User talk:Paul A/2007-2

Deletion nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables

Hi,

I see you created the article. You may want to participate in the discussion over whether to destroy it. Noroton 04:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Joe Simon

Hello ....I see Simon's page that birth is wrong where Template because Joe Simon born october 11, 1915. And NOT born october 10, 1913. (I'm italian, i don't speak good english...Sorry) :-) --Angelo.1961 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (from http://it.wikipedia.org/)

CfD nomination of Category:Daughter of the Lioness

I have nominated Category:Daughter of the Lioness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for merging into Category:Tortallan books (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. SarekOfVulcan 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Helen Andelin

Hi, Paul. Cynthia Berenger writing. Thanks for the addition to the Helen Andelin page. 66.81.51.105 20:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Paul A 00:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Superman Adventures

You're the one to put up the wikipedia page on the Superman Adventures comic correct? I've recently added some other categories to that page, so would it still be a stub as said on the bottom of the page? 71.115.195.228 09:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Hello Paul, I require some help in editing this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakolath_Ramachandran

I created the article in question.Wikipedia states that it lacks definitive sources.the websites from which,the information has been gathered have already been posted.what further changes have to be made?

thanks, Amog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.19.0 (talk) 07:30, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The course of action I suggest is to take your question to User:W.marsh. It was he who added the message about the article lacking reliable sources, so he is the one who can tell you what the article needs. --Paul A 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

All right.Will do.thanks. Amog 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nero Wolfe stort story collections

Hi there — I remember your being helpful in categorizing the Rex Stout (and/or Nero Wolfe) books a few months back. In the past day, another editor has added a new category to all of the novella collection articles (Trio for Blunt Instruments is an example), called "Nero Wolfe short story collections." All of those category listings were redlinked until I clicked on one and activated the category a bit ago, with a one-line introduction. The new category duplicates the category "Nero Wolfe novellas"; but its title is more correct, in that those are the titles of books collecting the novellas, rather than the titles of the novellas themselves.

"Nero Wolfe short story collections" would ideally be a subcategory of the "Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout" category — along with the subcategory "Nero Wolfe novels by Rex Stout." All the Rex Stout novels and novella collections would be in two subcategories. I personally have no quibble with "short story" vs. "novella." And whew, nobody besides Rex Stout has written Nero Wolfe short stories or novellas. Or if they have I don't want to know about it.

I hate to see redundancy in there being two identical categories; and I'd rather not see those novella collection titles rattling around loose in the "Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout" category. Since you know your way around this category business, can you ponder the matter? Thanks, WFinch 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that Category:Nero Wolfe short story collections should be a subcategory of Category:Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout, so I have done that, and moved the collections out of Category:Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout.

That's a perfect solution — thanks. — WFinch 15:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how to proceed with the redundancy issue, however. One option, now that we have both Category:Nero Wolfe short story collections and Category:Nero Wolfe novellas, is to have the collections only in the former, and restrict the latter to articles concerning individual stories. The problem with this option is that there is currently only one such article (Murder Is Corny (detective story)), and there will probably not be many more -- there seems to be a general feeling that the stories are adequately covered by what's said about them in the collection articles.

I'm inclined to eliminate the Category:Nero Wolfe novellas category altogether. I'll go into the 13 articles for the novella collections and remove that category, since they no longer fit there (thank you). That will indeed leave only one article in the Nero Wolfe novellas category — for "Murder Is Corny." Awhile back I moved the complete content of that article to the article on the novella collection Trio for Blunt Instruments, though; and I think you're right that there's no trend for creating articles for individual stories. I'd say both the novella category and the MIC article could disappear ... however that comes about. Thanks again for all your help with this. — WFinch 15:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Both disappearances have now taken place. --Paul A 08:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I shall continue to think on this, but there are my thoughts so far. --Paul A 06:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm the editor who added the "Nero Wolfe short story collections" category and I just wanted to chime in and say thanks for your efforts. Apparently I didn't understand the categorization process as well as I thought I did, but thanks to your example I think I understand it better. Sorry if I've caused you work.

What would you suggest be done about the awkward-sounding category of "Non-Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout"? This broad group includes a handful of non-series mysteries, a few romances, a few thrillers, a couple of "literary" novels, and a cookbook. If you believe that "Non-Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout" is appropriate, I'll use that, but I'll follow your instruction if it should be something different.

There's also six books that qualify as "Nero Wolfe novels by other authors," and I'm pretty sure that should be the category ... unless you disagree. Thanks in advance for your kind assistance. Accounting4Taste 06:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, we try to avoid creating categories based on what things aren't, such as "books that aren't about Nero Wolfe" or "novels that aren't by Rex Stout".

In the latter case, the alternative already in place is to divide the novels by who they are by: Category:Nero Wolfe novels by Rex Stout, Category:Nero Wolfe novels by Robert Goldsborough. (Are there any Nero Wolfe novels that don't fit into one of those two categories?)

With the non-Nero Wolfe books by Rex Stout, unless there's a bunch of them that do have something definite in common (that's more specific than "by Rex Stout" and more positive than "not about Nero Wolfe"), it's probably best just to put them in Category:Novels by Rex Stout, or Category:Books by Rex Stout if they're not novels. --Paul A 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"Books by"

On this issue I have responded inline with your questions on my talk page. Thanks. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Short stories tags

Hi. I see you've removed a bunch of Simon Templar books from short stories categories. I disagree with this and am planning to revert this because you did not suggest an alternative category. These aren't novels, so we can't use that category. So what category can be used instead? And the category names say nothing about them being only for individual pieces -- collections are just as viable. I'll await your reply before reverting. (Please reply on my talk page as I don't tend to watchlist other people's talk pages). I feel this issue (the removal of short story-related tags) should be addressed by the Short Story Taskforce of Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels so have brought it to their attention as well. Thanks. 23skidoo 11:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I do see the "Short stories" cats as normally just for the stories. However your other points stand, removing this information and not clearly replacing it (i.e. providing new cats where appropriate for "collections" for instance.) :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I did add a short-story-collection category, Category:Mystery short story collections, to replace the "Detective short stories" category tag I removed. The reason this is not obvious is that I added it higher up the food chain, at Category:Short story collections by Leslie Charteris; it seemed unnecessarily duplicative to add it to each individual article. I am sorry I didn't make this clearer in the edit history. --Paul A 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Novels by Leslie Charteris

Adding the Mystery tag to this category only works if "all" Charteris's output can be called Mysteries. I conceed that all the Saint canon could be characterised that way but "all" his output. I'm not sure about this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any novel by Leslie Charteris that doesn't qualify as a mystery novel? I don't. --Paul A 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge there is only one non-mystery novel by Charteris and it was a biography. All his other fictional works were mysteries. Thanks for your reply re: the short story category. I had a feeling that was probably the case, which was why I queried before going ahead and reverting anything. 23skidoo 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Living persons" Category

Say, hello, Paul, and thanks for the heads-up about the "Living Persons" category. That category is empty again, I should have checked, and I'll certainly remember in the future. All best! --Lockley 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft categories

Thanks for trying to make the categories more logical - frankly, they really seem beyond help at this point. The original intention of the Category:Works by women writers category was partially to be able to see the works in a list. Separating the works into author categories as you are doing makes that impossible. Second, I still feel that the entire "Works by Mary Wollstonecraft" category is silly since there are only seven pages (creating any other pages would be difficult). For that category to be divided up even further is even sillier. I won't revert anymore, but please consider that categories are supposed to enlighten as well and seeing a list of works by women writers is part of that general enlightenment. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If a list of works is what you want, then a category may not be what you want. A category is not a list, and a list is not a category.

On your second point: I did not create nor subdivide Category:Works by Mary Wollstonecraft, and I have no opinion. User:Kevinalewis is the person to talk to about that. --Paul A 08:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Soren Kierkegaard

I'm concerned that your removal of categories leaves no connection to the top level philosophy category. Are you sure this is appropriate? I'm pretty sure the "categories named after ..." category is the least useful category for readers also. So, I am concerned about the whole move. Greg Bard 05:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, as I understand it, the correct procedure for categories named after people: that they should be only in the Category:Categories named after people hierarchy, and not attempt to duplicate any of the category tags attached to the relevant article.

One of the reasons for this is to avoid confusion over what should be included - if Category:19th century philosophers is correct, then why not also Category:1813 births and all the other categories?

Another reason is that, when you look at it, most of the tags are incorrect for most of the articles in the category - Søren Kierkegaard is a 19th century philosopher, of course, but Regine Olsen is not, and Søren Kierkegaard Research Center certainly is not.

As for the readers, it is most likely that they are looking for the article Søren Kierkegaard, not the category, so the lack of linkiness is not a problem. (And if it is the category they're looking for, all they have to do is find the article and follow the link at the bottom.) --Paul A 05:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am having the same problem with the Mary Wollstonecraft works (see above). I think that the categories should be as flexible as possible. Users should be able to move through the categories or through the articles. They should not be forced to do one or the other. We should not assume that they are doing one thing or the other - we should enable them to do as many things as possible - your system is restricting them. Also, duplication seems rampant and in the last CfD debate I was just involved in, I was instructed to duplicate for clarification. For example, if a Wollstonecraft text fit into two Wollstonecraft categories (such as "novels" and "books"), then it should be in both of those. Finally, I am not sure why you would not include both "19th century philosophers" and "1813 births" - one is a category about philosophy and one is a category year of birth - their topics are different. Awadewit | talk 06:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I repeat that it is not "my system" - it is, as far as I understand it, the way things are done. I only follow the procedure; I did not invent it.

The reason I would not include the "1813 births" is that I have encountered an explicit rule that the "... births" categories should contain only articles, and have no subcategories. Again, I did not invent this rule. --Paul A 08:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Biographies (books)

Yes of course, I forgot about that one - it does seem an odd name but I do remember the debate and the reasons. Thanks for the reminder. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Regimental Band Company

Is this considered a special unit within the Corps (a unit to which any cadet can belong) at Norwich with its own chain of command or a separate unit within the Corps. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea. In fact I know nothing at all about the Regimental Band Company, and I'm not sure why you chose to ask me. --Paul A 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Phettberg

Thanks for sorting it, I wasn't aware about the nature of Category:Biography up until now. Gratefully noted there. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 08:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Article

Oops, You were right I combince all the info into the Article with his full Name so the article with just the middle initial can be deleted. Please let me know if you find any more.--Kumioko 11:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hobart Shakespeareans

Hi - I have to disagree on the removal of the Shakespeare category from the Rafe Esquith page. The Hobart students I think should qualify, and in essence his entry is also their entry in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KConWiki (talk • contribs) 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(replied at Talk:Rafe Esquith) --Paul A 07:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi mate

I just saw that you were friendly enough to fix up some quirks of the 2007 Bilderberg Meeting, and I stepped by to say thanks. I never made it to WA yet (I'm happily stuck in Melbourne right now), but i'm sure the next winter will give me a good chance to go there :)

Anyway, as you are way more familiar to the wp game than I am, I was wondering if you could help me out a little bit. Although I'm fairly new, I already had some edit wars and strange clashes, which certainly restrained me "being bold" while editing a little bit.

My first page deletion felt quite bad, but taught me some of the vital rules to follow while participating here. I was bold enough to edit contentious topics like John Howard and David Hicks, another great learning experience how interactive wp really is.

Mediation is a great thing, though it doesn't always work like desired. One the other hand, sometimes it simply means learning that I didn't had my fact together. Now I'm a in a bit of a twist... I saw that an admin simply deleted two of my pages (both sourced), as well as edited out sourced changes i made on other pages.

I don't want to get into an edit war, especially not with an admin who might be able to protect his favoured version of a page. I have no idea either how to proceed if he continues to delete the pages I made. The pages in question are 2005 Bilderberg Meeting and 2006 Bilderberg Meeting.

If you consider them as improperly sourced as well, though luck for me. Otherwise I would appreciate any suggestion how to resolve a potential conflict over this issue. Greets, Lord Chao 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The best way to resolve a situation like this, if possible, is to discuss things civilly with the other editor. Calling on third parties for assistance should not be resorted to unless a one-on-one discussion fails.

And when I say "civilly", I mean it. Assume good faith. Approach the conversation with the attitude that the other fellow might, unlikely as it may seem to you, have a good reason for his actions. Try to find out what that reason is. Remember that he might just be trying to "be bold" as well. Do not call him a "vandal" unless you absolutely have to.

See how it goes.

(It might be worth pointing out, also, that he did not actually delete either of your pages. If he had, they would be gone, and you would not have been able to get them back without assistance from an admin.) --Paul A 01:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have a try with this. Technically, I'm not too sure whether it's possible to permanently remove a page, the pages in question were replaced by loopy redirection (the link from the main page was redirected back to the main article page). The reason I sought advise before I tried to talk more to the editor in question was the scarcity of comments for his edits. --Lord Chao 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Lars Olausson

Hey Paul -

I noted your tags on the Lars Olausson article, which I am responsible for creating. What would you consider the appropriate changes needed?

I wrote this article as Olausson is the source of much useful data related to the operation of all Hercules world-wide since 1954. His "Production List" is pretty much the end-all of C-130 airframe histories. What further documentation do you figure I need?

Mark Sublette 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to this at Talk:Lars Olausson. --Paul A 13:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alan Grant (writer)

Thanks for all the hard work there. I'd spotted the problem caused by the page move and had started to work on it but got distracted or busy elsewhere or something. It was a big job but you seem to have got the lot which is a really big help. (Emperor 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC))

No content in Category:The Three Worlds cycle

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

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:The Three Worlds cycle, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Fictional Asian countries

I have nominated Category:Fictional Asian countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)