This is a talk page. archive the first (021105-091105) Please leave a message under the line. (beep) ---- == _ == ''Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Television_stations_with_slashes'' ... Right after the one for "...zing!". Sorry if that came off as unpleasant in any way, it just seemed that there wasn't a good response to be made to the question (i.e. one that wouldn't ruin the whole thing). siafu 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC) :Mmmmm. Clean talk page. Must dirty. Anyway, no, not unpleastant. I just did a double take on your comment and genuinely had no idea how it should be taken. Am thankful I didn't dive straight into righteous educator mode, though of course, that would have been much funnier. --zippedmartin 01:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC) ==Alan Truscott== Hi, I know stub-sorting is monotonous, but you had this fellow pegged as a chess-player, when he was, in fact, a master of '''bridge'''. I have restubbed him as bio-US, since we don't seem to have a bridge stub. Thanks. Xoloz 04:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC) == Richard_Manley-Reeve... == is now a redlink. I figure I have no conflict of interest in closing a unanimous debate. I was reluctant to protect the article during an AfD in case someone should come along and want to re-write it as often happens. I've added the now-deleted article to my watchlist and will speedy it if it resurfaces. Could you add it to yours too, and poke me if I miss it. -Splash^talk 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC) :Done. siafu 00:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC) ==Jews in music category rename== Hi I have changed the proposed title of the rename to Category:Jewish_classical_musicians with the agreement of User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (who first proposed the rename) as this fits the people who I have placed in the category so far. The category will then be moved as a sub category of the existing categories Category:Jewish_musicians or Category:Jewish_music. I intend to make other categories for the other genres i.e. Jewish pop musicians, Jewish jazz musicians etc. I hope this is OK and doesn't affect your vote Arnie587 16:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC) == Odd sig == Could you please examine the sig in the Olav_Reiersøl section of my talk page? The history indicates another user, but the sig directs here. -Splash^talk 11:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC) :The only theory I could come up with is that this user, who doesn't have a blurb from the welcoming committee on his/her talk page I noticed, doesn't understand how to write a sig (i.e., nobody explained the ~~~~ method) and just copied the one above without changing everything? Either way, I see you've left a message on his/her talk page, so I'm just going to leave it at that. Weird, though. siafu 16:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC) ==renamingCategory:Ontario_writers to Category:Writers_of_Ontario== why would you want rename this cat when all similar cats for people from/of states and provinces are named as the latter as the former was?? if you check Category:Writers_by_state and all similar cats such as Category:Ontario_actors, Category:Quebec_sportspeople for occupation or occupation field by name for any state or provincial you ll find them named thus. moreover, in what way does the new name adds anything specifics or remove any ambiguity semantically. -Mayumashu 14:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC) :I'm not sure I'm following you. If you're saying that categories should follow existing precedent and be named "X writers" or "X actors" instead of "Writers of X" or "Actors of X", then I find the reasoning rather weak; just because it was done this way before and in other places does not ''a priori'' make it the best way to do it. This particular difference is not about ambiguity, but grammar, or at least, making it sound less ham-fisted. "England writers", for example, is very obviously ungrammatical, but would follow from this pattern. siafu 17:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC) ::but in fact it is perfectly grammatical (as is 'England writers') - nouns commonly act as adjectives. and therefore all similar cats for states, provinces, counties, and places within countries have been acceptingly named thus, whereas for the countries, 'pure adjectives' say have been choosen in most cases (exceptions including 'Northern Ireland actors' and 'sportspeople of Serbia and Montenegro') - this has become the accepted convention, like it or not. but that it is grammatical makes it the tidiest of ways to express that the person in question is of the place in question, thereby making it the best choice. 'Ontarian writers' is more restrictive in its connoting that the individual is native Ontarian whereas 'Ontario writers' or indeed 'Writers of Ontario' does not suggest any distinction between nativeness and mere residency, flexibility which is more suitable for a sub-cat (I mean the importance here is neither mere Ontario nativeness nor residency but association of say writers to Ontario). -Mayumashu 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC) :::It is neither the accepted convention (not that this would make it more or less acceptable, as convention is quite changeable), nor is it grammatical, despite your insistence. I challenge you to find a speaker who prefers (grammatically) "Canada people" to "Canadians", "People from Canada", or even "People who live in Canada". You can tell me this all day as you please, but the form your advocating is not in common use as a productive form, given that it's only really used in occasional cases (particularly with "United States"). "Like it or not." Regardless, it aslo happens to be quite ham-fisted in sound, which is just as important as the above. It seems that you also approve of "Writers of Ontario", which would be the form I prefer anyway (and have said so), so why is it so important to you that we agree on what is, therefore, a side issue? siafu 04:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ::one of those "occasional" or less common cases being with provinces or states - i agree that 'Canada people' sounds odd. as for convention, you can change it, but what is the need to do so with the ''a prior'' established one here (in the form of several hundred cats) to whose naming convention tens of users have aquiesced. i would be in favour of changing it if i shared your view on the inappropriateness of the grammar of 'Ontario writers', which again i don t. at any rate, i don t think either of us is near persuading the other and it is as you suggest rather petty. thanks for responding to my query and best regards, -Mayumashu 16:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC) ==Chicago L== The stuff on the talk page assumes that we don't want historical stuff in the template. But historical stuff makes it better. WP:IAR. --SPUI (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC) :Clearly you have still not read the talk page. siafu 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC) The thing is that those two interurbans used the L - they relate more to the L than the commuter rail lines. --SPUI (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the template page. Not sure why SPUI is so adamant about the point without anything to say in the talk pages. Tedernst 08:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC) ==Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Template/Workshop== You, or any Wikipedia user, can contribute your suggestions and comments to the /Workshop page of any active arbitration case. Comments on evidence or proposals can help in understanding the import of evidence and in refining proposals. Proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies may be listed on /Proposed decision and form part of the final decision. Fred Bauder 19:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC) This message is being placed on the talk pages of all members of Association of Members advocates, both as a general invitation and as a reminder that using the /Workshop page may be useful in advocacy. Fred Bauder 19:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC) ==Category vote request== Hi, thanks for supporting me on the eccentric category. I would really appreciate your comment or vote at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Jewish_American_actors. There is a real problem with this category and similar ones as mixing ethnicity-nationality-profession in categories is in my opinion extremely bad for the category structure. The main reason for this is many people are being added to these xxx American categories for having one grandparent of that ethnicity, therefore they can be in four xxx American categories. If we allow the ethnicity-nationality-profession mix in categories, for example, for someone who has grandparents of four different ethnicities and two professions i.e. actor and director, they could end up in four xxx American actor categories and four xxx American director categories which in my opinion would make Wikipedia look ridiculous. In my opinion this category should be merged with Category:American_actors. Thanks Arniep 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC) == and you're on the chicago committee == Please consult a map before you make bold assumptions. Research: community area map. #3 is Uptown, #6 is Lake View. :Above unsigned by Jcrocker. Presumably this is in reference to something? siafu 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) :: Yes, in fact it is. Please consult a map before you make bold assumptions. Research: community area map. #3 is Uptown, #6 is Lake View. Try not to confuse the two. I know it is hard for a suburbanite to notice the difference, but there most certainly is. East of Clark Street, Lake View is south of IRVING PARK ROAD. J. Crocker :::Amazing. You leave an unsigned comment on my talk page ranting about the difference between Uptown and Lakeview for reasons that remain completely obscure, decide that I'm a suburbanite, and have the audacity to lecture me aboutt making "bold assumptions"? Impressive hutzpah. I'm guessing that this must be in reference to a comment or edit somewhere about Lakeview or Uptown, but since I haven't made any edits to any related articles in several months to my memory, you'll have to be a bit more specific. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish (aside, apparently, from starting a fight with a stranger?), but in the future it might do to review Wikipedia:civility before harassing your fellow wikipedians. siafu 00:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)