User talk:Sam/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Category types (II)

Sorry I haven't had time to work on starting to implement Wikipedia:Category types yet. It's still on my radar, and I still want to work on it. My slight misgivings are still there, though I recently found Category:Category header templates. Were you aware of this. I realise your category headers would apply to categories only containing articles, but it is a similar principle. Carcharoth 10:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry to hear you've not been well. Hope you are feeling better now, or will be feeling better soon! I've also made a suggestion over at Wikipedia talk:Category types to actually use a page-specific link to Special:CategoryTree at the top of certain categories that are suitable for taxonomic downwards browsing. Maybe you could comment there if you have time? Carcharoth 10:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

categories/tags

Hi SamuelWantman -- I applaud your efforts at Wikipedia:Category types although I'm still thinking them through. However, I have a more modest proposal which might solve some of the problems. What if we just wrote up a Help document for categorization that explained the difference between categories and tags?

I suspect a lot of the problems come from people who are used to "tags" and keyword systems, and are trying to use WP:Categories as keywords/tags. These are the people who are the most argumentative about the system, and I suspect it's because they just don't quite get it. Based purely on anecdotal experiences, the folks who are simply confused about different kinds of taxonomies are not so argumentative and are just trying to get things in the right subject hierarchy. So, if we could write up something that would clearly distinguish between tags & keywords, we would solve the the majority of problems leading to arguments, and perhaps the majority of problems, period.

Then we would have more leisure to consider your proposal simply on the merits of making things more clear & helpful, without having to also use it to solve the annoying problem of people trying to coopt categories into tags.

Thoughts?

(PS I proposed this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#"tags" & tagging versus categorization --lquilter 18:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

San Jacinto Monument

Was there a reason for replacing the old picture with one that was nearly identical? Just curious. Tijuana Brass 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah. Just wondering. Tijuana Brass 00:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Small favour

I've just noticed that a number of members of the LGBT WikiProject seem to have needed to revert vandalism to Template:LGBT by IP editors and new accounts. Often it takes about 10 mins for the vandalism to be spotted and reverted and its a fairly high profile template. It doesn't happen all that often but there seems no reason for such contributors to edit the page. I asked for semi-protection at WP:RFP but the response was that there wasn't enough activity to justify protection. This would be a good reason to refuse to protect an article but I'm not sure its a good reason not to protect a template such as this one. Would you have a look and, if you agree with me, semi-protect it? Thanks, WjBscribe 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind making a minor change to Template:LGBT now that it's protected? There should be a space between the bullet and Sodomy law. ShadowHalo 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category types are great. What can I do...

...to help, show my support?

Froggy 000 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

A couple quick questions if you don't mind:

  1. Are there any other existing categories that have the templates applied?
  2. Is there any way to mark a category with a type without adding the template (or anything else visible)?
  3. Is it possible to make edits to a page and then "propose" the changes without commiting?

Froggy 000 03:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick response.

I'm actually doing a variety of computerized processing on the en-wiki database dumps and the fact that categories are used so loosely makes it very difficult to leverage this information. I am now starting to toy with the idea of writing a module to suggest a category type for any category in the system. This will require use of various different heuristics, for example, "Navigation categories contain no (or few) articles and often have ' by ' in the name" or "Subject categories contain relatively more articles and don't have long chains of subcategories. I would certainly provide these category type assignments to you or anyone else who might be interested and depending on how well the mapping works, it might end up saving you a lot of time and effort.

Along those lines, I was hoping that given your experience with this topic you might have some good suggestions for other heuristics to use in order to distinguish between the different category types.

Froggy 000 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Template:Listify

Hello there. I've prettified the above template a little, making it a little more in keeping with other WP message boxes. I've also set it to add all tagged categories to Category:Categories to be listified then deleted—although that can, of course, be changed.

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 14:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw this birthed red link to blue

re: Category:Categories to be listified then deleted... thought you may want to clear the cat's appearing on Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion. Cheers! Never saw the harm in another way to track things though! I'd do both--Long live WP:Btw! Cheers! // FrankB 20:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Actor by series CFDs

You might be aware of this already, but CFD Feb 16 and CFD Feb 15 have a good number of Actor by series CFDs currently running. You might care to speedy close them?

Best wishes, Xdamrtalk 15:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion, please

Mr. Wantman,

I hope you might be willing to provide some guidance. I've re-read WP:SUBCAT and I remain uncertain about doubling-up on categorisations. If someone is listed under Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States, should they also be listed in Category:Canadian Americans? I am not sure whether the Secondary categorization rule applies.

I'm trying to come up with a consistent rationale for a bunch of bios. Compare Eric McCormack and Michael J. Fox. Both are Canadian actors who have had successful careers in the U.S. and have become U.S. citizens along the way. This qualifies them both to be categorised in the subcategory Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States. But McCormack is also listed in the main category, Category:Canadian Americans, and Fox is not. Either they both should be, or neither should be.

This question turns, in a way, on how the category "Canadian Americans" is defined. I confess that I have a problem with the category. Is it a catch-all that encompasses immigrants and expats and people of Canadian descent? Or should each of these be broken out into subcats? I've been told that "Canadian American" is the label for Canadian who have become U.S. citizens, but I think the sub-cat "Canadian immigrants to the U.S." is clearer and more obvious. Also, what about the sub-cats "Canadian expats in the U.S. (for those who have not become U.S. citizens) and "Americans of Canadian descent" (born in U.S. to Canadian parents)? I lean towards sub-categorising here.

I would appreciate your feedback. You have obviously given the subject of categorising and overcategorising a lot of thought. Please note that there is a current Cfd related to this question that calls for merging Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States into Category:Canadian emigrants, thereby essentially deleting the category.

Thank you!--Vbd | (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Just wanted to say thanks for your response to my query. I, too, wish you had an easy answer to offer. I guess we'll just have to muddle along until a clearer system is adopted. Cheers!--Vbd | (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

disney voice actors

ok, thanks! didn't realize that.Bouncehoper 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Question tangentially related to your proposal

Hi! I hope you don't mind the intrusion. A recent commment on your categorization proposal suggested that the example of "People killed by poisoning" could be used as a test case for speedy deletion. Perhaps you can help clear up my confusion about what qualifies as a category for SD. The SD policy says it has to contain "no articles," which I have been taking literally. So can the poisoning category, which contains one article, still be listed for SD? I recently put up a bunch of under-populated categories on CFD because thorough lists already exist. Some of these categories contain only one or two articles, some contain a few more more. Could I have done this, at least in part, on the CSD page instead? Thanks.--Vbd (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just want you to know someone agrees

re: this -- agree with you up and down on that pov. Perhaps it comes from mature judgment? <g> Look at what just happened in Navigational templates... a perfectly good browsing category collecting things is now scattered, albeit in useful ways in some respects. But what the hell is wrong with collection or collation categories here and there? Unions as you put it in math-speak. It's merely another sort of schema, one a computer is certainly able to handle.

On a brighter note, I've been working the category problems from a different (and interwiki) perspective. So you may want to take a peek at the category links listed in Template:Catlst (edit talk links history) (all some trials I've been running--haven't really settled on a standard yet, as is both a community issue, and a back-burner project I've only been able to dabble with since Christmas in spurts), which in the latest 'ease of use' evolution: ({{wpd-catlist-up}} and {{cms-catlist-up}} will at least solve the problem of bottom links on category pages with large populations. Cheers! // FrankB 05:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Classifications looks good, given a 'fried brain' and a quick skim--I believe I saw that in a few places. <g> I'll give it a better look when I'm more functional. Is there a general category or template (whatlinkshere stuff)?
What the hell are we doing up so late anyway? <g> Actually, the 'what I've been up to' is WP:TSP, the category work is a spin-off of This effort begun last spring, spurt worked, dropped while David Kernow and I were both away from Wikipedia, and now creeping forward again slowly in a planning mode for a fresh assault. That got me into tagging categories with main articles and cross-links to the commons (main workhorses: {{Commonscat1A}} and {{Wikipediacat1A}}) and pending reactions, including a few adverse ones protective of commons category schema, I started playing with the idea of standardized templates and a much better system of documentation with CBDunkerson. That indirectly lead to WP:DPP/M:DPP and now a more formal proto-project ('TSP'), which has sucked up most of my time since the end of January. So half a year on these grandparent, parent and children projects! And the politics and talks take up even more. Shrug... keeps me off the streets and out of the bars! T'care! // FrankB 07:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Poor Excuses

Sorry about that. My obnoxious boyfriend logged on to my account and made the change. Though I admit I helped out with the edit, he came up with the edit summary.  :-D No harm intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vandymorgan (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion for Template:LGBT

Just wanted to point out it might be best to center the "view, edit, talk" links at the bottom of the navication template. Right now it's alligned to the right. ― El Cid ∴∵ 09:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You recently closed a Cfr that I had proposed. The first category was renamed by a bot and appears to be fine. The other two are messed up. Please see my query at the help desk and, if you can, provide some answers. Thank you.--Vbd (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Superpower cats

Since you were earlier involved in the meta-discussion on superhero categories, please comment on the issue now that it's ended up on CFD again. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power. >Radiant< 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user is back

As indicated at user talk:69.252.158.32 and at User_talk:SamuelWantman/archive_7#69.252.158.32, you've been involved in blocking user 69.252.158.32. I'd like to make you aware that (s)he's back; see Wikipedia:Help_desk#Blocked_user.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Matthew Shepard head shot.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Matthew Shepard head shot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: to the public doesn't mean public domain. But I think, the {{Non-free fair use in|Matthew Shepard}} can be possible. Alex Spade 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The example

It was in reference to WP:ATT/P. I had some problems with the wording myself. Basically, at that link, there are four or five different questions (should two pages be merged, and what about the third, and should the result need work, and do the originals, individually, need to be locked, redirected, or not). Please take a look at the poll and the history, you'll probably see what I mean. >Radiant< 07:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of order

If you must know it was an edconf :) Software does that automatically. >Radiant< 09:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Robert

No, I was not aware. This is very unfortunate. I would like to have your comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Personal_attack_parole_for_CalJW. >Radiant< 08:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

SatyrBot 05:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Do not write articles using categories

I replied to you -- Cat chi? 23:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

welcoming newbies

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that you may want to welcome anons with {{anonwelcome}} instead of {{welcome}}. The first one recommends them to get a username.--ROASTYTOAST 19:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for instructions

Hi Sam, could you please drop me a hint about the usage and functionaltity of the allincluded tag. I checked its "what links here" but couldn't find any documentation. Hoverfish Talk 06:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt answer. Also one idea that came to me late last night: would it be possible (or practical) to have some kind of "mechanism" that makes the contents of all subcategories of a certain parent (or pseudo-parent, as the term may apply) display in the parent category? Could we for example categorize Category:Canadian comedy films in such a way that all its articles are attributed Category:Canadian films? I realize it may get messy or that some articles would need to be additionally tagged not to display, but it would still solve the main problem. Hoverfish Talk 07:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, maybe I formulated it wrong. I am aware of the catscan tool and its lag problems. I was refering to forcing the parent category be attributed to articles of a cetain subcategory by including something like (my fictional jargon here) {{apply-to-all-articles|Category:Canadian films}}. Just a thought, without enough tech knowledge of whether it is possible. Hoverfish Talk 07:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize I am part of this resisence. Sorry. If the software is developed to do this intersection task, I guess everything would have to be recategorized. Under the new technology logic I would change my mind and support it. Until then I have my doubts about the usability of such a general group in films. For the moment I applied the tag in Canadian films and started adding the "primary film categories" in all films that miss it. By the way, Bearcat was not so thorough in his categorizing scheme and it will be a problem if more editors keep doing this in an uncoordinated manner. For example, Canadian film comedies was attributed (and Canadian films removed), but American films remains (in co-productions we have decided to give each country cat) and Drama films remains. So in some cases the intersection takes over and in some the parent remains. Please take a look at what I am doing ([1]) and stop me or correct me if you think it's wrong or it could be done more efficiently otherwise. As for 7-8 categories, this is quite the norm in films. I start worrying when I see 10-20 cats. Hoverfish Talk 08:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I first joined WP Films by tending to the Years in film series. Nehrams2020 was at this time deeply involved in setting up the List of films#By letter & number, which has been our attempt to create such a total film index. I don't know how complete the lists are, but I would say fairly inclusive. This set of lists has also the pro that it offers the year of release, which helps one know if he has the correct film. It also disambiguates where necessary. The con is that it has to be updated manually. Anyway, I am glad we have talked about these matters and I hope we will be in closer cooperation as things progress. I will follow your example and wait for the software update. It's just that the recent changes come pretty deep into my field of work and I have to find a quick solution for it. My mistake with Bearcat is that I was too hasty to announce that I may CfD his intersections and I guess (understandably) this created some frustration. Hoverfish Talk 08:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for listify info + article example

Thanks, Sam, for the valuable info on my Talk page where you mention that there are many list-type articles out there which do indeed cite the opinions of others (and gave a great example of one such article). This is great supplementary info to go with Radiant's input regarding how Kitsch-related articles/topics could be listified somehow. Thanks again :) —Catdude 10:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:James Bond cast members

Please be advised that the new Wikipedia:WikiProject James Bond is now using the category that you had earlier said you would speedily delete once it was made into a list as one of the categories of the project. I believe that the members of the project would be very grateful if you were to remove the template you had placed at the top of the category. Thank you for your attention. John Carter 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your position. It is possible that the project can be persuaded to try to create lists of all the individuals involved in the production of the various films. Personally, I believe that, if you were to choose to do so, adding a comment to the effect of what you just sent me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject James Bond might be the best way to bring about those results. Thank you for your quick reply. John Carter 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categories stuff

Hi there. I'm about to drop a note off at the Categories pages, but I thought you should be aware of this, this and this - not really sure what is going on, as the language is over my head, but just thought you would be interested. Carcharoth 09:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject newsletter

This month's project newsletter (hand delivered as SatyrTN and Dev920 are away). Best wishes, WjBscribe 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi, Sam, and thanks for your help! Bob Kane has been in need of semi-protection for months. Several editors are continually reverting an overzealous anon-IP who adds ranting fan-edits and doesn't seem inclined to talk about them with other eds. Spider-Man also, since like Batman it's a general vandalism target due to being one of the only superheroes some vandals know. --Tenebrae 05:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks — that's really good of you to step up and volunteer to help this way. Someone wants to nominate me for adminship and I've been going over in my mind for a few days what to do since from what I see you guys are under constant pressure and may not have time to do edits yourselves since you're busy refereeing disputes. More power to you, but boy, that seems like a lot of work.
We've had to admins who came from the Comics Project pretty much burn out; they're both on indefinite hiatus.
Spider-Man actually is getting vandalized at the threshold you mention. Lots of kids who just want to mess around on Wikipedia go there (and Batman and Superman) since they're what most people know. On 13 May, it was vandalized at 02:36 , had 3 vandalisms in quick succession from 03:21-03:23 , again at 04:41 and 05:33 , again at 09:14 , and yet again at 16:04 , and again again at 17:52 .
On 12 May, it began right at 01:07 and 01:10 (the latter with the charming edit summary "Dear editor, you're gay" from the vandal who'd gotten reverted) and 01:11 (with a variation on the "Dear editor" personal attack), then again at 01:13 , with an escalated "Dear editor, fuck off you faggot," followed by a blanking at 01:15 . A new vandal came in 02:21 and 02:23 , and yet another at 18:29, and a fourth vandal at 20:30, at a fifth at 22:18 .
I don't mean to sound flippant, but these are all from anon IPs and it is so time-consuming to keep going back. Plus, being called "faggot" and "gay" over and over (or other things, not just those, which seem to be the vandals' favorites) is making the Wikipedia experience sour. Please help us.
Thanks, --Tenebrae 18:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another vandalism today, here. Help! :-)   --Tenebrae 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You're a pal! Thanks again for caring and for taking the time and effort.--Tenebrae 02:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Silver Surfer is going through a vandalism binge right now, with a half-dozen vandal edits today. It's going to be this way until the new Fantastic Four movie runs its course. You've been very generous with your time already, and I was wondering if I might ask for semi-protection on this page. In the last 24 hours alone it was hit by anon-IP vandalism at 15 May 19:13, 19:34, 21:44 (a particularly venal one), 21:45, 22:29, and 16 May 03:10. Thank you again, Sam, for any help! --Tenebrae 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I'm hopeful that after interest from the movie dies down, so will the vandalism. --Tenebrae 13:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

That was a nice little edit to Roman Polanski. Perhaps you cut a Gordian Knot. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 10:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Mathematicians

First, let me start by saying I have no problems with your bottom line conclusion, and am not challenging the decision. My main interest in this category is actually its implications for categorization by nation rather than the categories relating to Judaism alone, whether by occupation or otherwise. You indicated that it is "POV" to view Judaism as a nation - I'm not sure we should be screening categories like this based on POV where there is substantial authority for treatment (in other words, where there is a legitimate and supported point of view, editing out categories is simply a choice of a rival POV). I wonder how this particular logic doesn't lead to a broad breakdown of national categories. There are issues that are easily spotted: Canadian v. Quebecois v. both (officially, the Quebecois are recognized as a nation); One China v. two, with or without Tibet - but then if you look closely at any nation, there are questions: I can pick apart people considered French today without a second thought and highlight how historical sources categorized them in eight different ways (e.g., Burgudian, Breton, etc.). We categorize Dante as Italian without thinking through the extent to which that was even a relevant concept at the time and what the alternative concepts would be. Shouldn't George Washington, who spent most of his life as a British subject, be thought of as English as well as American, and shouldn't most colonial Americans only be classed as English? To not permit multiple and complex national categorizations is to choose a point of view. I think people think categorization by nation is less difficult than it is, and given numerous academic sources treating Jews as a nation, and numerous official acts proclaiming it so, I'm curious what implications you think there are for the rest of the national categorizations. After all, if we apply a POV screen to this categorization scheme rather than a screen based on reasonable authority, I think we'd have difficulty with many, many national categories. Reply or not as you see fit on this one - I'm thinking about the issue more broadly and may be sparking a general discussion soon.A Musing 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with everything you are saying. The problem for me is that the "nationality" categories have never been very well defined and have been ambiguous around the edges. If we make the distinctions determining categories less clear, by moving them toward ethnicity, the problem will get worse not better. Categories need to be defined based upon clear, NPOV distinctions so that categorization is not controversial. Possible ways to do this are to define them as meaning citizenship, place of birth, place of residence, etc... At some threshold, we need to say that a particular grouping should not be category, but should instead be a list because membership needs to be explained and cited. I also believe that nationality is often irrelevant to profession, and we should be putting more of our energy into distinctions that are more significant. I've been working on categorizing film directors by language instead of nationality for this reason. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 16:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "I am coming to believe that most of the categories that lead to these long debates should be deleted just because they are so divisive." If it's divisive, doesn't this mean that if there is no consensus to delete a category? Isn't it a major change in Wikipedia policy to delete categories when there is no consensus to delete?--Runcorn 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This statement was not the basis for the decision, as far as I can tell, but only a reflection which is worthy of further consideration.
User:A Musing's thoughts are likewise worthy of further consideration. I hope that an appropriate forum and opportunity can be found to take these thoughts forward. I would be happy to participate in such discussions. Geometry guy 22:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that statement was my own reflection. I tried to make it clear by putting it after the decision. Wikipedia guidelines about deleting categories do say that no consensus does mean a keep. But our guidelines also say very clearly that categorization should be "for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." It also says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option." The important part of this for me is self-evident and uncontroversial. If a CfD discussion raises so much controversy and we cannot agree on the categorization distinctions being self-evident, that in itself is evidence that there is a problem with the category. So my comment was in a sense just a reiteration of of the guidelines. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sam, I'm sure that the discussion on this issue will continue. I just want to thank you for the thoughtful and informative manner in which you closed the CfD, analysing and summarising the arguments made in a debate, and setting out unambiguously the reasoning which led you to your conclusion. Given the heated nature of the the debate, I am not surprised that there are people unhappy with your conclusion, but I hope those who disagree with the conclusion will also appreciate the clarity with you explained how that conclusion was reached. In the last few weeks, there has been a welcome trend towards more discursive closures of CfDs, but this is the example I have seen so far. If this is taken back to DRV again, the discussion there will be much better informed, because you did the job with such diligence. Well done! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I likewise agree Sam, that I think you did a thorough, thoughtful and generally excellent job in closing this CfD. This provides a firm footing from which to take the other issues raised in the discussion forward. Geometry guy 22:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
To me, the most interesting point in all of these comments is Sam's suggestion that categorization by language is a good alternative - it is in many cases. I suspect he and I will disagree on how inclusive we should be when categorizing by nationality, but I also suspect we might agree quite often on where it is more appropriate to jettison nationality and categorize primarily based on an alternative approach. Also, I didn't say it before, but thanks for a closing that does advance the discussion. A Musing 00:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." There is not the slightest controversy about who should be in the category - someone who can be shown by reliable sources to be jewish (and a mathematician). The controversy was solely about whether the category should exist.--Runcorn 11:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I will admit that I am suggesting that we might want to expand the meaning of that sentence to call into question the existence of the category. Your statement "There is not the slightest controversy about ... who can be shown by reliable sources to be Jewish (and a mathematician)" relates to the third point -- the notability issue. Membership of this intersection is not controversial. It is the desire to consider Jews as a nationality that is not self-evident. The discussion would have been much shorter and simpler if the only issue were to decide to have a category for the intersection of two uncontroversial categories -- Jews and Mathematicians. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"It is the desire to consider Jews as a nationality that is not self-evident." Tell that to all the Jews in Russia and the Ukraine who have "Nationality: Jewish" on their identity papers.--Runcorn 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no comment in the discussion that I can recall that said that "Jewish mathematicians" should be a category of Russians and Ukrainians mathematicians who have "Jewish" on their identity papers. I don't think that was your desire either. Also, if a few countries have anti-semitic policies towards Jews, does that mean that we should adopt the same policies here? So I don't understand the point you are making. Do the Russian and Ukrainians that you mention, like having "Jewish" listed as their nationality instead of being accepted as part of the nation they live in? I've never considered myself to have a Jewish nationality, and I don't have any Jewish friends or relatives who self-identify their nationality that way either. -- ☑ SamuelWantman

My point is that undeniably there are living Jews who have "Jew" as their nationality, so it cannot be denied that "Jewish" is a nationality. Whether it is your nationality or mine is irrelevant in this context unless we have Wikipedia articles and editors want to add the "Jewish mathematician" category to our articles. Incidentally, many Scots consider themselves to have Scottish nationality not British nationality; that is irrelevant, because there is no concept of Scottish nationality in British law.--Runcorn 20:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument that you are now making seems different from the discussion during the CfD. Can you name any mathematicians who's nationality is "Jewish" because they were denied citizenship in the country they resided? Is this the only nationality in which they are categorized? If, as you say, their nationality is undeniably "Jewish", and they are not categorized by any other country, then they will be absent from any Mathematicians category. Is this the case? This is different from the idea of having a nationality for Jews on top of the other nationality categories already being used. If you want to create a category for mathematicians who had no citizenship other than "Jewish", try creating it, label and name the category carefully so that it will be obvious who belongs and who doesn't, and then populate it with people who fit the description and whose articles are not categorized by any other nationality. Perhaps this category could survive, and it will be self-evident who belongs. Good luck trying. I don't think it will survive because we label people by current geographical boundaries. Roger Williams is categorized as an American even though he died long before the US was founded. Changing the practice of categorizing people by current geographical boundaries to that of historic citizenship is possible. You can try proposing this, or adding historical citizenship categories. I don't see it as my job as the closer of the CfD to pass judgment on making this change. I just don't think it was the topic that was being discussed. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This is interesting, because these points were made during the discussion, as I noted that many countries, historically, have recognized a "Jewish nation" - giving the example of the Ottoman empire, where there were spheres where being part of that nation even meant having different laws applicable to you. The confusion of a nation and a nation-state is very Western European - the Austro-Hungarian empire, for example, disassociated nation and country very clearly, as have most empires. I note that we do indeed categorize by nation, not country, and that "by nation" categories are not limited to current geographical territories, and there are many examples of the differences, including Kurds, Greeks, Chinese, Turks, Arabas, etc. -- you can look at Rumi, who is claimed by both Turkish and Persian nations, though he was born in what is now Afghanistan (to call him Afghan would be bizarre - there was no concept of an Afghanistan at the time). Likewise, most pre-19th century Greeks lived outside what is now Greece, and if you tried categorizing them based on current Geography - as "Turkish", for example, because they lived in Constantinople, or Egyptian, because they lived in Alexandria, you would have a small war on your hands. To me, this is the most interesting issue in this particular dispute.A Musing 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly, national categories are inconsistent and many need a good deal of work. I would not object to them being overhauled, especially if they were to more accurately deal with history. However, to say that some countries recognized a Jewish nation so therefore all Jewish mathematicians have a Jewish nationality worthy of a category is a stretch. This discussion is starting to become circular. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule that people should only be in one nationality category. In Russian law, Grigori Perelman's nationality is Jewish. His internal passport would describe his nationality as Jewish. Presumably he also has an international passport, which would be issued by the Russian government. That makes his nationality Russian and Jewish.--Runcorn 06:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where was the argument in the CFD that the category should be reserved for those mathematicians who were in the same situation as Perelman? I'll say again. If you want to create a category for Mathematicians marked with Jewish nationality by the countries they are from, make it, describe it as covering these cases, come up with a clear name for it so that it doesn't encourage the categorization of all Jewish mathematicians, police it to remove mis-categorizations, and defend it at CFD. But to extend the definition to include all Jewish mathematicians would be outside of the normal categorization practice. People may be have been described as Greek in the past even though they were living in Egypt. That does not mean that we should categorize current ethnically Greek, Egyptians citizens as being Greek. It is common practice to remove categorizations like this. I just recently removed the categorization of John Rubinstein as being Polish for this very reason. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So let's get this clear. Would you be happy with a category for Jewish mathematicians provided it only included people who live or had lived in countries that recognised "Jewish" as a nationality?--Runcorn 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would I be happy? I have been describing my views as the closer of the CFD. What would make ME happy is to get rid of all intersection categories unless they can be shown to be notable. This would probably remove most of the occupation by nationality categories. I'd categorize Grigori Perelman as a mathematician, as Jewish, as Russian, etc... I don't think I'd intersect any of these. That would make me happy. I believe that this will happen anyway, because I think Category intersection will be implemented eventually. I am not convinced that "Mathematicians of Jewish nationality" is a notable category. I probably would not object to "Jewish nationality" as a category. --☑ SamuelWantman 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Quoted one of your Seven Suggestions at WP Composers

Hi, Sam. I took the liberty of quoting one of your Seven Suggestions, Improve articles by building upon what is there, in a discussion on the Composers project talk page regarding biographical infoboxes. Hopefully you don't mind, and won't think that I was misrepresenting you in any way by using it; I have no idea of your opinion, if any, on biographical infoboxes, but I thought the principle, in general, was applicable to what I was trying to express, and I believe my usage did not in any way imply an endorsement by you of my comments in that particular discussion. But I did think it was courtesy to let you know that I quoted you.

Hope things are going well for you in general, Cheers, Lini 04:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kurushima-Kaikyo Bridge small.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


Your statement on WP:AN is extremely wise. Substance matters over number.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by June12007 (talk • contribs)