→CfD: American conservative organizations: new section |
|||
Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
*Please feel free to unorhpan any article. Thanks [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] ([[User talk:Hmains#top|talk]]) 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
*Please feel free to unorhpan any article. Thanks [[User:Hmains|Hmains]] ([[User talk:Hmains#top|talk]]) 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
== CfD: American conservative organizations == |
|||
FYI: [[User:BrownHairedGirl]] has nominated this category for deletion also.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_13#Conservative_organisations][[User:TVC 15|TVC 15]] ([[User talk:TVC 15|talk]]) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:52, 13 February 2010
Welcome
- Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
- Please sign your comments. Type
~~~~
after your text or use the edit toolbar. - Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.
See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.
Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:
- Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
- You can experiment in the test area.
- You can get help at the Help Desk
- Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:How to write a great article
Welcome!! --Gurubrahma 19:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
info
Wikipedia:Lists
Maintenance note
I maintain this page by deleting items over 30 days old. Thanks Hmains 16:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Monobook
You may wish to make use of a 'Dates' tab in edit mode that will help with unlinking unnecessary date links. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache (i.e. press Ctrl-Shift-R in Firefox, or Ctrl-F5 in IE) before it will work. It also provides a 'Units' tab. If you know what you are doing, you can copy and modify the subfiles as you wish. I just thought you might be interested. Regards. bobblewik 20:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason it fails is because you refer to User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js and these articles do not exist. You have two options:
- Option 1. As described in the first 4 sentences above, make your monobook identical to mine. Then it will use the existing articles User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Option 2. As described in the last 2 sentences, create your own subfiles User:Hmains/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Hmains/monobook.js/unitformatter.js by copying the details from User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js and User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/unitformatter.js.
- Try again. I am happy to walk you through the process. So feel free to ask me again. bobblewik 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
info
Wikipedia:Categorization Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes Template:Americans
Excellent work: Barnstar for you
RE: [1] Thank you for being the wikipedia restoration expert :) on so many articles about the Philippines. I keep seeing you everywhere. ;)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
This barnstar, the first on Wikipedia, is given to recognise particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their hard work is seen and appreciated. Thanks for cleaning up so many articles! Travb (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
An Award
![]() |
The Minor Barnstar | |
For your work on minor edits over numerous articles, including mine. Congratulations! Chris 16:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
Random Smiley Award
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/85/Smiley.svg/90px-Smiley.svg.png)
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)
Harrison-HB4026 01:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, my pleasure. Harrison-HB4026 05:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You've done great categorization work
File:Interlingual Barnstar.png | The Geography Barnstar | |
For all of the great work you've done in categorizing articles in Category:Geography. Thanks! Many people appreciate your work! hike395 13:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC) |
- Well,Sir... I too offer my Kudo's. I know how diligent your recent efforts have been. You probably know, that after You, or the others started the "Nat'l History" stuff, I then did all U.S. states, then Canada, Mexico. I did the Trees of, the "Birds of",, and I started down into "Central America", I turned the corner into the "Caribbean", but went back to "South America", first. I am actually pretty amazed how some of the Caribbean stuff turned-out, (and S. America-plus I tried some of the "Regions of" stuff) since I had no real Guideposts to go by.
- Anyhow, I apllaud your diligence,.... and know-(as the Cognizant word used in the "Amarna letters") that I went through some of the states, provinces, mexico states, "What links here" page—by—page-(so I went thru 10's of 1000's of links) until finding things. I won the lottery on the Guatemalan magnolia. It ended up in the Category:Trees of Guatemala, but also Category:Indicator species of North America, (for the Cloud forest). So Dear,Sir... carry on, and have future enjoyable trips!... Michael (from the SonoranDesert(s), ..Arizona -Mmcannis 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I third this! Having delved briefly into editing wikipedian categories I was quickly discouraged by the complexity and mess of it all. Nice work where others (me) fear to tread. Pfly 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Editing Barnstar
![]() |
100,000 Edits | |
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________ |
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
hold for cat discussion until find example
There are some categories that are used only for categories, and never for articles. Some of these categories have been made into 'hidden' categories, and yet they are never in fact 'hidden' since the hidden feature only applies to articles and not categories. So the hidden category always displays on the category screen as 'hidden'--which is obviously a contradiction. I suggest, that category categories not be classified as hidden. When I have tried to remove the hidden classification in such cases, someone always just adds it back in. Without something said in this categorization guideline I have nothing much justify my removal.
==yyyy== a mafia
xxAssassination of foreign dignitaries====
On very rare occasions, the United States government has conspired with organized crime figures to assassinate foreign heads of state. In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the Office of Security of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), proposed the assassination of Cuban head of state Fidel Castro by mafia assassins. Between August 1960 and April 1961, the CIA, without the help of the Mafia (who had taken the money and done nothing), pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro (CIA, Inspector General's Report on Efforts to Assassinate Fidel Castro, p. 3, 14). Those allegedly involved included Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante, Jr., and John Roselli.[1]
in article:
xxPlots to Assassinate Fidel Castro=== In August 1960, Colonel Sheffield Edwards, director of the Office of Security of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), proposed the assassination of Cuban head of state Fidel Castro by Mafia assassins. Between August 1960 and April 1961, the CIA, with the help of the Mafia, pursued a series of plots to poison or shoot Castro.[2] Those allegedly involved included Sam Giancana, Carlos Marcello, Santo Trafficante, Jr., and John Roselli.[3]
McLean Game Refuge
your change to McLean Game Refuge was a good change. However, it needed to also be added to Category:Visitor attractions in Hartford County, Connecticut. I've found that when you move an article down a category level, it sometime needs an additional category to be properly described. IMHO dm (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Be my guest. I am not involved in 'Visitor Attraction' categories since there are never any references to determine what is a visitor attraction or not, so it all seems to be in the mind of the editor. Hmains (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand that. On the other hand, taking something and pushing it under "geography of XX " alone doesnt quite work by itself. It's more than a geological feature. dm (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- When I started, it was simply sitting in the County category. I think I improved it by moving to the county geography category; further improvements are always helpful. Hmains (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sure, I understand that. On the other hand, taking something and pushing it under "geography of XX " alone doesnt quite work by itself. It's more than a geological feature. dm (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Be my guest. I am not involved in 'Visitor Attraction' categories since there are never any references to determine what is a visitor attraction or not, so it all seems to be in the mind of the editor. Hmains (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Historic districts and protected areas
Hi. I see you have added some U.S. historic districts to "protected areas" categories. This is incorrect. U.S. historic districts are not, in general, protected areas, because they aren't actually protected. --Orlady (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- You lose again, trying to push your agenda definition of protected areas onto WP. They are protected because the US and state laws designating them as protected protect them from unhistorical changes. Very simple. Hmains (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong, and I'm not pushing an agenda. I am not Doncram, and I am not talking about National Monuments. Listing of a property or historic district on the National Register of Historic Places does not provide legal protection. Very simple. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK, sorry, my apology. And I am not saying that Historic places are protected--they are not. I am saying that Historic Districts are proteced by laws which is all I am dealing with. See Historic district (United States) which discusses the protections the laws provide. Is there anything wrong with this article? Hmains (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Some historic districts have legal protection -- for example, a city might have zoning laws that restrict development. However, the vast majority of the historic districts with articles are merely listed on the National Register. As the article indicates, that listing is essentially just an honorary status. It does mean that before the federal government can demolish the district, a report must be prepared, but that's pretty trivial as legal protection goes. These aren't "protected areas" by anyone's definition of that term. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I put things back the way I set them, pending discussion. Please read some of my notes. I don't accept that just becaues a templete is coded 'hd' that the article automatically describes an 'historic district'. The article text needs to show this is an historic district (very doubtful for a single structure, for example) and there should be some reference showing it is an historic district. What I suspect is that the template (or its content) was just copied from article to article without checking the facts in each case. Thanks Hmains (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Nearly every property with more than a couple of buildings tends to be described and classified by the National Park Service as a historic district, particularly if there isn't a single, dominating structure. The western dude ranches are almost all HDs, and I've never noticed a case where the database output has been wrong. Case in point, the National Register nom for the 4 Lazy F Dude Ranch is clearly described as a historic district in the nomination, and the lede states as such. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding the text I did not see in the lede in this particular article.
But are you saying that the content of the templates in all these article are being computer copied from a National Register database? And as such, the computer output is the reference source that is to be accepted without question? This does not seem like something any editor could check out the truth of and we are to take this on faith. Hmains (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- [EC] Those templates are automatically generated from a National Park Service database. If the template says "hd", it means that the item is coded in the database as a "historic district" and is officially listed as such in the National Register (regardless of whether it looks like a district to you or me). I learned this because I made the mistake of suggesting that some of these were miscategorized (I was proven wrong). --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Elkman has done the most work with the NRHP database that generates the basic infoboxes. Apart from the occasional coding error, the data has proven to be accurate when checked against the NRHP nominating documents. The noms are available for about 15 or 16 states on line, and the HD criteria are pretty consistent. Farms are almost always HDs, and as I said, groups of more than a couple of buildings, largish tracts of land or clusters of relatively small buildings are almost always classified as HDs. It's an odd distinction, but that's how the NR works. Urban historic districts with multiple owners are almost always called historic districts in the title, but they represent a subset of what the Park Service calls a historic district. Acroterion (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- If so, so be it. Is this documented anywhere in the HD cateogry, for example so editors will not start making mistakes like mine and wasting time. But given that anyone can edit anything in a WP article, we can never know without lots of work whether the content of the article template came from automatically the NPS computer or from an editor. Are WP templates periodically replaced by new text from the computer? What does the article history look like for computer inputted text? I still think we need to have text in the article saying it is a 'historic district' if it is so and references such as the NRHP application that User: Acroterion just added to one such article (which I now see exists only for 15/16 states). And I will put the articles back to their state prior to my edits since I have the best list. Hmains (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, we're in a time of transition. The old system, NRIS, wasn't much to look at. It's the source of the database, but it was dynamically generated and hard to reference. The new system, NPS Focus [2] does state at the individual property listing whether it's a building or district for every one of the 80,000 properties, as far as I can tell, but it's dynamically generated too and hard to reference. Full documents for 11 states now exist on NPS Focus (several others are on state SHPO websites) and where available can be permalinked. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Apparently my reply regarding the lack of protection for historic districts got overlooked due to the discussion of the HD element in the NRHP infobox. To repeat:
- Some historic districts have legal protection -- for example, a city might have zoning laws that restrict development. However, the vast majority of the historic districts with articles are merely listed on the National Register. As the article indicates, that listing is essentially just an honorary status. It does mean that before the federal government can demolish the district, a report must be prepared, but that's pretty trivial as legal protection goes. These aren't "protected areas" by anyone's definition of that term. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
--Orlady (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. National Register status is a recognition of significance, not a measure of protection. In terms of protection, it is a faint shadow compared to, say, a Listed Building under the National Trust system in the UK. Even National Historic Landmarks are occasionally destroyed or heavily altered on purpose; you just can't do it using Federal funding. Acroterion (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- OK. My goal is to get historic districts into some better category structure than just 'landmarks in foo' or 'history of foo', since these trees do not often extend down to local entities. If protected area is not appropriate, as I can now see, how about 'Geography of foo' since districts are some kind of land area. Hmains (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- There has been rather extensive discussion of the historic district categories at the NRHP wikiproject -- over a period of several months.
- Until a few months ago, all several thousand US historic districts were in a single national category. That category is automatically assigned by the nrhp infobox. A bot process was started to place them into state (and territory) categories. After that process was completed, the auto-categorizing feature for HD categories was supposed to be removed from the infobox template. Unfortunately, that bot process has not been finished -- the bot owner has been otherwise occupied, apparently. Until all of the individual HDs are in state and territory categories, I think that further futzing with their categorization only adds complications to a complicated situation.
- Historic districts are not necessarily geographic entities ("places"), so they should not be treated as such, except on a case-by-case basis (for those district articles that do double duty as "place" articles). Historic districts are, however, topics under "history", and most individual districts are also included in National Register categories. Because some historic districts are not listed on the National Register, there is an opinion that these categories should not be placed wholesale into National Register of Historic Places categories. --Orlady (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Even at the national and state levels, they are physical objects that need to be in a physical-type category, not just in a legal 'places' category. Are they 'geography' or are they 'buildings and structures' or what? A choice is needed. Hmains (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neither and both. (I don't understand your contention that it is necessary for them to be one or the other.) Many HDs include buildings or structures, but some are just landscapes or archeological sites. Some HDs are very small in land area (for example a house, grounds, and outbuildings).
Some HDs are not even physically contiguous (examples: 1767 Milestones consists of individual milestones spread over a distance of some 100 miles or so; William Aiken House and Associated Railroad Structures includes a house and some nearby railroad properties that are historically associated with the house, but apparently not contiguous). I know of a National Register listing for a historic district in my local area (this is an HD that does not have an article) that consists of two neighborhoods that are physically and historically distinct plus another building (not related to either neighborhood) that is located sort of between the neighborhoods and was used to define a contiguous historic district. I suspect the reason to combine those different components was to reduce paperwork in a government agency. --Orlady (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Neither and both. (I don't understand your contention that it is necessary for them to be one or the other.) Many HDs include buildings or structures, but some are just landscapes or archeological sites. Some HDs are very small in land area (for example a house, grounds, and outbuildings).
- Even at the national and state levels, they are physical objects that need to be in a physical-type category, not just in a legal 'places' category. Are they 'geography' or are they 'buildings and structures' or what? A choice is needed. Hmains (talk) 06:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I am not dealing at the article level, I am dealing the category level. The category is 'Historic Districts in foo state'. Does that category go into 'Geography of foo' state or ' Buildings and Structures of foo' state or what. One or multiple is fine. Historic distracts are physical: they need to physcal category trees. There is not much other than Geography and Buildings & Structures available Hmains (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but the characteristics of the articles and subcategories in a category ought to be considered in determining how that category should be categorized. Let's take this part of the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places -- that's an active wikiproject whose participants have a lot of relevant knowledge and opinions. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Cemeteries
I see that you are now placing "Cemeteries" categories into "Buildings and structures" categories. I don't generally think of cemeteries as being either buildings or structures. Can you please explain the logic you are using? --Orlady (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was just expanding the category structure down to the state level what has existed as the category structure at the US level and international level for some time (2005 or so?) in WP. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Son of a gun! Actually, it looks to me like US cemeteries have only been in the US "buildings and structures" category since this edit in late 2007. Regardless of how long this arrangement has existed, it should never be too late to ask "does it make sense?" By what logic are cemeteries considered "buildings" or "structures"? --Orlady (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, I did it to match all other countries where I see this change was made in 2005--not by me. I can only imagine the the editors who made the change and accepted it for 5 years had in mind; I have no way of knowing. Looking at the available category structure, I can only think they belong to 'structures' due to their being a collection of headstones, markers, monuments, and above ground coffin/urn containers. If not this, what major physical-type category tree would they belong to? Leaving them just in human death category trees is clearly inadequate. They need to be placed into city/county categories which do not have any good physical type choices. At the local level, they currently just end up sitting in the city or county category itself. Hmains (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I agree with User:Hmains here. Cemeteries are physical features on (and in) the ground. They need a category tree that rolls up to somewhere physical as well as into Category:Human death in the United States. In Massachusetts right now, they are a Wikipedia subcat of Category:Landmarks in Massachusetts, which is maybe OK, but probably a little strong. In Commons, they are a subcat of Buildings in Massachusetts, and, as I look at that category, it looks like the right place.
- I'll argue that a cemetery is a "building or structure". Of the ten that I've photographed for Commons, all have had chapels, offices, or crypts that are actually buildings, but even a simple grave is a sort of a structure -- the casket keeps the dirt out of the occupied portion. I can't think of a better place to put them.. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Hearing nothing further, I will proceed to put cemeteries and their categories into Buildings and Structures cats and parent cats, as applicable. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
I note that you have added {{DEFAULTSORT|Historic Districts in Massachusetts}} to the subject, with similar edits elsewhere. Am I missing something -- or are you?
As I understand it, the template you added has no effect because the default sort is already as called out -- we use the DEFAULTSORT template only to change the sort from the PAGENAME to something else, maybe "Massachusetts" in this case. The only case in which your change would have any effect is if there were a DEFAULTSORT in a template called by the page, in which case yours would override the template's.
If I'm not missing something, then I think the addition is a mistake because it confuses even experienced editors. I don't know off-hand (and DEFAULTSORT doesn't say) whether it overrides the explicit sort shown in [[Category:National Register of Historic Places in Massachusetts| ]]. Since that's the correct sort, I want to know that it will remain in force.
The sorts for categories can be very complex -- for the subject, two sort under its name, one sorts under the blanks, and one (History of Massachusetts) could, arguably, go either way, although I think you have made the correct choice. Given that, I think using DEFAULTSORT is a mistake -- much better to have the sorts show explicitly for each parent category.
- I am not manually adding the Default Sort anything. This is automaticall done by AWB. Questons on AWB need to be taken up with the AWB editors. I believe that AWB auto implements what is in the MOS, but I just use whatever AWB provides. Hmains (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- There are two answers to that -- first, as the AWB manual points out, YOU are responsible for everything AWB does. Second, AWB shows you what it's going to do before you hit "save" -- if you don't like it, change it. Sure, this slows you down, but the whole point of AWB is not superspeed, but eliminating some drudgery. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not disagree with the general edits that AWB does in general and see no reason to disagree with them here. I accept that the editors who maintain AWB are correct in what they do and and if someone wants AWB general edits to change, then they need to take it up with AWB. I am not going to second quess AWB Hmains (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
---
I also note that you have added Category:Protected areas of Massachusetts. I know that you have debated this before and I'm not interested in opening that debate again more than a crack, but please note my opposition. Very few HDs in Massachusetts have any meaningful protection, witness the half dozen NRHP sites in Quincy that are no longer there. I think that calling them protected implies a status they don't have and might lead some readers to complacency about their continued existence. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 11:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) If you choose to respond, please do so here.
- I will replace the 'protected area' category with something else as soon as I know what to replace it with. See long discussion above. Hmains (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I copied much of the discussion to the wikiproject talk page here. As you will see there, my current view is that historic district categories don't need to be in a "physical" category because each and every individual historic district should also be in a physical-type category appropriate to what it is. Keep the historic districts category as purely a "history" category. ("Historical district" is a designation, not a physical attribute.) --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- You have your opinion and I have mine. I see nothing particular in WP that would lead me to follow your opinion. I am dealing the 'is' facts, not 'shoulds' Many of district acticles have no other category than the historic district category. Hmains (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- Many of those uncategorized historic district articles exist because of contributors who have been enthusiastically creating minimal-content stub articles for entities listed in the National Register of Historic Places database (the typical article says "Podunk Historic District is a historic district in Podunk, Indiana" and contains a infobox that contains latitude, longitude, a location map, and date listed on the National Register). Many of these stubs do not include any information about the historic district, which makes it pretty difficult to categorize them. The underlying problem is not with the category system, but with stub articles that contain too little content to identify their subject matter. Shoehorning all historic district articles into one overarching physical category will not cause them all to belong in that category, and it will not cure this basic problem with the stub articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
- Um... I don't see a good purpose in moving "Historic districts in statename" categories out of "Historic districts in the United States" and into "Historic districts ... by state." Once the individual historic districts get slotted into state-specific categories, the infobox "feature" that puts them all in the U.S. category is supposed to be disabled, and the U.S. category will contain only subcats (plus possibly a few multi-state HDs). The bot process that was supposed to recategorize all the individual historic district articles has been hung up, but ought to restart soon. (See User talk:ThaddeusB#The Auto-categorizing Robot.) --Orlady (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that the categories that remain in 'Category:Historic districts of United States' show a good reason to split the category as I did. Otherwise, the non-cate cats are completely hidden in the 50 state cats. This is often the reason for creating a 'by state' subcat. By the way, I thought I was trying to help your efforts by repopulating the Rhode Island state category that I had unpopulated when I created its county categories. As you can see below, my efforts failed so I will wait for your bot or whatever you want to do with that situation. By the way, thanks for removing the remaining 'protected areas' categories at the US level that I missed when I was working down through the 50 states. I thought I had done them, but whatever Hmains (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for making so many improvements to Delaware articles. It's nice to have a fresh set of eyes come through and make so many improvements to the cats. There were a small number of changes that confused me though and I think it might just be a mater of local geography. Wilmington Delaware lies entirely within New Castle County Delaware which lies entirely within the state of Delaware. To me, that means these changes seem redundant:
- Bancroft Mills:Had the city cat and you added the state one.
- 1209 North Orange Street: Had the city cat and you added the state one.
- Delaware State Capitol: Added the city cat (Dover) but left the state one.
- F. W. Woolworth Building (Wilmington, Delaware): Had the city cat and you added the state one.
- Delaware College of Art and Design: Removed the building cat entire
Generally I go for the most specific cat available. These building cats are themselves nested so any buildings in Wilmington are automatically in the county and state cat. Maybe the capital building one makes sense since it's a state building. I didn't want to undo these changes without discussing it with you. Were these just a few errors during your rapid fire updates or did you have a different goal in mind than the most specific cat? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I was considering the situation not from the 'article up' but from the 'category down'. Category:Buildings and structures in Delaware includes many sub-cats by 'type of building' and thse subcats cover most but not all types of buildings. For those types in which there are not yet enough buildings at the state level, then the article is directly in Category:Buildings and structures in Delaware. This means that a reader coming to this category and not finding a sub-cat for the subject they are after still has a chance of finding the article in the direct article list. Looking around, this appears to be what is done for all US states. The 'type' category tree is separate from the geographical location tree of the building being in a county or one of its cities.
- As far as the college, I thought that colleges/universities were not generally placed in the Building and Structures set of categories, though individual buildings at colleges/universities are. I now see that since June 2008, the US and state level college/university categories are placed as sub-cats to their corresponding US/state level buildings and structures categories. Accordingly, I will follow the pattern and get colleges/universities placed into appropriate county/city level buildings and structures categories as well. Hmains (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- DCAD may be atypical because it is mainly in one building which is historically significant.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I wish it were so, but I don't think so. Buildings and structures cats are for any kind of building/structure, not just historicallly significant ones. See Category:Buildings and structures in the United States subcats for many examples. Hmains (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- DCAD may be atypical because it is mainly in one building which is historically significant.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Starting to do this, I see lots of work with universities/ colleges that have sites in multiple cities/counties/states. I suppose the university/college must go into the building and structure category for each of its city/county/state sites. Yuck.Hmains (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to get some pointers on how to do this with people more familiar with college articles than I am. Good luck!RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- That is a good idea. I just don't know if I want to tackle all the work involved here.
- It might be a good idea to reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities to get some pointers on how to do this with people more familiar with college articles than I am. Good luck!RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Starting to do this, I see lots of work with universities/ colleges that have sites in multiple cities/counties/states. I suppose the university/college must go into the building and structure category for each of its city/county/state sites. Yuck.Hmains (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- So you are waiting to place each Building in both a geographic cat and a state subject-matter cat before you take it out of the state-level cat? For example, with the F. W. Woolworth Building (Wilmington, Delaware) it was in the geographic city cat and the national subject-matter cat so you added it to the state-level cat. Even from a top-down perspective, the state cate remains another geographic designation not a replacement for missing subject-matter ones.
- I don't feel as strongly about it as the editors below though because, as I said, I found 90% of your edits to be constructive and on target. But, before moving more Delaware articles to multiple levels of geographic cats, I would encourage you to post a thread on WikiProject Delaware to reach consensus. Thanks for your contributions.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I plan no more Delaware edits. Hmains (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Explaining further, I have worked on everything I planned to work on with Delaware counties (what I was working on). Thanks for your comments. Hmains (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
miscategorizing
You've done a number of edits like this one which detract from category schemes and articles. Please take care not to add state-level categories to articles that already have county-level categories of the same type. And, adding orphan tags, although that may be a default in AWB, is not helpful IMO, and I think you should turn off that option in AWB. I see in other discussions above others have pointed out similar deficiencies. --doncram (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It seems you went through all the Rhode Island NRHP historic district articles and did this. After individually undoing a good sample of them, it seems all your edits there were of this type. Just to let you know, I will now go through and apply Rollback to undo the rest. I am sorry if there might have been a good edit among them that will be erased by this. doncram (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- You are wrong in your activities and unhelpful to WP. I removed the articles from the state level category when I created the county level categories. I see that was a mistake and I have now corrected that error. There is no MOS category rule that says articles cannot be categorized at the local and state and US level simultaneously. Orphan tags may be unhelpful to you but they are standard for all articles that are orphans so I agree with what AWB is doing. I rarely disagree with AWB defaults since what AWB is doing has been established by the expert editors maintaining AWB. Talk to AWB editors if you have a problem with that. Hmains (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I returned to mention that I noticed you had, in many/most of these cases, been the one who added the county level category. So my using Rollback doesn't work; i switched back to just applying Undo. It does surprise me that you returned afterward to add the state categories, which are clearly not needed or helpful when county-level categories are present already.
- I do not care about your troubles in reverting my work. I will put these articles into the state category where they belong as shown by every other state. Your activities are unhelpful. Hmains (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- About the Orphan tagging, the tag calls for editors to add links from other articles to these ones. In many article situations in wikipedia, that makes sense. But here, most or all of these are extremely short stub articles. It doesn't make sense to add links to these articles from other articles. Because they are such short stubs, that would not particularly help readers in the other articles. So, while in general AWB's default might be set to suggest marking that tag, it is not helpful with these. It is not a matter of AWB editors governing what is done. The guidelines for using AWB are very clear that it is your responsibility as an editor using AWB, to make sure every change you make with it is beneficial. This has been pointed out to you before in other discussions still showing on this page. doncram (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Orphan tagging is good and only glad that AWB helps going this--your personal opinion notwithstanding. Hmains (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, well please note that wp:AWB guidelines are specifically that you should not use AWB to make edits that may be regarded as controversial. I believe your adding orphan tags in this way, for these articles, is controversial, so please stop. --doncram (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Your complaint or any single editor's complaint does not make controversy. It is just your isolated opinion which anyone is free to have. Hmains (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(unindent) FYI, the issue of default for AWB adding "orphan" tags to NRHP articles was just discussed among several regular NRHP editors at User talk:Elkman#New Durham Town Hall. The consensus of 4 editors focussed on NRHP articles there (not including me, but I agree) is that in these cases it is better not to allow AWB to insert orphan tags. There was some helpful discussion there i guess about how to turn off that option in AWB. So, I'd appreciate if you would follow the instructions there and turn it off, when using AWB. Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ironically, all this attention to historic districts by county is occurring in the one U.S. state where counties are least relevant. They no longer have any known function in Rhode Island, and I believe that many people in the state would have a hard time identifying the county they live in. --Orlady (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually Hmains' earlier edits in many/most of these articles seemed helpful. Anyhow I finished going through the 150-200 RI HD articles that had been changed. It seems like a pretty basic concept for editors involved in doing a lot of categorizing, that an article put in a geo area category is not also put separately into larger geo area category. I don't understand a repeated edit doing that, such as this one, with edit summary "reinstate edits bypassing editor who does read discussions". So i guess this was just a mistake forgetting that the county level had already been done, although an unusually long-running one. Oh well, it was just an hour or so of edits by Hmains implementing them and somewhat more time by me undoing them, to get back to where the articles were. That's all i guess, thanks! doncram (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- Actually with editors like you, there is little reason to work on WP to improve things for readers. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I really resent that, for me, and for my colleagues above. All the comments above, except yours, have been measured, speaking to the issue and not the person. They have cited policy and carefully avoided saying anything about you -- saying only that they were less than happy with the results of your actions. What do we get in return?
- You are completely wrong in all of this and alone in your personal opinion on this.
- I do not plan to revert anything
- You lose again, trying to push your agenda
- [after an editor commented that 10% of Hmains's edits in Delaware were unhelpful and suggested that Hmains discuss the matter at project Delaware] I plan no more Delaware edits
- You are wrong in your activities and unhelpful to WP.
- I do not care about your troubles in reverting my work.
- [after three editors had complained about Hmains adding orphan tags] Your complaint or any single editor's complaint does not make controversy. It is just your isolated opinion which anyone is free to have.
- I just use whatever AWB provides
And who are the editors to whom those were addressed? -- all are well established NRHP editors, with more the 5,000 articles created among them (that's about 20% of the NRHP articles), three of them among my mentors and three more whose names I have seen only from time to time.
Given that you are apparently unaware of the Elkman tool, and, therefore don't really understand the process of creation of NRHP articles, perhaps you should just stay away from them.
And, given that you have apparently not read the first full sentence in the AWB documentation, *"AutoWikiBrowser is not an automatic bot — edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it" perhaps you should stop using AWB until you understand that you are responsible for the edits you make with it. Saying that AWB's creators are responsible is a nice out, but it won't work when you're explicitly breaking their rules.
Finally, I'll turn it on its head. I believe firmly that without editors like Doncram, Orlady, Acroterion, and the others, there would be little reason to work on Wikipedia.
. . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I understand from the above hat you and your litttle group want no interference from anyone else in editing the articles you claim ownership of. Such groups have no standing in WP, as you know. Hmains (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think that is a mis-categorization of the interactions I've had with any of the named individuals or seen either on your talk page or elsewhere. Focus on an area of interest does not equal WP:OWN. I find myself a member of the NRHP group as well as someone who's done my share of re-categorization (through which I encountered you a month or two ago regarding maritime museums I believe). I believe you have good intentions regarding cleaning up the categories, but as you must know, they are not a perfect ontological solution. There are a number of good faith disagreements about how to separate and classify articles. When you have Doncram *and* Orlady telling you they dont agree with some of your decisions, you should really take a step back and consider carefully. They are both experienced editors who dont often agree. dm (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
First Red Scare
May I ask a question? You have twice recently reversed modifications to First Red Scare to insist that it was about anarchism. I believe that is simply not the case. Do you have unbiased sources that tell you otherwise?
The entry as it stands emphasizes anarchism inappropriately, and it needs a lot of work. The classic study of the Red Scare of 1919-20 (Murray, Red Scare 1955), old but still immensely valuable, has just 10 entries in its index under "anarchists." It's a 281-page book. The Red Scare refers to a time when when fear of an imminent attempt to overthrow the U.S. government gripped a large proportion of government officials, the press, and the public. In this period of popular hysteria, people saw Bolshevism everywhere. They didn't distinguish among any activity on the left. Whether it was liberal-minded union organizing, or various kinds of socialism, or the 2 newly-formed American communist parties, or violent anarchism or pacifist anarchism, or any other "left-wing" activity, they saw Bolsheviks intent on replacing American democracy with Soviet-style dictatorship. The anarchist bombings of April and June 1919 are part of the story, but just a part. Much of the body of the current First Red Scare entry is valuable and just needs to be expanded. I'd like to lengthen it considerably. The anarchist component is overemphasized and much is missing, including the American Legion, the American Defense Society, Samuel Gompers and the AFL, race riots that targeted African-Americans, and more.
Cheers.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- This article has had the content about anarchism being the item to be scared of since at least Aug 2008. Your changes would substantially alter the thrust of the article, without any discussion on the article discussion page or any other location. The article currently has many sources cited. You cite one source and say it is the 'classic study'--such an assertion is your personal point of view unless you can provide third party sources to back it up. Likewise, if have a credible source, then the article must contain citations from that source backing up any statements you take from the source and place in the article. If your source is in a minority compared to other sources, then you have an extra burden of demonstating by other references that the other sources are no good while your source is good. You have done none of this. Sorry. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Just wanted to be sure I wasn't contending with someone with an ideological agenda.
Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi- I think this category is duplicating Category:Companies by county in the United States, isn't it? One should redirect to the other, which name would make more sense? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Duplicative, yes, I see. I think that Category:Companies of the United States by county would be a better fit with United States (bigger item) coming first and county (smaller item) coming second. This name also matches all the other 'by county' categories, which matches the pattern set by the 'foo of the United States by state' categories, including Category:Companies of the United States by state Hmains (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I thought that way too. I'll work on moving the articles/categories over to that one. Thanks, and have a good weekend! --Funandtrvl (talk) 04:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect category addition
Hi, you've recently added the category "American Liberal Organization" to an article about PFAW which does not self-identify as liberal. Per extensive discussion and CfD consensus, note that self-identification is the only objective criteria for inclusion (and the only reason the category still exists). Otherwise it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and must be removed. Also, be careful about accusing other editors of vandalism in what are simply content disputes (which this barely even was....more of just a misunderstanding about how categories work). Thanks --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The only person who is confused here is you. You should take time out and study actual American politics Hmains (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:American liberal organizations
I have nominated Category:American liberal organizations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please note that Loonymonkey is ignoring the lack of consensus for deletion by going around and systematically deleting the categories from articles. I've tried cleaning up after him, but he just reverts my edits. Additional eyes are needed. THF (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
CFD comments
I've said to you in a CFD discussion: When someone suggests your comments are inappropriate, it's generally not a good idea to repeat them and expand them. My comment was to suggest that you stop, and I repeat that again. To expand on this idea here: Please stop attacking other users individually and collectively. I understand that one can get upset if a category you've created is nominated for deletion, but you need to assume good faith and stay cool. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What it needs is for someone to fill it in more. It's pointed to by List of crossings of the Connecticut River article. I don't know what else might be appropriate. Maybe a railroad article? - Denimadept (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please feel free to unorhpan any article. Thanks Hmains (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
CfD: American conservative organizations
FYI: User:BrownHairedGirl has nominated this category for deletion also.[3]TVC 15 (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- ^ Ambrose & Immerman Ike's Spies, p. 303, 1999 ISBN 978-1578062072
- ^ Bay of Pigs Chronology, The National Security Archive (at The George Washington University)
- ^ Ambrose & Immerman Ike's Spies, p. 303, 1999 ISBN 978-1578062072