Jump to content

User talk:Lquilter/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
margin border
div style
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="margin-bottom: 3.25em;"><div style="position: absolute; bottom: 5em; right: 1em; font-style: italic; background-color:red; font-weight:bold; margin:10px; border: 1px dotted white; color:white; padding-top:3px; padding-left:0px; padding-right:3px; padding-bottom:3px; ">If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here<br />on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0em;"><div style="position: absolute; bottom: 5em; right: 1em; font-style: italic; background-color:red; font-weight:bold; margin:10px; border: 1px dotted white; color:white; padding-top:3px; padding-left:0px; padding-right:3px; padding-bottom:3px; ">If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here<br />on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.</div>


{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"

Revision as of 14:37, 21 November 2007

If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here
on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.
* If you post a message here, I'll usually respond here to keep discussion in one place & easily understandable. If you need me to respond on your page, though, please specify that.



I very much liked your suggestion here. I've been waiting for some responses from others before I chimed in. It seems that there is little interest these days in discussions about categorization policy (the exception being WP:OCAT). I think you should write something about tagging, and post it. I don't think it will be very controversial. As for my category typing, I'm thinking we should just start doing it on a small scale, and see if it catches on. I replaced a {{catdiffuse}} tag with one of mine and there requested feedback and there was none. The true test of consensus is if changes survive. -- Samuel Wantman 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start drafting, & when I have something approaching discussable, I'll repost on the page. It might be a couple of weeks -- I'm wrapping up a big work project. --lquilter 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Art for Arts sake

Ah yes - I see Category:Art awards needs either renaming to "arts", or some work (or both). Category:Performing arts awards could go straight to the "Awards by subject" cat. Most of the awards are clearly for some form of visual art, but others like the Ho-Am Prize in the Arts do cover the whole waterfront. The ideal would probably be to rename this to "Arts", then set up a "Visual art" sub-cat for painting awards etc - but that's a fair bit of work. Johnbod 15:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we just create Category:Arts awards as the umbrella category>? Structure like:
Category:Arts awards
> Category:Graphic art awards
> Category:Literary awards
> Category:Music awards
> Category:Performing arts awards
> Category:Visual art awards
But I guess the question would be, is Category:Art awards better renamed as Category:Visual art awards? or Category:Visual arts awards?
(etc.)

--Lquilter 15:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last question is just a judgement call on the amount of work involved, I think - and CfD is usually to be avoided if at all possible, especially for something like this, where possibilities for grasping the wrong end of the stick are rife, and are bound to be seized by some! I would set up a new "Arts" cat & move up the appropriate articles - I think a minority. Sub-cats like the Canadian one can just go to Arts, at least for now - it's probably OCAT to split them.
Category:Graphic art awards should be a subcat of the VA one, and I think may not be needed. Most of those would be for printmaking, & it could be called that. Category:Architecture awards & Category:Design awards should perhaps be included as well (now I see there is one). Music is already a sub-cat of Performing arts, so you maybe have: Arts > literary, Performing arts, Architecture, Visual arts, design.

Or put Architecture under VA, though in general it isn't so categorised in WP. I think V Arts is better here (than V art). Hope that helps. Let me know what you're doing & I'll try to lend a hand. Johnbod 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now we've left out video (film/tv) ...
Question on graphic art awards (and graphic art generally) - what would you do with animation/anime and manga? --Lquilter 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave them in arts, as there is a literary component. The Angoulême International Comics Festival Prize for Artwork eg should also go in VA as being specifically for artwork. I know many of these could be described as "graphic" and are, but it isn't where people would expect to find them, I think. It's not a term we categorise on much - "graphic novel" is also avoided I think. Johnbod 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone all through the articles (not the sub-cats) of Category:Art awards moving some to Category:Arts awards and elsewhere. If they have separate entries/awards for music/literature etc & are in multiple cats, I've left that. If they can award to anyone in these fields & were only in "art", they went to "Arts". Johnbod 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help - there's a lot of stuff there! Johnbod 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Musicology cat CfD

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Also just thought I'd mention how cool it is not only to run into a librarian who is also an attorney on Wikipedia (bringing some sense to the copyright and fair-use muddle here) but also to find out she's also in Boston. Nice to make your acquaintance! Best, Myke (-- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

New comments on ethnic cats

Hey, I had to take a few days off from those CFDs (I maxed out... ), but I finally went back and added my closing comments re Category:African American baseball players (most of which I also reposted at the CFD for Category:Chinese American scientists). My guess is they'll both close "No Concensus", like Category:Jewish American scientists did a few days back -- but what do I know? (I've been wrong before... ) Cgingold 16:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To my horror, I discovered that the Susan Wood that fannish links to "Susan Wood" were going to was this Kiwi TV personality! I've banged together a rough sketch, but please add to it.--Orange Mike 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion

Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not a structured database DGG (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, DGG; I added some thoughts. --Lquilter (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars and academics

Please can you consider my reply at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#scholars_and_academics? Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Literature Project

It's been created! Click WP:LIT. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

I have nominated A Vindication of the Rights of Men to appear on the main page on November 29, the day it was initially released. Since I know that you are interested in feminist issues, I thought you might be interested in weighing in on the debate. It is here. Awadewit | talk 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PEN/Open Book cat

hi there. thanks for the suggestion. my reasoning behind not categorising PEN/Open Book as a free expression organisation is that, as far as I know, it is only a program. It's run by PEN American Center, which IS a free expression org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibetibet (talkcontribs) 05:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm a member of WP:ORPHAN, and in my routine duties I came across this article Advanced maternal age. The article, in my opinion, touches upon some important women's issues. This article needs work, but as yet it is not part of any WikiProject. I was contacting you, hoping that you'd be able to incorporate this article into the WP:GS, so people with the right knowledge can edit it. I will also attempt to find an appropriate Biological WikiProject to contact. Thankyou. Lex Kitten (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy Alliance categorization

Hi Lquilter. Thanks for question about Democracy Alliance category. What I'm trying to capture in one place by creating that category are the donors to/members of the Democracy Alliance, the organizations to which they collectively donate (to the extent that this information becomes available), and figures who are associated with the DA in some other way--political activists who float in and out, journalists and investigators who focus on the DA, etc.Buellering (talk) 14:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Buellering, I think that would be much better done in a list. Check out Categories, Lists, and Series Infoboxes for more detailed explanations about what the features of each way of presenting info. But let me tell you why I think this. The category just presents, basically, an alphabetically sorted list of items, but there's no indication in the category about what the relationship of each one is -- whether they're journalists & investigators who might be critical, or whether they're funders, or what. A list of associated figures would give much better context for each entity's relationship to DA, plus allow inclusion of entities that are not themselves notable enough for an encyclopedia article, plus allow you to include references for each one. Plus, you can sort them in ways other than alphabetical. So, for instance, you could have "list of funders" and sort them by dollar amount, or percent of DA's funding, or both. Does this make sense? --Lquilter (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]