User:Roundhouse0/archive1

Info about King Edward VII school

Maybe you should start adding info about the school itself, rather than an endless list of alumni (which isn't very interesting for most readers). Details such as sporting activities, classes, subjects covered, teaching quality, school awards, more history details, building history (renovations, etc) would be better. You may want to check out something like the Harvard University or Stanford article to see what kind of stuff can be added to the KES article. Also, a List of King Edward VII School alumni article might be good. — Wackymacs 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all the above details would be welcome (from someone), and that the info on alumni would be better in a separate article; and have effected this. I have a much longer list at [[1]] — roundhouse 14:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I noticed you edited a few articles on Malawi today. I just wanted to tell you that there is no need to categorize anyone already categorized as Malawi- something as a Malawi person. It is assumed that if they are a politician in Malawi, they are also a person from Malawi. I myself made this mistake for a long time until another user informed me how useless it was.--Thomas.macmillan 01:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't useless (or a mistake) to add the category as I have done. It's a relatively effortless way of producing a list of notable Malawians on one page. If those in the 'politicians in Malawi' category were automatically added (individually) to the 'Malawi people' category then I would agree with you. --roundhouse 01:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As an admin and a member of the Wikiproject Categorization once quoted to me "an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory". Then, it was referring to the category:Angola and category:Provinces of Angola but it is the same example as in this situation. The category is Malawi people and its sub-category is Malawi politicians. Please refrain from doing this.--Thomas.macmillan 02:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The exact quote is "an article should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory". If you have a look at Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories you will find the sentence "However there are many articles which should be in both a subcategory and a parent category", eg if it makes the article easier to find. I think it's easier to find an article on say Maxwell Mkwezalamba (whom I know) if he appears in Category:Malawian people as well as Category:Malawian politicians (I had no idea he had become a politician). --roundhouse 03:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This can be somehow justified, as Malawi is a country which 90% people can locate on a map. But we should have not double standards here. Imagine every American or British politician also in basic "XY people" category. Argument like "people can easily locate them" is not valid, cause if user will find category "Malawian people" he will certainly continue to its subcategories until he will find what he searched for. - Darwinek 09:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello too. I think it's easier to locate someone on level 1 of a category rather than having to dig down into subcategories; and so allowing duplicates can make browsing easier. I can see at once who is on level 1 but it will take a few minutes to browse the subcats. Anyway there are schools of thought on this and I have added some comments to Wikipedia talk:Categorization under 36 'Category Duplication'. (32 'Category Duplication' includes a very comprehensive explanation of the case for duplicates by User:SamuelWantman.) --roundhouse 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

VP

I goofed I approved you for VP 1.3 which is still in beta version here is a link for it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 18:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you check that my username (on the list for VP 1.3, which I am assuming I can't see) is Pc1dmn (cap P)? (I've now got VP 1.3 but it doesn't get beyond the initial window; just says I am not on the list.) roundhouse 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - thanks for the list of badwords. roundhouse 19:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Pc1dmn! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Please see this for VP 1.3 Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 11:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - now working nicely. roundhouse 17:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Clive Betts

From jamesthomas101 - Please can you email me on jt6079@hotmail.co.uk. I am a good friend of Clive's, and please could we discuss the biography as I have cleared it with Clive.

In which case it's fine. roundhouse 15:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging of John Christie (producer) and John Christie (Glyndebourne)

Hello! I appreciate your efforts to merge these two articles, however I feel that John Christie (producer) is more in line with naming conventions (specifically Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) when it comes to disambiguation, which is why John Christie (Glyndebourne) should be merged into it. Of course the text of the latter article is the better one, and should be preserved. Cheers! --Oden 11:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. roundhouse 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I self-reverted (see Talk:John Christie (producer)). You might want to add references to John Christie (Glyndebourne) in order to avoid someone tagging it {{unreferenced}}. Happy editing! --Oden 16:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've passed the request for refs to the originator of the article (smerus), as google only produces various requests for subscriptions. One could put {{fact}} after producer too. roundhouse 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

reverting removal of irrelevant trivia

G'day there, Don. Is there any particular reason you saw fit to make this edit? In particular, to do so using a rollback-equivalent, which is supposed to be used for fighting vandalism? Cheers, 210.10.139.113 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well put, User:210.10.139.113, and g'day. I fully apologize for the roll-back, which was not my intention at all (a slip of the mouse); I suppose I should have unrolled back and then done what I intended to do, which was to revert with the comment that trivia in a trivia section seem OK. I am not personally attached to any of the trivia, but someone might be. Having looked again at Greta Garbo, I would support putting trivia after filmography (as it's more trivial) and I now see it has a 'perhaps too long' tag, which perhaps it is. (Some of the trivia as listed could be decanted to the film pages as they are about the film(s).) I suppose, if asked, I would prefer the ones you deleted (which I find of interest) over the rest - such is Wikipedia. (Perhaps quotes mentioning GG could or should go to Wikiquotes.) -- 84.43.7.8 14:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that going to wikiquote and returning to wikipedia signs one out, and 4 tildes then give an unexpected result. roundhouse 15:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twikker

Dear Don, Thanks for adding The Wicker Station link to 'Twikker'. I fondly remember using KES grounds as a depot for Rag Day float-building materials - it was vital to the operation. What do you recall of Twikker? You were in Sheffield before me... Ewen 11:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to buy it circa 64-66. I have the sort of memory that will reconstruct images of floats being constructed on the close as we used to call it, but don't really recall it. Delighted to find the page. roundhouse 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mark Gasser

I agree that there seems to be some (self?)promotion here. The main Mark Gasser is a copyvio, so I have flagged it as such. As for the other links, I am unsure which ones to keep and which to remove, as I'm not sure how WP:MUSIC relates to this person. I'll think about it. —JeremyA 02:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Photos

Hi! Photos are not such a minefield as you might think. As Greg pointed out on my talk page, by far the best way to get photos is through other Wikipedians—that way you can be sure that the photographer is aware of exactly how the photo is going to be used. That said, I am a flickr user, and when I see photos on flickr that I think can be useful in Wikipedia I try to get them. There are two ways to go about this. Firstly, the flickr user might have marked the photo with a Creative Commons licence. There are many variants of this licence, but there are basically four restrictions that it can apply: attribution (abbreviated to: by), share-alike (sa), no-derivatives (nd), and non-commercial (nc). At Wikipedia we can only use photos that have one or both of the first two restrictions—my own photos that I have uploaded (e.g. Image:SheffieldBotGards.jpg) are licenced in this way. An example of a flickr photo with an appropriate licence is the one that I used to illustrate Carl Wark (Image:Carl Wark 061009.jpg) if you go to this photo's page on flickr ([2]) you will see in the column to the right of the photo in the section titled "Additional Information" that it says "Some rights reserved"—clicking on these words takes you to the creative commons licence that is being used, in this case cc-by-2.0. You should still be a little careful with images that look to be OK to use—many flickr users don't understand the creative commons licences. You will notice with the Carl Wark photo that I left the flickr user a short note thanking him for using a licence that allowed my to use the image on Wikipedia. This was to give him a chance to say that that was not what he had intended (in fact he responded to me in an email that he was very happy for us to use his photo). Many flickr photos (such as the cooling towers photo) are tagged "All rights reserved", which means we can't use them. However, this is not a hard and fast rule—the photo that I used to illustrate Sheffield Victoria Station is actually a flickr photo tagged in this way. If you go to the flickr page for this photo you will see that I left a note asking the photographer if I could use it, and he replied that that was OK. Importantly I specified the licence under which it would be used (just saying "is it OK to use it on Wikipedia?" is not enough).

I hope that this long message has not scared you off from uploading images. My final suggestion is that, if you do find images to upload, you upload them to the Wikipedia Commons—this is a central repository for images for use on all Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia. Over the last year or so Greg and I have been building a collection of Sheffield photos there (categorised in sub-categories of Category:Sheffield) that are available for any of the Wikipedias to use. —JeremyA 15:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

An exemplary answer - I shall refer to it often whilst seeking images. roundhouse 18:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My mention of the Commons is just a recommendation. There is nothing to stop you uploading images directly to Wikipedia. I like to use the Commons because it provides a single place for images, and allows us to sort them and (hopefully) make them easier to find. The Sheffield gallery is not intended to show all photos of Sheffield. At the moment the Commons is still a fairly young project, and there is disagreement as to whether images should be placed in categories, in galleries, or in both—the solution that I adopted for the Sheffield-related images (which so far no one has disputed) is to have all the images in categories and use a gallery as a kind of index card, giving a taster of what is to be found in some of the categories. Wikitykes photos could be moved to the Commons, but I prefer to let him choose where they go. —JeremyA 03:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:United Methodist bishops by U.S. State

I don't know if you keep live CFD discusions on your watchlist, so I hope you'll forgive me for drawing the attention of all participants in the CFD to some counting I did on how many bishop-by-area categories we would end up with if all the possible categories were fully populated. My estimate (see my comment marked "some counting" is between 100 and 200 categories for 569 bishops, which seems to me to be a navigation nightmare. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I do (I try to give them up but they are strangely compelling). I agree with you entirely on most matters categorical. Upmerge all was my position. roundhouse 15:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

PW Categories

I am currently waiting for BrownHairedGirl to return from vacation. When she does, I am going to ask her to lead a formal request to ban PW from category creation. The sheer volume of non-functional categories is simply difficult to deal with. I have a list of his failed categories (from the December discussions of WP:CFD) here. Do you have any comments on this?

Also, I just nominated Category:Non-combatant people of World War I for deletion. I have also just proposed to merge Category:Emigrants and its subdirectories with Category:Expatriates. Feel free to comment on the nominations. Dr. Submillimeter 21:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Upmerge?

You might want to leave a message about it on User_talk:Cyde and ask if he can have his bot do it. —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)