User talk:Stan Shebs/archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Lightship categories
I noticed you had made a new category for "lightships." You might not have been aware that there is already a page titled "List of Lighthouses and Lightvessels." While not a category, it still serves its purpose. From there you can link into a listing of lighthouses and lightvessels, sorted by nation. I was just wondering if you felt it was still necessary to create it's own category while this listing was already available. Just a thought...no biggie. Just seemed pointless with only one ship being listed in the new category. PS-You seem very knowledgable, keep up the good work :-) ScottyBoy900Q 11:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Amphib organization
Could use your help sorting out a conflict in the gator ships. I'm thinking that the article Amphibious assault ship should more rightfully be titled Amphibious warfare ship. The Navy classifies all gator ships (LHA, LHD, LCC, LPD, AGF, LSD, LCAC, LCM, LCU...) as amphibious warfare ships, but only the LHA and LHD [and the forthcoming LHA(R)] are considered amphibious assault ships. Amphibious assault ship should then contain information on the Tarawa and Wasp class vessels. Changing the title though, would throw dozens of page links off. Any ideas? Ocon 21:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you, though. :-) Jane's uses the same system of division, as do a couple other countries. That said, I think I can live with it. The articles are all very U.S.-centric to start with, and they might benefit from a little breadth. I'll see about making the amphib assault article a little more inclusive and look into pointing the other articles to the proper pages. We also don't have a category for the ships to slip into. I think that the category Ship classes is the lowest category available, but it doesn't really fit. Thinking about making subcats under category Ship types for the 10 or 11 major ship types and dropping them in there. Ocon 23:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Model ship is better
Please take a look at Talk:Ship_model. -- Netoholic 05:42, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Stan, please stop trying to change references to model ships until there is consensus. That is just completely irresponsible, considering my main point above is that more articles point to model ships Refering to these edits [1] [2] [3] [4] and more. -- Netoholic 06:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Mountain Home AFB
I noticed that you created Mountain Home Air Force Base. Is this the same as Mountain Home AFB, Idaho? The latter was created in 2002. —John | Talk 02:33, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Request
Ahoy, Stan! When you have a second, please take a look at Revolt of the Admirals and make sure my POV is sufficiently N, particularly in my final paragraph where I try to show the relevance of the incident. Thanks! --the Epopt 19:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Motorola 6800
Hello, there, Stan. I removed the category from Motorola 6800 because I don't think nonexistent categories should be added to articles. Any more questions? I'm open. Peace Profound! --Merovingian✍Talk 14:06, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Microprocessors
Hi, thanks for establishing the category! I wonder if we should have a subcategory Microcontrollers, or if that should be a subcat under Electrical components, like Microprocessors? Anyway, I think µCs deserve their own category (the alternative would be to rename the Microprocessors cat "Microprocessors and microcontrollers", which would entail some tedious editing work...). (BTW, I put Microprocessors under Computing and Electrical components). --Wernher 18:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I thought about it - it should be a subcat if anything, because as microcontroller tells us, they're a type of microprocessor. The only trickiness is defining µC vs µP precisely enough for categorizing, category membership being a Boolean situation. On the other hand, if there really is a gray-area chip, it could legitimately put in both categories, everything will work. So let's make the subcat and fill it up. Stan 19:05, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Done (i.e., subcat made, filling-up started). Hmm, I'm a little unsure about the i960, though. IIRC, it was ~only used as a µC, in laser printers. The i860, however, was more of a µP-as-such. It was used in the Intel Paragon. --Wernher 23:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- i960 was used in Nortel PBXes too (at Cygnus, we used a Nortel PBX inhouse and supported their use of GNU to develop it :-) ), and it was just one chip in a substantial system. Hard to imagine calling it a µC when its embedded system is more powerful than one's desktop machine! BTW, I readded the cat to 6501 - people are expecting categories to be complete, rather than selective (every article should have at least one category, ultimately). Stan 04:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
[edit] WikiProject Unrecognized Countries
Hi Stan, I noticed you had made contributions to Anjouan. If you're interested in Anjouan and similar places, why don't you drop by the WikiProject Unrecognized countries and help add some more depth to Wikipedia's coverage of these?
Be sure to visit the Project talk page, and if you are interested, you can become a member.
By the way, I miss Xconq. Best game ever made. Ambivalenthysteria 12:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. I haven't really played it since I gave up my Mac years ago, so time to take another look! Thanks for dropping by the WikiProject, too. :) Ambivalenthysteria 06:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
-
- Yesterday, on the project page, you mentioned Biafra and Stellaland. Do you know of any other historical places that would fit here? Katanga is the only other one that I know of, so I'd appreciate any assistance you can give. Ambivalenthysteria 11:58, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tucson
Stan, thanks for your attempts to find a solution on Talk:Tucson, Arizona. kmccoy (talk) 05:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I appreciate it. Node 15:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Language talk pages?
Hi, I'm mystified by the rearrangement at Talk:Programming language etc, and you don't seem to have explained your purpose anywhere. What's going on? Stan 17:05, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Whenever I see something that is irrelevant to the topic of the article (or is more relevant to some other article), I move it to a more relevant article.
- (I leave a "moved to" link behind so people can confirm I'm not just randomly deleting stuff).
- At one time, there was a list of programming languages at programming language. So it made sense to discuss that list at Talk:Programming language.
- But now that list has been moved to List of programming languages.
- So I moved the discussion about that list to Talk:List of programming languages.
- Same for "I'm going to add ___ to the article." comments. They are more about the person doing it, than about the article itself. (Unless it's a "Do you think I should add ___ ?" question).
- Does that make sense ?
- --DavidCary 18:20, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sim City
Good catch on the category. When I was adding these to various game articles I was copy-pasting and apparently forgot to edit this one. Anárion 08:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] various new Mineral articles
Thanks for adding a small stub to the different mineral images/articles. I uploaded the images yesterday, and was planning to make stubs today, but you beat me to it. Thanks. I will check the images and try to fix the few flawed images. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 09:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] William Hague
Hi!
I noticed you have edited the most recent version of William Hague, to add the section on his nicknames. Im afraid that the version you edited was reverted by an anon editor (user:195.92.198.75 who also seems to be user:195.92.198.72 and user:195.92.198.74) whose version appears to contain significantly more POV and anti- Hauge bias than the previous version. I would prefer not to revert your edits, so would you mind reverting to this version and adding your edits to that? Iainscott 17:52, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) (links corrected)
- Sorry to bother you again... I appear to have given you the wrong links, above (ive now corrected 'em). The NPOV problems I was refering to are here, and Im afraid your latest version appears to retain the POV Im objecting to. Iainscott 18:22, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Programming language articles
You're making a gigantic mess of things by renaming all the programming language articles. There is simply no need to do it; for all but a handful, the name is completely unambiguous. Also, the names are actually "BLISS" etc, not "BLISS programming language"; it's like titling an article "Albert Einstein Homo sapiens", when there's never been anyone who's had that as a name. Why not add some content to language articles, instead of making more pointless work for everybody? Stan 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I sincerely apologize if I have caused you any difficulty. Of course the real names do not include the programming language phrase: the phrase is a classifier (I don't see it as a disambiguator, there are other mechanisms for doing that). Besides trying to put some order into what was the mess in 'Category:Programming Languages'(it used to include not only prog langs, but also prog langs lists, programming terms, among other things) I have also created the FL, FP, Function-level, ZPL, among other, content articles. Furthermore, the classifier should not end up being 'programming language' but '(programming language)' so that the wiki shortcuts would apply (perhaps the right administrator might attempt that change later). Finally, I don't think it speaks well of Wikipedia's level of quality if there is such inconsistency on a page as there was in the prog langs category page: some languages were labeled 'LanguageName programming language' and redirected from 'LanguageName', others did the exact opposite (in fact,Tcl, Modula-2, Modula-3, and Objective-C still go the other way)... that's more like a mess to me. But if you detail how the changes have affected you, I will see how to fix it. Thanks for your comment. Wish you a good day.danakil
- Why didn't you just create redirs from the longer forms, as per the longstanding rule? Stan 21:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)'
- Stan, the idea would be to eventually be able to automatically produce dynamic lists of prog langs (in fact, if you take a look at the 'Category:Programming languages' page you will see that, for example, the article with the list of prog langs in alphabetical order becomes redundant, and with it go away the problems of keeping it synchronized (which are not trivial).I have indeed read the language naming policy page, but found it to be mostly applicable to natural languages and as such its contents do not reflect the vast majority of the existing prog lang articles, most of which were created with the 'programming language' classifier. Furthermore, the policy page actually suggests creating something like 'LanguaName programming language' and redirect this to the 'LanguageName' article... what's the point for doing that? The other way around does make sense. With the classifier enclosed in parenthesis (something that any sysop with a bot can easily do overnight), then it would not even be printed using the [[...|]] pattern. Again, I apologize for the inconveniences, but now that I understand that what affects you is the redirecting from other articles, I am fixing those right now (I indeed had taken care of double redirects when I made the change, though). Thanks again for all your comments. ~~
- Please don't make any more changes regarding programming language articles!
- Agreed, Stan. In fact, I'm taking your advince and will attempt some fast talking on the policy page...whose latest entry, by the way, is precisely about the need to standardize the prog langs article names. Have a nice Monday (most probably I'll not be able to log in again until Tuesday :-P) danakil
- Why didn't you just create redirs from the longer forms, as per the longstanding rule? Stan 21:39, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)'
[edit] Date/time
I guess it doesn't really matter, since like I said, when preferences are set properly, it shows up in exactly the manner the user prefers. -Joseph 19:22, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)
[edit] Administrator needed
I need an administrator to move Eiger (Canton of Bern) to Eiger. (Someone moved Eiger to Eiger (Canton of Bern) and replaced it with a disambiguation page; but since none of the other senses of "Eiger" listed on that page have an article yet I moved it to Eiger (disambiguation). All that's left is to move Eiger (Canton of Bern) back to Eiger.) Gdr 14:34, 2004 Aug 18 (UTC)
[edit] Falls of Clyde
I've done some serious damage ;-> to Falls of Clyde. Please look it over and see if I've deleted anything I shouldn't've. --the Epopt 05:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Kenneth Alan
Kenneth Alan's case is now in arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan. You may wish to add comment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Evidence Mintguy (T) 14:27, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] DKM
Hi Stan, I’d first like to apologize because I completely forgot about this whole affair in the midst of all the other things. I have to say, now that I’ve consulted with numerous sources that DKM is in fact erroneous, apparently being used by some of the allied intelligence services during the war and mostly an invention of post war author. Germans did in fact call them just by their class, i.e. "Battleship Bismarck" or "Cruiser Admiral Hipper". GeneralPatton 17:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] pix
Hi Stan,
Perhaps u like to know that I appreciate your flower photosgraphs and have uploaded some at the dutch wiki. TeunSpaans 14:48, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] gosmacs
Hey Stan, thanks for the extra information on good old Gosmacs. Your changes were great. I'm so glad it's dead enough to be included in an Encyclopedia. :)
[edit] St. Basils photo replacement
Hi Stan, I'm new at editing on wikipedia, so I really hope I'm not standing on your toes doing this.
I think I have a better version of St. Basils cathedral, not because of any skills as a photographer, just because there's less scaffolding on the building when I took the picture. I'm going to attempt to upload it over what's there, which I think is yours.
I hope this doesn't offend. --d 10:54, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tacoma Aroma
There! that's taking the bull by the horns! As long as no encyclopediable information is omitted, wouldn't you say it's usually okay just to go ahead and do that? I've been timidly making redirects but I feel I'm treading on tender sensibilities whenever I do. Wetman 21:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] U.S. vs. US
For your first point, take it to the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Discussion regarding putting this into policy was there. For your second, I'm not done so please be patient. --Jiang 03:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "Scrutiny"
I already spend enough time every day cleaning up poor English and misspellings on Wikipedia, so if you could monitor the articles I edit and catch anything that might slip through the cracks, that would be great. Feel free to add content, too, that's always welcome. Everyking 16:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] A factoid is not a fact; it is the opposite.
This is another one of those maddening words that after a while can have two opposite meanings, like "cleave," for example.
[edit] Russian Navy
Hi, Stan! I'm sorry that it took me so long to reply. I added a paragraph about John Paul Jones's service in the Russian Navy (that's all I could find online). As for the Battle of Copenhagen, I'll be looking for more info on it. KNewman 01:45, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Blohm + Voss
See my response at User talk:Rlandmann. -Joseph 14:26, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
[edit] Article Guidelines
You make a fair enough comment on the use of population statistics in articles. I defer to the commonly accepted guidelines. I hope you are not offended if I also ask you to defer to the commonly accepted guidelines on article length (or, as you advise me, to challenge them on the appropriate discussion page.) Deleting Unnecessary Words 13:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Jersey zoological park
Actually, it's Jersey as in the Isle of Jersey in the English Channel ... so I removed the American Zoo category! - DavidWBrooks 12:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] HMS Black Prince
Thanks for the additions/corrections. By the way, is there a good place to look up early Royal Navy ships, for additions like the first two there? Most online references seem to go back to the 1800s at best. —Morven 21:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
- That's what I figured. This is why I go to the library and buy factual books whenever I can find them cheaply ... there's so much that's not online, and there's so much that's online and wrong; thanks to the ease of online search, wrong facts tend to get spread around various online sites quickly. —Morven 00:37, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Colonies
Are you refering to Category:French colonies? I moved it to Category:Former French colonies. I was uncomfortable with having currently independent nations like Algeria and Burkina Faso listed as French colonies. - SimonP 04:25, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] ribbit
Mmmmmm, beetles. Crispy on the outside and tender on the inside. 8-)
Seriously, it's great to hear from you. Pull up a lily pad and grab a bug juice sometime, and fill me in on all your news!
I'm not really a Wikipedia addict (yet) -- just looking for something productive to do with my time while I'm (still) between jobs. I'm hoping something will work out soon and don't really want to undertake any large projects in the meantime.
Dr.frog 13:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, no sooner do I write that, than I get the phone call with the job offer! Research staff at MIT. :-) Probably can start next week already.
Dr.frog 16:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Systemic bias
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning about Systemic bias, so I post my reply here too.--Xed 02:42, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good for you. No one is pushing you to do anything. You have misread what I have said. Again and again I have said - edit what you want. DON'T STOP WORKING ON WHAT YOU WANT TO. I'm talking about people who WANT to counter-act the systemic bias and how they can be given more oppurtunities to do so.--Xed 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] beta Systemic Bias section
Hi, if you wish to help contribute to a beta version of a Wikipedia page section designed to counter-act Wikipedia's systematic bias, please sign the bottom of this section on the Village pump - Wikipedia:Village_pump#Systemic_bias_in_Wikipedia. If not, no worries.--Xed 03:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] "Panckaucke"
Stan, I didn't want to make the actual correction, but you should: the French publisher (19c editions of Latin texts is what I know him from) is Panckoucke with an O.
Best, Bill 19:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Armenian monarchs
Hi. I noticed that you were the original creator of Tigranes I of Armenia. However, all the information in the article is about Tigranes II of Armenia. I know nothing about the first Tigranes, but it appears that every reference to Tigranes I on Wikipedia is actually Tigranes II. I am moving the article, and changing all links and references elsewhere on Wikipedia.
Just wanted to warn you before I start so it's not mistaken for vandalism. Isomorphic 17:40, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- To clarify, it seems like maybe we were using Tigranes' dynastic number within the Seleucid dynasty. The books on Armenia I've read recently all call him "Tigranes II". Is the other style common in the context of the Seleucids? Isomorphic 20:20, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's definitely confusion going around. These two links provide an amusing contrast:
The Columbia Encyclopedia article is under "Tigranes" and says he's also called Tigranes I or Tigranes the Great. At the same time, Britannica calls him Tigranes II the Great. One website [5] lists no less than seven Armenian kings named Tigranes, although the site's appearance doesn't inspire confidence. Eeek.
- I have a couple good sources at home. I'll try to sort this out if I remember. Isomorphic 21:22, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Point Roberts
Hi, Stan: Thank you for catching the logical error in the Point Roberts, Washington article. "Unique" wasn't my word, but by adding the Northwest Angle into the sentence, I broke the logic. And yes, it was just plain lazy to leave the duplicate NW Angle link in there. That's 2 editorial demerit points for me! -Sewing - talk 01:41, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Italian Population Figures, Provinces
Stan, ISTAT, the official census arm of the Italian government, has all the 2003 figures here. I've been following your lead and linking to as yet nonexistent province entries; but have been entering them strictly in Italian (i.e., Firenze province rather than "Province of Florence"); hope this is OK. Best, Bill 22:24, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion
See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Anthony DiPierro is challenging your right to speedy delete articles. RickK 00:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
- No I'm not. I'm only challenging a few speedy deletions which don't appear to fit the criteria for speedy deletions. anthony (see warning) 00:39, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Whatever. Why don't you add some content for a change? Your contributions history is 90%+ wikipedia: and talk:, all distraction from the real business at hand. Am I supposed to type in all hundreds of insect families and plant genera myself? Stan 02:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Zermatt and Matterhorn
Hi Stan — I thought you would like to know that I've nominated your photo of Image:Zermatt and Matterhorn.jpg on WP:FPC. -- Solipsist 13:30, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Sawfish Thanks
G'day Stan,
Just a quick thank-you for the taxonomy corrections to the sawfish page. I'm quite a taxonomy weenie, so the corrections to the taxobox were greatly appreciated.
All the best,
pjf 00:07, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Popes
I only moved the articles in the cases in the case of Popes where the other version was merely a redirect page to the Pope. Titles generally don't belong in articles (as seen here) and I don't see most Pope articles as being above that guideline. I can see where it might be argued that it's nice to use Pope for all entries for consistency, but I think it stays nearer the guidelines to only include the title when necessary (to avoid confusion with others). Even in those cases I think it would be more acceptable to use (for example) Joseph I, Pope rather than Pope Joseph I, as it is done with other titles. Sarge Baldy 01:07, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I won't deny now that it was a somewhat hasty decision to make, and I'll certainly take the matter there now :) Sarge Baldy 01:17, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Aircraft Carriers
Stan, I have a favor to ask of you. I saw your contribution to the USS Abraham Lincoln discussion page, and I was wondering if you would check the USS Carl Vinson and USS John F. Kennedy to make sure I got everything correct. I would appreciate it very much. TomStar81 00:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate your clarifications on Bush's flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln. Now it's my understanding that even after the carrier was in helicopter range, the White House kept up the story that the president needed to fly in via fighter because it was too far out. It doesn't address the real reason why he still felt the need to land in a fighter if it wasn't an engineered publicity stunt and photo-op. How do you think this could best be discussed in a NPOV way? -R. fiend 16:59, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I didn't mean to imply that I was looking to state a definitive answer one way or the other, just that the controversy itself could be addressed more specifically. Though I agree it starts to get out of the scope of the article as an article on the ship, and I'm not really sure we need a separate article just on this one issue (though we have multitudes of infinitely more superficial information here). Clearly we can't state with 100% accuracy the reason why Bush landed on the deck in a fighter plane, but we can discuss the accusations and defences levelled on both sides. If you think its worthwhile but needs to be addressed elsewhere then creating a separate article would be okay with me. I'll leave such a decision up to you. I have no strong objections to the article as it stands, except that it sort of seems to dismiss the idea that the whole endeavor was a publicity stunt. -R. fiend 05:04, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Aquatic plants
Hi, I noticed that you've been working on aquatic plants. I've created an aquatic plants category as a sub category of plants, ideally all the aquatic plant genera should link to there to make them easy to find :)--nixie 02:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Cleaver Disappointment?
I just argued on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cleaver for
- Keep, for the sense, re glacier-bearing mountains in at least western N. Amer, of a rock formation flanked by two glaciers. (Even if the term is geographically restricted, it would be either a redir to the dominant term, or the target of the redirects from all the other regional terms.) These are important features in mountaineers' planning of ascent and traverse routes, and IMO an article could discuss what they have in common, probably different categories of them, and examples that affect notable routes.
But i count 4 Del to my 1 Keep, and 14 hours left.
--Jerzy(t) 10:39, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
[edit] Project Liberty Ship
Stan, Thanks for the clarification on ship naming convention. Any suggestions on List of Liberty ships. Oldfarm 13:38, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
Hi Stan - some of the categories you've been working on, particularly Category:Plants and Category:Plant families, need more thinking out before adding lots of articles to them; from what it contains, the currect Category:Plants is going to end up with 400,000 articles listed eventually, which makes a mockery of the system. I think best hold fire until the methodology of what goes where is sorted better, using a more hierarchical system. - MPF 15:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Salve Stan from the new Usor:Gangleri at la.wikipedia. I will have some question about categories too, mainly related to InterWiki linking. Regarding the problem described above I have seen in de.wikipedia that every person is either Mann, Frau or Person. It is important to know the gender of the persons (for visitors not familiar with that particular culture)but I thing this could be done with some dummy categories too (dummy = you can never search them, they are just indications). Regards Gangleri 00:36, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
[edit] HIJMS
Yes, I did, apparently. Hmm. -Joseph (Talk) 12:06, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
