally did add missing months and days of birth to biographies of living persons, those were only from obvious sources, such as IMDb or the individual's own website. My last additions of that nature, however, were in late October-early November. I became aware around that time of your systematically going through the "Date of birth missing" category and removing it from the living on the basis of the principle of privacy. While I question the basic assumptions behind that policy (especially if the information exists in research resources, such as the H.W. Wilson Biography Index or Who's Who), I also feel there is no specifically corresponding need-to-know principle at stake and therefore also no imperativeness to challenge the matter, particularly in view of the apparent consensus of the community. Romanspinner (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • An additional note to the above: I just noticed your edit to the Tom Alter entry, deleting "Category:Date of birth missing". It appears likely that your message to me was prompted by the additional categories I appended to "Alter", rather than my annotations to the four "Date" category introductions. While I remarked above that I have not added a single "Date of birth missing" to a living person's biography since last October, at first glance it may seem that one of the four categories I added to "Alter" was, indeed, "Date of birth missing". That impression, however, would be incorrect, as a glance at the "Alter" history will show that another editor takes the credit (debit?) for that category in his/her edit summary. Even though, while editing, I delete or replace incontovertably incorrect categories, I consider this one a judgment call. Tom Alter is a top movie celebrity in India, hardly someone who seeks the privacy and anonymity of a hidden day and month of birth. But, as I noted before, I leave such matters to the consensus of the community, irrespective of whether the date of birth is that of Tom Alter or Tom Cruise.Romanspinner(talk) 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:(Year) back and white films

Hi, I am here to prevent further spread of the cross category in other years. The reason: we are having a serious problem of overcategorization in WP Films and as you will notice the scope in films is very diverse. Since the beginning of this year, we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Categorization to discuss about such things and to develop Film specific guidelines. It's all still in flux and our decisions are not always as orthodox as some expect, like we have defined 3 all inclusive "primary" categories and we try to minimize cross categories to the absolutely necessary. One of them is the Year and many attempts to cross it with other primary or genre categories have been deleted. I hate to nominate things for deletion (I haven't ever done it yet) and prefer to work for a better understanding with individual efforts, so I would be glad if we discuss about this in the above link. Cheers! Hoverfish Talk 17:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your communication and concede that my project, while well-meant, appears somewhat misguided, especially in view of the fact that various viable proposals for subcategorizing Category:Black and white films have been already put forward by you and others over a number of months. In fact, on the appropriate day for reflection, January 1, you pointed out that the category had about 2200 films and suggested breaking it down, possibly by year. Three months later, at the start of April, it had topped 3000. The category itself, in its strictly alphabetical form, is nearly useless (although, keeping in mind that it has already been twice nominated for deletion, we need to agree on methods for its improvement, not elimination). Even if I had been able to bring to fruition my idea of categorizing by year all black-and-white films currently on Wikipedia, the result, judging by the meager examples already there, would still leave me (and, most likely, others) dissatisfied.
Further subcategorizing, however, with such possibilies as Category:1963 Brazilian black and white comedy films, would leave us open to the ridicule of overcategorization, with the critics again bringing forth their familiar reductio ad absurdum category examples. Without the inclusion of the genre, it might stand a chance as Category:1963 Brazilian black and white films, a subcategory of Category:1963 Brazilian films, with the black-and-white films included in both categories. However, since most Brazilian films in 1963 were black-and-white, it would then be more logical to make Category:1963 Brazilian color films a subcategory. In practice, though, there would be no need to list color. As of spring 1966, when the three American networks, CBS, NBC and ABC, announced that their fall schedule would be 100% in color, the US movie studios made an immediate conversion, and the rest of the world followed suit. As the list of the handful of black-and-white films produced since 1970 shows, in this case, it is the exception that needs categorizing, not the rule.
All of these contradictions, obviously, only serve to highlight the difficulties you and other members of the Project have faced in arriving at a consensus for subcategorizing, which efforts, as you pointed out, may ultimately fall prey to deletion. While some method needs to be found for dealing with the 3000+ titles in the black-and-white category, with year and country the most obvious, possibly the only, subcategories, it would make no sense for me to proceed or continue without the consensus of the WikiProject. It would also make little sense to just leave Category:1963 black and white films and Category:1964 black and white films without adding other years. Please feel free to make these two categories your first nominations for deletion or, if you prefer, ignore them for now, and subsequently incorporate them, if they still exist, into whatever develops in a future consensus. In my 15 months as an active Wikipedian, I only made one real (unnecessary and unsuccessful) deletion nomination (an uninformative List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes). Otherwise, I only nominated a few biographical stubs which duplicated already existing articles.Romanspinner(talk) 10:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposal to cross B&W with Year, was further debated in the same thread. Since then a big dilemma has arisen. In the days following this statement, we have heard arguments against breaking down big primary categories. To summarize, there may soon be a breakthrough in the wiki-software which will enable intersection categories on demand from any article's category footer, so in each topic some primary categories will have to stay poplated. But that's not yet applied and optimization research is still underway. However, a decision has been taken to keep all-inclusive "primary" film categories for Year, Country and Language. One important reason for this, other than future perspectives, is that we need them as indexes (although I personally never use the Language one and have my doubts about it). Country film categories are already indexes we link to from many navigations and lists. Also many members use the Year mega-indexes for maintenance mega-rounds. Crossing Country-Year has already been decided against and a massive deletion took place. What I suggest is that we give it a little time to see what technology sais. If it turns out that we need B&W unbroken, for the new system, all our work will be in vain and a lot of extra work will be needed. If the whole thing gets stuck, we can proceed in the light of usability. IMO the most obvious usable crossing is B&W/Genre, but unfortunately it's also one of the most diverse factors (and often argued as subjective). In conclusion, I am not sure what to propose in WP Films/Categorization. If you wish to make a start, I will participate. If you wish to wait, I will also wait, unless someone else starts further related subcategories. Hoverfish Talk 14:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Possibly living people

How do we take someone off the list that we know is still alive? NMTPhysics 19:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Go to the bottom of that person's Wikipedia article, and replace the Possibly living people category from the bottom of the page with the Living people category. Which person is it?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, if the person is now known to be dead, change category to "YYYY deaths" (where YYYY is the year), "Date of death missing" (if it is and can probably be found) or "Date of death unknown" (if it is lost forever). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

At what point do we assume someone to have died of old age? --BDD 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been using about 105 years old. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --BDD 21:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
See Category:Living people; the standard appears to be "born after 1885", though that date may increment each year (I would hope it does). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If strictly adhered to, the (admittedly arbitrary) conditions of Category:Births of the last 123 years and Category:Deaths of the last 123 years, based on the 122-year-164-day lifespan of Jeanne Calment, would dictate that 1885 should enter the date count in mid-June 2007 (starting from January 1, 1885 and taking into consideration leap years). For the small number of individual biographical articles affected, there would would be no point in micromanaging this matter by taking note of specific birthdays—only the year is noted. The elucidation of introductory text to this Category and Category:Living people would be updated annually in mid-June, with 1886 becoming the succeeding year in June 2008. For the handful of individuals from that period with missing years of birth, death or both, common sense is the best guide. Those with missing years of birth should have the earliest year of activity extrapolated. In counting backward 122-123 years, extreme care in ascertaining who is still possibly among the living is no longer a priority. The individuals involved are almost invariably of low notability (minor 19th century sportspeople, etc.) or once-somewhat-notables (e.g., Hugh Cecil (born 1889)) whom most editors already place into Category:Year of death missing or (prematurely and, almost always, incorrectly) into Category:Year of death unknown. Romanspinner (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
To suggest that anyone born over 110 years ago who isn't known to be living and therefore already in the Category:Living people should be added to it, or to Category:Possibly living people for that matter, is ludicrous. There's about a snowball's chance in hell that we have unidentified supercentenarians lurking about in Wikipedia articles. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DEFAULTSORT

The experimentation you were doing at the Yousuf article: Please be aware that changes to categorization and cat. sorting often do not take place instantly. I've seen it take up to an hour for such changes to propagate for some reason. While it is vaguely possible something broke recently with DEFAULTSORT and talk page, I very seriously doubt it, or we'd be seeing a lot more noise about it. I've seen no evidence to date at all that DEFAULTSORT does not work properly even with categories embedded in the guts of talk page templates. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I have inserted DEFAULTSORT templates into scores of biographical entries and DEFAULTSORT always worked instantly---the name was properly alphabetized within its respective category immediately upon the use of the SAVE PAGE function. Today was my first encounter with DEFAULTSORT on the DISCUSSION page and I found that it does not function there. Despite its presence on the DISCUSSION page as "DEFAULTSORT:Yousuf, Mohammed", the name still appears in the category under "M". As far as the time span is concerned, the Talk:Mohammed Yousuf revision history shows that I reinserted the individual category sorting function for Mohammed Yousuf at 06:31, more than three hours after you changed it at 03:24. Perhaps rather than one hour or three hours, we can extend the test period to 24 hours to determine if the alphabetization is effectuated. If no change occurs by that point, we would have to concede that a technical inadequacy exists and proceed from there. Incidentally, the same problem with the DEFAULTSORT function is equally in evidence at the Talk:Alex Pagulayan page, where I also had to fall back on the kluge of bypassing DEFAULTSORT and using individual sorting. If you feel that the technical team should be given time to enable the use of DEFAULTSORT on DISCUSSION pages, we can revisit the matter next week. Romanspinner(talk) 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Weird. I think something did break; I just looked in Category:All cue sports pages including snooker and they're all mis-sorted. Will bring this up at the Pump for fixing. This worked fine a month ago. I can't imagine that what has happened was intentional, and it'll probably be trivial for them to fix it. I hope! If not that's a major issue, since very few project templates support a name order field the way WPBiography does with its list-as parameter... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I following you, that moving DEFAULTSORT to below wikiproject tags but above cleanup categories makes DEFAULTSORT work for both those individually-added categories and the categories embedded in the project tags, and that this works consistently? If so, that's incredibly weird, but at least it works! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I could see that there was no inherent flaw in DEFAULTSORT, because I have been inserting it into each article I examined (except, of course, the ones which already contained DEFAULTSORT, such as all those which you edited). I did not generally insert DEFAULTSORT into discussion pages, because I was still under the prevailing impression that it had some imbedded imperfection which prevented its function on those pages. However, on one occasion, on the discussion page, I had to input a particularly lengthy name of an aristocrat, which needed three or four "missing" Categories, so I decided to use DEFAULTSORT and---it worked! It was a new discussion page, with no wikiproject tags, which suggested to me that the tags must have some imbedded blocking capacity which prevents DEFAULTSORT from fulfilling its function. My first attempt to prove this theory at Talk:Perrie Mans was unsuccessful, as the talk page history will show---I left DEFAULTSORT in its original spot at the top and moved Category:Place of birth missing (living people) directly below it so that the wikiproject tags would not interfere between them---still no proper alphabetization!. There was one more test left---the successful one. I didn't discover it on my own---User:Alex Middleton, in adding Categories to Talk:Moses Galante, input DEFAULTSORT below the project tags and the result was there to see. I don't know why the earlier Talk:Perrie Mans experiment failed---apparently as long as DEFAULTSORT is above the project tags, it is blocked from fulfilling its function. However, as we can now confirm, DEFAULTSORT does indeed perform proper alphabetization for both the Categories and the project tags as long it is placed below the tags. Incidentally, most names within the many wikiproject Categories are not properly alphabetized (Aaron Abbott instead of Abbott, Aaron) and the ones that are, do not (for the most part) have DEFAULTSORT yet, but do have, as one of the WPBiography elements, the properly completed "listas=Abbott, Aaron".Romanspinner (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad you figured that out! I guess it will take a long time for the kluge/workaround (after all, DEFAULTSORT should work at the top, according to its documentation at Meta, and hopefully the MediaWiki developers will fix the bug some day), even if someone figures out an AWB script, but at least we know how to make it work now. Kudos! As for WPBiography|listas, that is basically obsolete now and should probably be stripped out in the process of DEFAULTSORTing.
PS: One thing I've been doing with all articles I project-tag is DEFAULTSORTing them (and not doing this to non-article talk pages such as WikiProject internal pages, templates, etc.) For things like project categories such as Category:All cue sports pages this should have (when DEFAULTSORTed properly per your fix) of alphabetizing all articles in a project properly, while leaving non-articles sorted their true default way under "T" for "Talk:..."

[edit] Twilight Zone cast edits

As you can no doubt tell, the articles for each of the Twilight Zone episodes are inconsistent and in major need of some standardized template, and maybe a group of people to fix them all. Of course, like most people who say things like that, I don't have the skills or time to do that. C'est la vie.

However -- and it's just my opinion, ask others if you want and I'll go with the consensus -- the edits that you've recently made to some of the TZ episode pages (e.g., The Whole Truth (The Twilight Zone)) make the page more difficult to read. I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes for guidance, but because most shows don't have a cast that varies as much as TZ did, it's of little help. However, the WikiProject did point me to Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who as a project that uses similar guidelines, and that pointed me to Rose (Doctor Who) as an illustrative example.

Those links show that the suggested method of cast listing is:

  • Cast: Following on-screen cast list, with the name of the character followed by an em dash (— or —) followed by the name of the actor
    • Cast notes: Notes regarding casting or cast members.

So in the example of "Rose", the cast section looks like this:

“ ==Cast==

===Cast notes===

 ”

If you don't disagree, can you modify your Twilight Zone changes to match this format?

Thanks for your constructive TZ edits; I hope to see many more in the future! Travisl 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am gratified to receive your communication and appreciate the fact that you contacted me before proceeding with any revisions. Few editors, I suspect, would be so considerate. Also, any friend and supporter of The Twilight Zone is always welcome on this page. That having been said, I feel that that the "one size fits all" approach of the WikiProject does not take into account the uniqueness of each show's and each episode's cast list which should more closely represent the true spirit and intent of the creators of the program and its credits (or at least mirror the appearance of those credits).
As you already indicated, the credits for TV programs are inconsistent and vary widely. Even TZ itself didn't structure its credits the same way in its second season as it did in its first. There was, however, a constant determination to delineate the status of each cast member. This hierarchy is exemplified in one of the first shows, "Mr. Denton on Doomsday", with the end credits clearly setting out that the episode has only one star— the first cast slide stated: "Starring/Dan Duryea". The second slide had: "with/Martin Landau/Jeanne Cooper/Malcolm Atterbury" and the third slide (in smaller letters) had the last five names: "Ken Lynch/Arthur Batanides/Bill Erwin/Robert Burton/Doug McClure". Some episodes (although not this one) may have the word "and" (lower standing than "with") at the top of the cast list on the third or even fourth slide.
I was optimistic that TZ buffs would accept and appreciate the exactitude of the cast list specifics in the nine episodes (including all six of the videotaped ones) for which I had contributed details. I would hope (with the assent of the concerned population of the Wikipedia community) to eventually expand the task to all 156 episodes, including write-ups on each director, actor and even bit player who appeared in more than one episode of TZ. There are occassional exceptions, such as my write-up for Art Carney in "The Night of the Meek". Carney appeared in only one TZ episode, but was a Serling favorite, having played Serling's fictionalized self in his Playhouse 90 episode "The Velvet Alley". I also took the opportunity a few days ago to update (from my earlier write-up) the now-97th birthday of Serling's idol Norman Corwin, the namesake of Carney's character, Henry Corwin.
The example you provided of the cast list for "Rose" is a well-done, clear generic prototype, but I would be curious to see how closely it mirrored the layout and formatting of the actual Doctor Who episode. Each program has its own stylistic peculiarities and it would seem that the enthusiasts of those programs would wish the cast lists and other specifics of each program's write-ups to reflect those peculiarities. The cast lists which I contributed may seem a trifle "busy", but they don't appear (to me at least) difficult or confusing. The name of each cast member is bulleted with an asterisk designed to separate and draw attention to the names, and each name has a blue or red link. A considerable number of the names, while a part of the cast, never achieved even the slightest notability, therefore making it unlikely that they would ever have even a stub. Although some editors have added links to such names, it does not seem practical.
In its first season TZ did not provide character names in the cast lists of its episodes. TZ historian Marc Scott Zicree used, in his books, the character names in the scripts, but the finished product doesn't always reflect the same reality. In "Mr. Denton on Doomsday", for example, the script referred to the saloon lady as "Liz", but Denton, Dan Duryea's character, only called her "Miss Smith". I used (in parentheses) the names by which the characters were actually known on the show and, to identify them further, added brief descriptions of, and concise lines of dialogue delivered by, each character.
By the second season, TZ had started to use character names in its cast lists, denoting many cast members with the word "as". I used the exact on-screen cast list for "The Whole Truth" and the other episodes, including each use of the word "as": "Starring/Jack Carson/as/Harvey Hunnicut", also "and Jack Ging as Young Man". Given that unbilled cast members are not identified with an "as", I put their descriptions and/or lines of dialogue in parentheses, as in season 1. Since the lettering for character names was smaller than that of the actors portraying them, I used italics for character names and desciptions to allow them to stand out and to indicate a differentiation between the actor and the character. Again, for actors who have appeared on TZ more than once, there is a bracketed note after each such name, indicating that the actor has a brief write-up in "Episode notes". The Doctor Who "Rose" format of "Cast notes" appearing immediately after the cast list, does not seem to fit as well here because of the length of the notes, as in "Static". It all appears to fit better at the end as "Episode notes".
I have spent over four decades compiling TV notes and was planning to go into even greater detail regarding the logistics of each portion of the episode article, but I've begun to realize that this is already a fairly lengthy reply and I don't want to overwhelm it with too much specificity. If you're still unconvinced, however, I will try to present a stronger case in my next reply. Romanspinner (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your very detailed explanation. If I understand correctly, your intent is to make the Wikipedia cast listing as similar to the on-screen listing as possible, including the formatting of the names of the actors and characters. I, on the other hand, believe that the formatting of television cast member listings should be consistent across different television programs. We're clearly in agreement that consistency is important, we merely disagree on what we need to be consistent with.
I don't think I have any basis other than personal opinion as to how it should be formatted; nor do you. Your argument for consistency with on-screen credits is as valid as my argument for consistency with Doctor Who. Unfortunately, the one place that would help, Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Episodes, is silent on the issue.
Just to make things more confusing, two more examples: White Light (The 4400 episode) has a cast section which lists the regular series cast and the guest stars, while The Bellero Shield (The Outer Limits) has a cast section that duplicates information in its episode infobox. The TZ episodes don't have their own per-episode infobox, just a per-season one.
Would you object to my moving this discussion to a wider forum (perhaps Talk:The Twilight Zone (1959 TV series)?) to see what the larger community thinks? I'm not confident that either one of has the answer, and there may be a third possibility, or a standard that neither of us are aware of. Travisl 16:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, my approach on this matter is that cast lists should try and remain as simple as possible. I personally find terms such as "and" or "with" to be unneeded verbiage, that's my opinion - but I do know that it's shared by other editors.
What one must remember is that cast lists aren't presented as one big list in the episodes, but rather scene-by-scene listings within the intertitle. A problem on Wikipedia is that there's no general consensus as to the "correct" format for cast listing, but, until today I've not seen any cast lists presented with "and", etc., within articles ("'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus" — Wikipedia:Consensus).
My general preference for listing cast would be "Character — Actor", it's easy and simple - or furthermore, substituting "—" for "as", is acceptable. The Whole Truth (The Twilight Zone)#Cast is acceptable to me if the "starring" and the "and" bit are cut, one thing you must remember si that everybody in the episode is "starring", as they appear... To conclude: show, don't tell readers the cast. Matthew 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to seek greater consensus by moving the discussion to any appropriate forum that would involve the wider community on this matter. If there is little or no interest, then silence may also equal consent to my style of cast presentation. Conversely, a chorus of disapproval would definitely indicate a preference for...something else, or at least a resistance to the approach I've taken. I will add more thoughts on the subject later today or early tomorrow. Romanspinner (talk)
I think, perhaps, that I was being too optimistic -- I assumed that most TV series episode pages were consistent between each other, but I just looked at various episode pages from Star Trek: TNG, from M*A*S*H, and from The Outer Limits. However, a much larger community was able to come up with standardized episode pages for The Simpsons (see Wikipedia_talk:WIkiproject_The_Simpsons/Archive2#consistency_in_individual_episodes). This is a much bigger issue than the cast listings, so I'd say to continue to move ahead with the changes. Maybe someday I'll create Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Twilight_Zone, but not today.
Thanks for helping me think through this. Travisl 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edouard Charton

--LagFqt 07:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)(alias Annie Lagarde)Thank you for your contribution...

I am happy to support your admirable intent to expand historical and literary subjects to other languages, and pleased that you were satisfied with my modest edits. My discovery of Charton came via the Christian de Bonchamps entry which listed Charton as the editor and publisher of Bonchamps' account. I did a similar editing task on the Bonchamps article which, despite being a French topic, currently exists only in the English-language Wikipedia. Romanspinner (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos for putting order into all the elements of Category:Articles missing birth or death information and other associated elements

It's my turn to give kudos---and they're definitely called for. What a monumental task---standardizing all thirteen existing "Year/Date/Place missing/unknown" Categories and, to top it off, recreating the unfairly-singled-out-for-deletion Category:Date of birth unknown and creating the previously-never-existing, but also needed, analogous Category:Date of birth missing (living people). While it's a somewhat controversial Category, I can certainly argue that well-known actors, newscasters, sports stars, top business executives and other indisputably public personalities whose dates have not been provided, may be listed. I will, undoubtedly, be challenged on this point, but the basic idea stands, and each matter can be resolved one individual at a time. As to the four-day-old "outsider" Category:Year of birth uncertain, it theoretically overlaps the other three "Year of birth" Categories, "missing", "missing (living people)" and "unknown" but, if it survives, it might have a specialized use in biographies of individuals whose age is stated in a newspaper article, but the year of birth is unavailable, so that it can be either, for example, 1948 or 1949 (in the case of Nora Astorga) or 1975-76 (in the case of Cynthia Ore). But to return to your solo achievement, it is an act which cried out for completion since the "missing/unknown" Categories were first created. No one, myself included, fully stepped up to the plate and brought to pass an overarching consistency to the project. It was all being done piecemeal with varying introductions and elucidations. In addition, you properly brought Category:Living people, Category:Possibly living people, Category:Disappeared people and Category:Dead people into the mix and annotated the discussion pages for all those Categories (another herculean task) to examine every point raised and suggestion made over the past (nearly) two years. All in all, a living (people) example of creativity and an illustration of be bold philosophy. —Roman Spinner (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just getting started really! The actual text of all those things needs lots more consistentizing. Will take some time...
C:Dobm(lp) — I think that the cited policies are pretty clear on what is and isn't permissible, and abuse should be handled on an article-by-article basis. Getting rid of the category won't do anything at all to stop people from adding too-personal info to the articles of non-public figures. Please let me know if anyone attacks either of these categories in a substantial way (I have them watchlisted, but my WL is over 1200 pages...), or any of the others. I see them all as necessary (though only a tiny handful as necessary on the article page rather than talk page).
C:Yobuncertain — Didn't even notice it! Will have to have a look at it and think on it. At first blush, I don't see that C:Yobunknown doesn't entirely cover it (even if more commonly used for "we have no idea at all and never will"; the difference appears to only be a matter of degree. If people are using it for "there is an editor dispute about the YoB" or "I wrote this and I'm not sure", that's probably not good enough to justify the category. It should either be removed and discussed on the talk page, or tagged with {{fact}}, {{dubious}}, or {{disputable}}, as closest fits the issue. For any case where the sources aren't specific enough, or two sources disagree, or a source and a statement by the person disagree or whatever, there is an appropriate inline template (see WP:WPILT).
Thanks for the kind words and encouragement; I will continue (at some point; working on something that will ease a lot of U.S. major topic (states, congress, etc.) WikiProject consistency headaches right now, and have other stuff in the pipe. I do go on a "tear" of activity in areas like the year/date/place of birth/death stuff where I see the need from time to time, but often take a break of a few days. I half feared someone from WP:BIO would get upset with me and revert it all. Heh.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject The Twilight Zone

Because you're an occasional contributor to Twilight Zone articles, I'd like to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject The Twilight Zone. Currently, I'm looking for suggestions and improvements to the draft style guide I've posted. Thanks! Travisl 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of sort tag and categories

I believe you are misplacing these items, which should be on the main article page. Please see my post at Talk:William D. Hare. Katr67 20:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me to resolve this matter—all of our efforts at Wikipedia depend upon editor consensus and comprehension of technical details. For the past few months, since the development of WP:DEFAULTSORT, this new method of sorting, which obviates the former "Category:Polish novelists|Żuławski, Jerzy" mode (still existing and in need of upgrading in tens of thousands of entries) has been appended to thousands of both article pages and discussion (talk) pages. To appreciate its utility, one need go no further than the very "Talk:William D. Hare" page in question. At the bottom, upon entering any of the ten Categories there, one can determine that DEFAULTSORT had been able to successfully accomplish its task of alphabetizing the article under "H" as in "Talk:Hare, William D.", rather than the former "W" alphabetization as in "Talk:William D. Hare".
As an example of what still remains to be done, in entering the first of the ten Categories, Category:Stub-Class Oregon articles, one can immediately perceive, under "A", the entries Talk:A. C. Gibbs and Talk:A. E. Doyle, which should, obviously, be under "G" and "D", respectively. Over 90% of all entries in Category:Stub-Class Oregon articles, Category:WikiProject Oregon Government & Politics and all other discussion page Categories have not yet been DEFAULTSORTed and are thus misalphabetized. Since you've made many thousands of contributions to Wikipedia and have been at it for over a year, your help in adding "DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given name" to the talk pages (and, of course, article pages) of articles which you edit would certainly contribute towards the long-term goal of full alphabetization.
The policy guidelines can be found in the article and talk pages of WP:Categorization#Sorting with templates, Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes, WP:Project, WP:PROJGUIDE and other discussion forums. You may also wish to contact User talk:SMcCandlish, some of whose comments can be seen on my talk page, directly above yours. He has been a pioneer in developing DEFAULTSORT's utility on talk pages. He has also been at the forefront of discussions deciding which of the fifteen "Year/Date/Place"\"missing/unknown" Categories belong on article pages and which belong on talk pages. The current consensus is that the three "defining" "Year of"\"birth/birth (living people)/death"\"missing" Categories would remain on article pages, while the remaining twelve Categories, including all five "Date" Categories, all five "Place" Categories and the two "Year unknown" Categories should be repurposed to discussion pages. There is a recent non-analogous sixteenth entry in Category:Articles missing birth or death information, the very underpopulated Category:Year of birth uncertain, with a not-yet-fully-developed guideline. Its handful of entries have been appended to either article or talk pages. —Roman Spinner (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible error?

Greetings. I noticed you made some changes at Talk:Méav Ní Mhaolchatha, but they seemed to be slightly inappropriate. I've restored the "Date of birth" category to the page, since it is not otherwise indicated there or on the main article. I've also fixed the name in the DEFAULTSORT tag, from "Meav" to "Ni Mhaolchatha, Meav", since that is the proper "last, first" arrangement. If I've unknowingly 'corrected' some new policy that's not yet made itself well-known, just let me know. Thanks! -- Huntster T • @ • C 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you communicated with me regarding this edit—the best editors always feel that all our endeavors are dependent upon achieving Wikipedian consensus. As to Category:Date of birth missing, I lacked sufficient space in the edit summary to fully detail the deletion, writing only, "...deleting Category:Date of birth missing, which is already included within the "defining" article-page Category:Year of birth missing (living people)". That Category, which encompasses the absence of month, day and year of birth, has not yet been appended to the article page. I frequently wait 24 to 48 hours after editing the discussion page to enable the original editor(s), who have the page watchlisted, and who may prefer to edit the article page themselves, to do so. Category:Date of birth missing, which only identifies the absence of the month and day of birth, with the year already having been appended, would thus be unneeded.
The other matter, name alphabetization, deals with an artist's professional name, nickname or nom de plume. Typically, Wikipedia articles are titled with the name by which the artist is best known to the public. Méav uses only that single name in all her professional designations—concerts, album covers, etc. In fact, the only site to use her surname in the title is IMDb. Even the link to her entry in the Finnish Wikipedia illustrates the point—it is titled simply "Méav", with the surname indicated in the opening sentence. She would, therefore, be in the same Category as Cher who is not categorized as "Bono, Cher" or "Allman, Cher", but simply "Cher". You may decide to move the title of the article to "Méav", which creates an automatic redirect to her full name, in case anyone should decide to type its every letter. Even if one insisted upon leaving the entire name as the article title, there is plenty of precedent, especially with people in the musical profession, to forego name reversal in alphabetization. Scores of examples can be found in Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles and Category:Unknown-priority biography (musicians) articles. Others are in Categories found in Category:Biography (musicians) articles by priority. I've spent over a year on these matters, thus we are only scratching the surface, however, it may already be more than many editors wish to know. In any event, I'm always here if more specific details are desired.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing that insightful explanation. To be honest, I don't keep track on the intricacies of that particular debate ("Date/Year of birth missing") as I seem to recall it vacillating often. Thus, I categorise based on what logically makes sense to me, and to me, "date" logically means the fully month, day, year formula, not just month and day. I made the erroneous assumption that "Year of birth missing" referred to those people that *had* only the month and day available (and some people will only release that info) or those situations in which only the year was likely to ever be known. Obviously, I've not delved deeply into this particular matter.
Also, while I do somewhat understand the idea behind titling an article by the most commonly known name, I rather strongly disagree with this practice. Because we have redirects available to us, it only makes logical sense to have the article title as the person's proper name, and set up redirects from names that people may search by or type in...in the above case, have the proper title as "Méav Ní Mhaolchatha" with redirects from "Meav Ni Mhaolchatha", "Méav" and "Meav". It just seems...inaccurate...to only title by a common name [though I'll admit that I've recently gone against this in keeping an article titled Amy Lee (maiden name) over Amy Hartzler (married name)]. Ah well, what do I know ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
You are, unfortunately, correct about the vacillating state of Category:Date of birth missing, with many editors assuming that it referred to month/day/year (Category:Year of birth missing seems to have been primarily understood). A number of editors even covered both possibilities by appending Category:Date of birth missing and Category:Year of birth missing to biographical entries which, as in the case of Meav, did not contain either one. However, since their creation, the Categories (all sixteen of which are listed in Category:Articles missing birth or death information) had specific introductory directives elucidating their use and purpose (there are no provisions, incidentally, for including the month and day of birth without the year). Discussions over the past year reached a recent consensus to repurpose the "Date/Place/missing/unknown" Categories to talk pages, while leaving the "Year" Categories, which have been designated as "defining", on article pages. Again, there are numerous additional details involved, but as you probably know, editors overly concerned with such matters have been designated as (or grouped with) wikignomes.
As to name alphabetization, putting aside whether the article should be titled Méav or Méav Ní Mhaolchatha [her own website refers to her only as "Méav", and the sole (minor) example/guidance to come from another Wikipedia is provided by no. 13 (in order of the number of entries), Finland, which also uses Méav—Wikipedias 2 through 12, including German, French, Polish, Dutch, Italian and Spanish---have not, so far, had editors willing to undertake the task], we should be more specific in the use of DEFAULTSORT (see my comment at the bottom of Talk:Charmion for an example). Redirects are not categorized [except as redirects] and therefore do not appear in Category listings. Only the main article name appears in Categories, so it should be logically the one known to the public. In most cases when fame is achieved early in life under a maiden name, such as in the case of performers—(Amy Lee is, indeed better known to the public than Amy Hartzler} or athletes (Zola Budd rather than Zola Pieterse and Mary Decker rather than Mary Slaney. I moved Sandra Reynolds Price to Sandra Reynolds, since the public only knew/knows her under her maiden name. She was also originally DEFAULSORTed as "Price, Sandra Reynolds" instead of "Reynolds Price, Sandra". In the case of television personalities (although not actresses) the standard seems to be that the married name becomes the only one used (e.g. Kathie Lee Gifford (Kathie Lee Johnson), E. D. Hill (E. D. Donahey) and Lucy Owen (Lucy Cohen)). To enable alphabetization, DEFAULTSORT needs only the first letter, thus John Adams needs only "DEFAULTSORT:A" to show up as "Adams, John" in Category:1735 births but, as a result, DEFAULTSORT will not be able to distinguish alphabetically between "Adams, John" and another common name, "Adams, Robert". Such an experiment would confirm that common names need a full "DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Name" combination, while for rare and unique names, one letter suffices (although most editors still prefer to spell out the name for consistency's sake). Only the "M" will suffice, for example, to place the entire name, Méav Ní Mhaolchatha (diacritical marks over the "e" and "i" still present in the Category listing) between Roly Meates and Brandon Mebane in Category:Living people.
Ultimately, however, the name alphabetization consensus decision will be made by you and the article's other editors. Méav's name is not a pseudonym, but none of the pseudonymous music personalities, such as Meat Loaf or 50 Cent reversed their names. Single-named musical personalities such as Cher, Jewel, Brandy, Aaliyah and Ireland's Enya, whose surnames were not generally known or used, might also serve as examples.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors on categories

I think you are putting categories and DEFAULTSORTS on talk pages. They go on the article page itself. JodyB talk 17:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I fully understand DEFAULTSORT, but why on a talk page?
Thank you for contacting me on the matter of DEFAULTSORT. It is a key element in the proper alphabetical sorting of all Wikipedia Categories, and I am always glad to have an opportunity to expound on the subject. Before going any further, however, since other editors have already communicated with me about this, I invite you to read the June 12-13 "Placement of sort tags and categories" exchange on my talk page and then, if you have additional comments, please let me know and we can discuss it in greater detail. —Roman Spinner (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me thank you for your most considerate response and attitude. It's is far too rare these days. I did read the section you reference and I really do not oppose the DEFAULTSORT on the talk page. Certainly on a busy talk page DEFAULTSORT can really improve the sorting as you mention. What I am most curious about is placing categories on the talk page that do not arise from a talk page template. For example, at Burell Boylin Lewis you added a category about place of death missing on the talk page. Shouldn't that have been on the main page? (BTW, I added that information about where he died in the article.) I'm sure you have a good plan but I don't understand. Thank you for taking the time to explain. JodyB talk 18:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your kind comments and I've always believed that civility (and even incivility) should be responded to with equal (or greater) civility. Here, at Wikipedia, we are a community at work on a common project and are, therefore, bonded with a common objective—the advancement of knowledge. If we did not care to devote so much of our time and effort to this project, we wouldn't be here. As to the matters at hand, the placement of the sixteen Categories enumerated in Category:Articles missing birth or death information was also one of the topics discussed in the final paragraph of "Placement of sort tags and categories". Briefly, the community consensus was that the five "Date" and five "Place" Categories would best serve their specialized purpose on the discussion pages of their respective entries, while the three "Year" Categories considered "defining", Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Year of death missing would remain on the article page to denote the absence of key information. The two "Year unknown" Categories were also originally intended for the discussion page, and may still be repurposed there but, for the time being, continue to be used on the article page. The sixteenth "orphan" Category, Category:Year of birth uncertain, is the most recent arrival into the fold and has not been put to a consensus vote. Presently, it is a very minor, underpopulated article-page Category, apparently meant for (primarily contemporary) individuals whose age is given in a (newspaper, etc.) article, without the indication of the year of birth, thus leaving it as one of two adjoining years.
Regarding the Burwell Boykin Lewis talk page, since the place of death has now been added to the article (as the president of the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, he was presumed to have died in that city, but absent the specific reference, such a presumption cannot be taken for granted), the Category:Place of death missing is, of course, no longer necessary. However, I have been adding DEFAULTSORT (along with the appropriate "missing/unknown" Category) even to pages which do not yet contain Wikitags and Category stubs in anticipation of such additions. In the case of this specific talk page, no "missing/unknown" Categories are needed but, as in the case of Oregonian William D. Hare mentioned in the "Placement of sort tags and categories" discussion, DEFAULTSORT also alphabetically sorts the Wikitag Categories on the same page. Just as the WikiProject Oregon Categories still needed sorting in the case of William D. Hare, so do the WikiProject:Alabama still need sorting in the case of Burwell Boykin Lewis. In examining the two Categories on the discussion page, Category:Stub-Class Alabama articles and Category:WikiProject Alabama articles, one can note that Burwell Boykin Lewis appears in Category:WikiProject Alabama between Burningtree Mountain, Alabama and Butch Hobson, instead of between Lewis Billups and Lewis E. Parsons (each of whom is also, obviously, mis-sorted). Since all Wikipedia sorting is done by surname, it is a herculean project to re-sort the nearly two-million talk pages but, with the help of bots, it is being done. By restoring DEFAULTSORT to the Burwell Boykin Lewis discussion page, we take one small step towards achieving that goal. I'll be here for any further exploration of the topic. —Roman Spinner (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I guess I'm looking for the discussion you mention at "Placement of sort tags and categories." Am I overlooking the page? Could you point me there? I'd like to review the discussion. Again, DEFAULTSORT is not in question. I'm just curious about the placements as mentioned. If there are going to be categories on the talk pages then there certainly needs to be a way of properly catigorizing items and DS makes that possible. Thanks again. JodyB talk 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to be of help. One place to start would be to examine the Category deletion discussions regarding three of the Categories which resulted in the repurposing of all ten "Date/Place" Categories to discussion pages. In addition, all fifteen "Year/Date/Place"/"missing/unknown" Categories found grouped together within Category:Articles missing birth or death information heve their own discussion pages, each of which specifies the placement of the relevant Category. The most comprehensive discussion pages (revealing the evolution of the Categories) can be found at Category talk:Year of birth missing, Category talk:Year of death missing and Category talk:Date of birth missing. Again, I'll be here, ready to consult on any continuing uncertainties. —Roman Spinner (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks again! JodyB talk 00:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eleazar Ben Killir‎

Thanks for the improvements! Moonbug

I'm glad you felt my modest additions to the discussion page were helpful. I subsequently returned to the main article page and made some minor adjustments and additions, including the approximate years of birth and death which can be found in the new "External references" link at the bottom of the article. I also Wikified the headings (only the initial letter is upper case), and since most references favor "ben" rather than "Ben", that change also seemed appropriate. The "Poetry-Chaikhana" site seems to have disappeared, so I changed your link, enabling it to display Google's cached version, but "Epithalamium" was apparently not cached so, while the main "Chaikhana–ben Kallir/Killir" page is accessible, the link, within that page, to the piyut itself cannot be opened. However, since you have another, separate link to "Epithalamium", the poem can still be read. I also appended a few categories, but Category:Dead people could not be applied, because it is only used to group subcategories, not individuals. As the creator of the article, you may wish to make further emendations—please feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. —Roman Spinner (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, Thank you. You have done nothing except make the article better. As you may note, I am fairly new to wikification and article creation, so I appreciate the attention you have given to make this article better. Moonbug
I take your kind words to heart. —Roman Spinner (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mine was Support vote #62 (of 158), cast on July 28. —Roman Spinner (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miroslav Žamboch‎

I like your edit of MŽ! Good work!TanizakiChoson 12:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC), 28 August 2007

[edit] Re:Suggestion for Reedy Bot's use in positioning DEFAULTSORT

Hello, Reedy Boy has been tagging talk pages, but it hasnt been changing the mainspace pages, and therefore isnt touching default sorts...

There may have been a couple of other edits i did that caused that.. But the talk page tagging only affects the talk pages

Oh... Just had a look at your contribs.. The talk pages generally aint categorised... And especially not default sorted... So thats probably why it is changing them, but they shouldnt exist on the talk pages at all

Reedy Boy 07:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your position, however, due to complaints from editors that the maintenance Categories were creating clutter among the article-page Categories, ten of the sixteen Date/Place/Year—missing/unknown Categories were repurposed to talk pages on June 13. The moved Categories included all five listing Dates (Category:Date of birth missing, Category:Date of birth missing (living people), Category:Date of birth unknown, Category:Date of death missing and Category:Date of death unknown), as well as all five Categories listing Places (Category:Place of birth missing, Category:Place of birth missing (living people), Category:Place of birth unknown, Category:Place of death missing and Category:Place of death unknown. The six Categories listing Years (Category:Year of birth missing, etc.) have been deemed to be "defining" and therefore allowed to remain on the article pages. As for DEFAULTSORT, it is, of course, essential for retaining the "surname, given name" sorting within the Date/Place Categories as well as the myriad other Categories embedded within the Wikitags, especially since the majority of talk pages do not have the "list as=surname, given name" tag. Even when "list as=" is present, it is perceived as less effective than DEFAULTSORT and foreseen as scheduled for ultimate phasing-out in favor of DEFAULTSORT. I have devoted much time to this matter over the past year and would be glad to go into greater detail should you wish.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah.. Ok, i hadnt actually seen this anywhere before, and hence, it seemed odd. Asking in IRC didnt get me much response. Its interesting that it was moving the categories around/the default sort. Im pretty sure i didnt have the option enabled that would normally do this (general fixes). I shall take a look Reedy Boy 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
That didnt take long. The plugin is actually moving it to the top... Hmm. I'll look into seeing if we can prevent this behaviour, as it is slightly unproductive... Although the other tagging stuff is right. Reedy Boy 18:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir John Anderson, 1st Baronet

Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). It is acceptable to use a pretitle when naming articles on baronets, as the suffix should never be used without the pretitle. This is a specific exception to the general rule about pretitles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your enlightening me on this point. Other non-royal names—4. Baronets does indeed specify the exception, particularly applicable in the case of a multiple-entry name, such as John Anderson, which requires the use of the full title of nobility for disambiguation.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation page descriptions

Hi, I have reduced some of your descriptions of the people on John Ford (disambiguation) because a disambiguation page should be more streamlined. We just need enough to tell one John Ford from another so the reader can select the correct page. THEN they get more information. I see you are doing many of these - have you checked WP:MOSDAB? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your involvement and desire to help. Both of us have been Wikipedians for two years and have thousands of entries. We would not devote so much time and intellectual (as well as physical) energy to this great project if we did not deeply feel the desire to advance the pursuit of knowledge. I have, indeed, read WP:MOSDAB and feel that I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline. Judging on a standard-size screen, at medium font size, I limit my disambiguation entries to avoid exceeding the one-line limit of 140 characters and spaces, although most of those entries have 125-130 characters/spaces. I realize that a strict interpretation would find such a limit to be still excessively lengthy, but in a number of disambiguation pages there are red-linked entries which require a longer explanation and thus unbalance the appearance of other entries which are quite abbreviated. It seems to me that as long as an entry stays under 140 characters and spaces, it should not be considered as violating WP:MOSDAB. In many cases I have reduced entries, placed by other editors, which have exceeded the 140-character limit, in addition to the standard Wikifying (limit of one blue link per entry, no initial "a", "an" and "the" articles, etc). In any event, I rarely return to the same disambiguation page once my contribution is committed to page history, unless there is/are some obvious (usually minor) adjustment(s) to be made. Those editors that feel the need to reduce the information within the entries to the bare minimum are, of course, fully within their rights to exercise that prerogative which will go unchallenged (at least, needless to say, by me). —Roman Spinner (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. To me, the longer the line, the longer it takes for the reader to determine if the entry is the one he wants. The extra stuff is redundant with what they get if they click through and it will be rare when the extra information is the whole information they are looking for: it is therefore better not to include it. (I didn't do much research into your contributions and did not mean "have your check MOSDAB" as a criticism, just wanted to make sure you had considered it). (John User:Jwy talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quite all right. I understand your perfectly reasonable position on this point. As for criticism, there was, also, none meant on my part. —Roman Spinner (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvements to Albert L. Becker

Thank you for improving the entry for Albert L. Becker. --Zippy (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for taking the time to write your kind note—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A note about "Date"/"Place" Categories (re: article page/discussion page)

Since you have such a praiseworthy record of repairing maladjusted categories over thousands of edits, I need to communicate with you regarding the placement of maintenance categories (which, as we know, denote the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death). Nearly a year ago, in late April 2007, following complaints by a few editors that those categories were creating visual clutter at the bottom of biographical article pages, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories arrived at a consensus. The ten "Date/Place of birth/death missing/unknown" categories were repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, such as ourselves, could continue to complete the missing information (dates and places were described as containing needed, but non-essential, or "defining", data). Only the absence of the years of birth and death (five "Year categories"—Category:Year of birth missing, etc.) was noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "non-defining" (Date/Place) categories was completed by COBot on June 13, 2007 (as an example: the final entry COBot transferred on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that page's revision history). A number of recent Date/Place categories can, of course, be spotted on article pages and some editors still continue to place all maintenance categories there, but, in the eleven months that it has been observed, the primary intent of the consensus on the article page/discussion page category dichotomy has not been challenged at CfD. It is a subject I have been discussing numerous times over the past couple of years, so please feel free to contact me regarding any additional details.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I had somehow completely missed those CfDs & the discussion around date / place of birth / death - thanks very much for bringing me back up to speed! Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to be of help and thank you for all your efforts.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rectors of the İzmir Institute of Technology

Hi, I appreciate your great work in rectors pages. I just wanna thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silikonvadisi (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my small contributions were appreciated and I thank you for taking the time to write me a note.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900)

The standard disambiguation used for footballers when John Doe (footballer) is insufficient is to use year of birth, as careers are much more likely to overlap. See the many Alan Smiths for an example. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your note and, after following your direction to the disambiguation page listing all past and present participants in English football carrying the name Alan Smith (only two of whom, plus the (manager) and (physio) currently have articles), I can see an argument for using years of birth when careers overlap, as in the cases of Alan Smith (born 1939) and (born 1940) or those (born 1949) and (born 1950). The other argument, however, has to be that with common names such as Alan/Allan/Allen/Al Smith or Thomas/Tom/Tommy Johnson, the brief parenthetical modifier needs to focus on the key term or series of terms which best encapsulate the essence of the individual's notability. The year of birth, in the case of footballers, or any others, would not seem to be as central to a career as the years of the career itself. That having been said, it is extremely unlikely that anyone looking for a footballer named Alan Smith would type Alan Smith (footballer born 1962) or Alan Smith (footballer born 1966) or, for that matter, my proposed style, Alan Smith (footballer 1980s and 1990s) (an additional five characters and one space). The theoretical seeker would, of course, only type "Alan Smith" and, upon reaching the disambiguation page, would scrutinize the additional information ("played for Arsenal", "played for Torquay United", etc.) as a guideline, thus obviating the need to click on each name to determine the correct individual. Finally, while it is true that some sportspeople may have similar or even identical names, I have not seen the practice of using years of birth as an identifier carried over to other sports or other professions. We have both been contributors to Wikipedia for years and have thousands of edits, although, since football is your specialty, I would not presume to set specifications in that field, except to initiate a general discussion as to standards which would be applicable to biographical entries, rather than to one specific area.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As we both recognise, for the most common names, the title will end up being an unlikely search term and a lengthy title no matter what is chosen. On a personal note I like middle names as an identifier where known (this is the approach used in the disambiguation nighmare that is Lee Martin). One definite change for your approach would be the syntax – Alan Smith (1980s and 1990s footballer) would be more natural, but I maintain that length can become an issue. George Smith (footballer born 1919) would become George Smith (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). Of course, in such cases there is no such thing as an ideal title. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
More food for thought and valid points to consider—though many football (and sports, in general) careers are short, some extend over decades, and even a 12-year career, begun in 1939 and ended in 1951 would, of necessity, need to be described, using the more-logical syntax of your "George Smith" example as, indeed, (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). One specific solution might be my original idea for the move, which I changed at the last moment—exact career years. While many football careers overlap, virtually no careers of same-named footballers, or any individuals, begin and end in the same years as that of the other same-named individuals. Since on-line statistics for just about anyone who ever played professional football, baseball, cricket, etc. are readily available and the editors who supply the articles are sticklers for detail and, most likely, also have their own reference books, it should not be a problem. I originally set the move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900) to Tommy Johnson (footballer 1919–39) and just before clicking "move", changed it to "(footballer 1930s and 1940s)", thinking (probably illogically) that someone may mistake those for birth–death dates (not a problem, of course, in the cases of footballers whose careers lasted for only a brief period). The "George Smith" of your example would thus become George Smith (footballer 1939–51). The slight drawback in this idea is that for current footballers, one would have to title the article John Doe (footballer since 2001) and then move the article again once the career is over to indicate the end year. Since we use the format "(born 1950)", rather than "(1950–)", a qualifier such as "(footballer 2001–)" would seem to be unacceptable.
As for using middle names or middle initials to distinguish between or among same-named individuals, even where known, it may not always be desirable. As the rules for naming articles point out, the title should use the name by which the individual is best known to the public. The names of actors Edward G. Robinson and Leo G. Carroll are/were known only with their middle initials and may be difficult to identify if said without the initials. On the other hand, in disambiguating another common name, William Marshall, there was already a William Marshall (actor), so an editor titled the entry for the second actor with that name as William H. Marshall. The problem with such an approach is that the second William Marshall, who was "billed" as "Bill Marshall" early in his career, was best known as "William Marshall" and had never used his middle initial in any billing. Since he spent more time on television than in films, the eventual, much longer, though clearer qualifier became William Marshall (film and television actor). In the end, all William Marshalls are really accessible only through their disambiguation page. In the cases of Lee Andrew Martin, Lee Brendan Martin and Lee Robert Martin, I suspect that unlike say, actresses Jennifer Jason Leigh or Sara Jessica Parker, they were never known to the public by their triple names, nor did they ever use them, except possibly on passports or other such documents. The New Zealand politician William Lee Martin, better known as simply "Lee Martin" should probably be titled Lee Martin (politician) or Lee Martin (New Zealand) (American politicians have a strong identity to the state they represent, which may or may not be true in other parts of the world) so Lee Martin (North Island) or Lee Martin (Raglan) may also be possible. As this note is already overlong, I should end on this point.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for MetsBot's assistance in maintaining 12 of the maintenance categories

As the creator of Category:Year of birth missing (living people) (as well as Category:Place of birth missing (living people)), I was particularly gratified last November 6, upon realizing that MetsBot was extremely speedily performing the task that I had laboriously tried to carry out from May to October—replacing thousands of Category:Year of birth missing with Category:Year of birth missing (living people). I regret not sending a note of appreciation at the time and hope that this message can serve as a belated surrogate. A year ago, May 1, 2007, on the day of the category's creation, I wrote in its newly-opened discussion page that its parent Category:Year of birth missing (created less than two years previously, on June 21, 2005) had grown to contain 18,207 names, rendering it unmanageable. Previous suggestions to subdivide it by gender, nationality or profession could not reach consensus, thus leaving "(living people)" as what seemed to be the last, best alternative. My feeble attempts to manually populate the category, following its creation, managed a daily average of fifteen to twenty-five entries (by contrast, MetsBot completed sixteen entries in one second!). Even so, it took MetsBot from November 6 to November 9 (with "rest breaks") to complete the task, along with adding DEFAULTSORT where needed and attending to Category:Possibly living people.

The creation of the two categories was, in a number of aspects, an outgrowth of CfDs in which I had participated. Some editors continued to complain that although the 15 maintenance categories fulfilled the useful (and, arguably, necessary) function of denoting the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death, they were creating visual clutter among the "standard" or "real" categories at the bottom of biographical articles. As a result, in April 2007, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories, arrived at a consensus. Twelve of the categories (all ten dates and places, which were considered to contain needed, but non-essential, or "defining" data, plus "Year of birth/death unknown", which pointed out the lack of unobtainable, lost to history, facts) were to be repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, could continue to complete the missing information. Only the three categories indicating absence of years of birth and/or death which were theoretically capable of being researched (Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Year of death missing) were noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "Date/Place categories" (the two "Year unknown" categories were overlooked) was assigned to the no-longer functioning COBot on June 13, 2007 (example: COBot's final transferred entry on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that talk page's revision history). To keep all of the categories together, the agreed-upon place for the newly-transferred categories was to be directly below the Wikitags/templated categories and, if already-present, DEFAULTSORT (seen as a more-precise sorting feature than "listas="). In the event a recent or newly-created biographical article does not yet have a discussion page, MetsBot may/would create it and place the transferred category or categories at the top of the page. Tens of thousands of these non-templated maintenance categories have already been placed on discussion pages (and continue to be placed manually) but, unfortunately, a number of well-meaning, persistent editors continue to add them to article pages. Hopefully, if/when schedule permits, the twelve categories listed below could be swept by MetsBot from article pages to talk pages and periodically (weekly?, monthly?, quarterly?) maintained to take account of newly (incorrectly) placed categories.

Taking into account the newly-appended (February 26, 2008) innovation of hidden categories, some additional observations could be made. If the maintenance categories were capable of being hidden in 2006–07, the complaints about "clutter" would likely not have occurred (personally, I prefer to see all categories, setting my Preferences to "Show hidden categories"). I feel, however, that the "Hidden categories" feature does not render this transfer exercise moot. Unlike the nearly 1200 entries in Category:Hidden categories, virtually all of which are templated (and extremely specialized— Category:Start-Class Early Modern warfare articles) the fifteen maintenance categories are not templated and (I know I'm writing to an expert) mutually exclusive (I think) at a ratio of 4:1 (there is a sixteenth rarely used "outsider" maintenance Category:Year of birth uncertain, meant for individuals whose age is given in a newspaper/magazine story, but not the year of birth, thus leaving the uncertainty of one of two possible years), that is, at most, only 4 out of the 16 maintenance categories can ever be applicable to any single individual. In many cases, of course, none, or only one, of these sixteen categories is needed in a biographical entry. Thus, I would argue, due to the exceptional nature of these maintenance categories, they should not be hidden, but left on the article and talk/discussion pages for all to see and consider (this will likely turn out to be a minority view). Sorry about the excessive length of this note and, again, thank you for all your efforts on Wikipedia (Wiki-efforts).—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ʻUtoikamanu

A quick question. You say that "DEFAULTSORT is unable to recognize and sort non-English alphabet fonts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't appear to be true. I've seen that it simply lists ʻUtoikamanu under ʻ. Aridd (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)