User talk:Jaraalbe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Jaraalbe, Welcome to Wikipedia!
I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.
Additional tips:
Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
  • Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
  • You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language
  • Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.
Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello!

I think I had an edit conflict with you on the Worcester article. Please check that all your recent edits have taken effect. Arcturus 18:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer by Country

I actually dont think Category:Beer by country is necessary. I have spent a lot of time sorting out classification in beer articles. And if you make changes in classification you must change all the articles not just a few of them, and discuss it first on the main beer page or the beer project page Wikipedia:WikiProject_Beer. I know some categories have x by nationality and similar, but this doesnt really fit into the classification guidelines, and the category is not yet unmangeably large. Justinc 13:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC) Also, articles should not appear in both a category and a subcategory, so everything in beer by country should have been removed from category beer. Justinc 13:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kitchen Explosives Rename

Category:Kitchen Explosives could be renamed to something like Homemade Explosives. helohe 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor number

Thanks for the edits. Petwil 01:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal minerals category

Hi - just noticed your recent Category:Metal minerals and wondered about the rationale for it. Seems the vast majority of minerals have metals in their structure - or were you limiting your definition to base metals and precious metals or some such. Without further defining the cat is essentially redundant with Category:Minerals. I've not seen such a classification before - so am seeking clarification. Thanks, Vsmith 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] geodis

was created without consensus and is currently being phased out Tedernst | talk 23:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just put the page in the category manually. Tedernst | talk 20:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help

Someone keeps deleting niter.

[edit] Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CASREF print problems

Hi,

I notice you are adding CASREF templates to many articles. However there is a reason that WP:Chem does not use this template in the infobox- it causes print problems in Firefox and some other browsers. If you click on "Print this article" or do a print preview you'll see what I mean - the ref expands out so the box fills up much of the page. We have a strict policy of no external refs in the chembox. I recently reported this problem to the Drugs WikiProject, they were unaware of it previously.

If you can find a better way to do this, I'd like to hear. We've considered an inline ref to an endnote that would link to the NIST site, but that's a bit clunky. Any better ideas? Walkerma 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ChemInfoBox

I changed the Molar Mass section of your ChemInfoBox for Chemical ZnSe. You had listed 81.41 g/mol, but it is a known fact that the Molar Mass of any chemical is the sum of the Molar Masses of the constituent elements, so

Se Molar Atomic Mass = 78.963 g/mol Zn Molar Atomic Mass = 65.409 g/mol

The sum is :

                     144.452 g/mol

The NIST lists it at 144.35 g/mol,

so I went with the NIST listing instead.

I have seen that 81.41 listing on other websites, and I am just curious where you got your information from.

I can be reached at <A HREF=mailto:csdidier@mit.edu>csdidier@mit.edu</A>

Thankyou for the correction. I do not remember where it came from, but with hindsight it is obvious. Jaraalbe 11:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stibine

Hi Jaraalbe, I saw your comment that SbH3 has used as a fumigant. Seems surprising given its extreme instability and the greater avaiability and effectiveness of PH3 - do you have a source? --Smokefoot 13:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the SbH3 comment - I might have read it here: [1]. Perhaps a comment on fumigant effectiveness should be added to the article? Jaraalbe 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I am surprised but your source is better than my non-source so I will fix the report. --Smokefoot 03:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walcher of Lorraine

Hi there. I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Walcher of Lorraine, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Importance). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Walcher of Lorraine. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

My reason is that your stub on Walcher of Lorraine duplicates a recently revised the article on Walcher of Malvern. I think you'll agree in doing away with the duplication. --SteveMcCluskey 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree - do away with the Walcher duplication. Jaraalbe 20:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC). Perhaps change to a redirect? 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for adding supportive citations in Hasan Prishtina article. ilir_pz 16:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] III-V compounds

I know that the names of GaAs, InAs, InSb etc. are formally Gallium(III) arsenide etc. However they are almost always known unambiguously as Gallium arsenside, indium antimonide etc. Therefore, your correct renaming of the articles is not useful. Less useful still is misnaming to Gallium(II) arsenide. Sorry to have to complain at this - but can you please check your recent edits. Jaraalbe 07:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Chemboxes are useful! Thanks. Jaraalbe 07:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kudos, but it wasn't me who renamed the article, I've just been putting the template {{subst:chembox simple inorganic}} in a bunch of them. Maybe you confused my edits with those of another. mastodon 13:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Hey, could do with your help on this: Talk:HgCdTe. The must be a reason why this article name bucks the trend... mastodon 19:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thank you.

Please, what is the problem? Jaraalbe 21:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was vandilisam. Jmclark911 21:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Santosh Yadav

You may withdraw unreference tag from article Santosh Yadav after having a look at reference added.Holywarrior 14:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I note that the tag has been removed. Jaraalbe 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silicon dioxide

I wonder, what did you mean, when you added here [2] this:

'Silicon dioxide can be formed when silicon is exposed to oxygen (or air) at extremely high temperatures. This can occasionally happen naturally in fires, or in lightning strikes onto sand.'

I think that fires and lightnings are not a relevant example of reaction of silicon and oxygen (Talk: Silicon dioxide). --AB-fi 18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph (Khazar)

I have removed the category "10th century deaths" from this article. While it is most likely that Joseph died in the 10th century, the date of his death is unknown. It is not outside the realm of possiblity that he lived into the 11th century. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theta Beta Potata PUNK HOUSE Deletion Review

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuthbert Ottaway

Thanks for taking the trouble to edit Cuthbert Ottaway. But could you explain why you have deleted three links to descriptions of early FA Cup Finals on the grounds that they are "blacklisted"? Mikedash 09:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When I attempted to submits edits to Cuthbert Ottaway, Wikipedia said that links from a domain were blacklisted, and would not save the changes. When I removed the links, I could save the changes. I naively supposed that theere must be good reason for the "blacklisting". If you have more information about the blacklisting process and how useful it is, could you please inform me? Jaraalbe 06:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Well, going here [3] it seems that the page on hometown.aol devoted to the 2006 World Cup is infested with spam, or spyware, so the whole domain has been blocked to prevent it spreading via Wikipedia. Or something. Nothig to do with the pages I'd linked to, but it looks like we'll have to do without them, which is a pain but certainly not your fault. Mikedash 07:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refining Killed in action

Please revisit Gerald Archibald Arbuthnot. I have added detail. - Kittybrewster 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. re-visited Jaraalbe 21
45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A remarkably modern-sounding name for something being applied to articles on people who've been dead for centuries. You really think it's appropriate for Harold Godwinson ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, It is appropriate as a temporary holding category, until a more appropriate sub-category is available (Category
Killed in battle / Monarchs killed in battle Anglo-Saxons killed in action ?) What would you find appropriate? Jaraalbe 19:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that rephrasing it is the answer. At many periods it would be of more use to record people who died in their beds, as it was considerably more unusual than dying by in war or by other sorts of violence. I can see that this is a useful category for modern wars, but I don't think it adds anything for the early modern period or before. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ono Harunaga and other samurai warriors are not soldiers/officers of the Military of Japan and thus are not "military personnel". Please stop re-categorizing them as such. LordAmeth 11:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I accept your point and won't classify as Military of Japan. What would be a better desciption for these historical Japanese soldiers? Jaraalbe 13:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Well, I'd suggest a "Category:Samurai killed in action" (or 'killed in battle'), which could go as a subcategory of "Pre-modern warriors killed in battle" or something like that. I'm not positive on what wording would be best to be most inclusive for warriors of other periods or places - European knights, etc. - but I'm sure something can be worked out. Thanks for your help. (If you'd like, we can certainly ask for help from the wider community at WP:MILHIST. I leave it in your capable hands.) LordAmeth 14:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frederick Franklin

Hi: Jaraalbe, I was wondering where you found out that Franklin was KIA? If there is a source I didn't notice. It'd make my "wikitask" of improving unknown MOH winners... He clearly survived the intital action for which he was awarded the medal... so I'd appreciate your input... Cheers V. Joe 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

In categorising many killed in action, probably I have made a small number of mistakes. The year of death (1873) was close to the year of the MOH action (1871). Apologies Jaraalbe 16:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freddy Spencer Chapman

Please look at the page you edited. I recently discovered it and have submitted a parallel biography by mistake. Please contact me to figure out how to merge these profiles. --Bofors40mm 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories: Main & Sub

Hello,

This message is in regards to the Article on Penleigh Boyd. I had added the Categories, Accidental deaths (which is the Main one) and the Category, Road Accident Victims (which is a sub of that). I realize that, at present, this is a controversial move at this point. However, this issue has been a source of consternation with me for some time in Wikipedia.

As it is set up now, The Article on Penleigh Boyd would not be included in the category list of accidental deaths. The encyclopedia does not have the capability of collating all the various subcategories into one master list. In another instance, Cancer deaths, if I wanted to list all of the persons in the encyclopedia who died from Cancer, I would have to call up each separate cancer type individually.

In another example, you are a researcher planning a major study of suicide; you are a clinician confronted with a patient with multiple suicide attempts; you are a student trying to learn the various aspects of the whole issue of suicide; or, you are just ghoulish – who cares. Where do you start? After you’ve read everything anyone’s ever theorized about the subject, you go to the real wealth of information: Case histories. You go to Wikipedia, and you find “Suicide”. In this main article you click on “Persons who have committed suicide: and, bam! You have a wealth of case histories to peruse. Now, if you want to focus on persons who have committed suicide by a specific method, say, by firearm, or by hanging, you click on Suicides by firearm, and again, Bam! You have it! But for both of these examples to work, the Category, Suicides must be entered in ALL of the articles, as well as the sub-category specifying the method.

Now, in another example, if you were doing a study of the impact of firearms on a society, you would first want all persons who died by firearm (of course, there may be some who would not want this complete list to be readily available, but that’s another issue for another time) you would follow the same process as with suicides.

What’s so complicated?

This “radical” notion of including both the Main & Sub-categories in the same Article has met with some resistance. What do you think?

Regards,

Michael David 18:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I will have to spend some time thinking about this one. However, categories are generally easier to navigate if small. I would prefer that your function of listing all "Cancer deaths" say were available by a generic function operating on the database as "List category and sub-categories entries to level {1,2,3...}". What do you think about that? Meanwhile I will think some more about it (other jobs allowing!). Jaraalbe 19:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I need to say at the outset that you are dealing with a somewhat computer challenged person here, so please be kind :-). If by "List category and sub-categories entries to level {1,2,3...}" do you mean a command that would present sublists? My only concern, being the lazy researcher that I am, is that the computer do as much of the grind work for me as it can. I would like to know more about your above alternative.
Regards,
Michael David 21:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caffaro

Was there any particular reason why you put an {{unsourced}} tag on Caffaro di Rustico da Caschifellone? It doesn't contain anything that wouldn't qualify as common knowledge, I don't think. I've been meaning to expand it for some time and will of course list sources when I do, but everything there now is contained in other encylcopedias and so on. Was there a particular statement that troubled you--perhaps that his Latin was lousy (it was. . .)? Chick Bowen 06:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you - I personally believe that most people enter factual information in good faith - and no particular statement offended me. All articles in wikipedia are supposed to have sources. What might be common knowledge to you is not common knowledge to everyone. Unless a source is given people can not check the veracity of an article for themselves/ The unsourced tag also alerts all wikipedia editors monitoring the unsourced article categories: one editor might be prompted to find a source. Jaraalbe 07:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't offended, just curious--if there was something you objected to, I would have found a source or taken it out. I do think the statement "All articles in wikipedia are supposed to have sources" is a bit overly broad, though, and our policies say nothing of the sort, but rather (in a guideline) "Attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." Most stubs like this one don't have sources. Look, I'm all for encouraging citation, but I don't think sources should be demanded willy-nilly; if there's a reason, seems to me, put the tag; if not, why bother? Nobody other than me is likely to source this article, after all, it being a rather obscure topic. Chick Bowen 08:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I would not have put the unsourced tag if there had been a relevant stub category assigned. However, I re-assert my opinion that verifiablity is crucial to the authority of a wikipedia article and to wikipedia as a whole. It is almost a truism that guide-lines tend to become mandatory with time (this is an independent observation to my main point!). Jaraalbe 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Regarding the article New Ash Green - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name?

Eliko 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

None whatsoever, sorry. Jaraalbe 12:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Battle of Tapae - factual questions

Please take a look at the discussion page for First Battle of Tapae, which you have worked on in the past - I am proposing that some of the content is incorrect and should be moved from the page. Please have a look at my comments and provide any cites you are aware of. Many Thanks - PocklingtonDan 12:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no source other than the wiki article. I suggest waiting to see if there are other responses. Jaraalbe 12:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

--TomasBat (Talk) 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject France

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm very innocent concerning wikipedia projects and wikipedia internal politics. I think that I would prefer to converse on individual topics, but thanks very much for the invite. Jaraalbe 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis de Bruges

I'm dubious it is right to classify him as "Tudor people". All his friends were Yorkists & he seems not to have set foot in England after 1485. The Wars of the Roses category would be more appropriate I think. Johnbod 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Please re-classify in Category:People of the Wars of the Roses, if you think there is no connection with post 1485 England. Jaraalbe 19:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] People of Elizabethan Ireland

Hi Jaraalbe. Just noticed you've added some articles to this category, so thanks for that. Guessing that it's out of a commitment to making WP cohere, rather than an interest in the subject, I wonder could you give me a link that explains categorisation on WP and its significance? Maybe there's a WP essay on it?--Shtove 22:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've picked up the 'art' of categorisation as I've gone along. I don't know any articles but my principles include the following: be logical, maintain consistency, and be flexible; split categories that are growing much beyond the 200 included on a page if a sensible division can be found; try to cross list sub-categories under at least two separate hierachies. I personally find categories very useful for navigating subjects. Glad to talk. Jaraalbe 22:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Time you wrote an essay then!--Shtove 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Hello,

I am writing in response to your removing the Main Category "Accidental Deaths" from the Timothy Sullivan Article. I, truly, do not want to engage in an argument about this; I am merely trying to learn something here.

The whole issue of Category use has, and is now, the subject of a rather intense debate going on in the Wikipedia Community. If you subscribe to the WikiEN-L Mailing List you probably already know that.

My question is this: where did you learn that it is inappropriate to include both the Main and Sub Categories in an Article? When I began editing WP over a year ago, this was not the case: both were included. It made it much simpler for researchers like me.

Respectfully,

Michael David 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Heinrich Burger

Hi, Thanks for taking the trouble of checking my Heinrich Burger page and correcting the categories. I appreciate it! P.M. Kernkamp 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam in Zemax

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Zemax, by 209.203.88.66 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Zemax is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Zemax, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you..

... for adding categories to the article, William Penn Patrick. Curious how you noticed the article though? Smee 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Classification of Railway Articles

Your efforts are appreciated, but please could you mark these edits as minor. I watch a lot of pages, and all your recent changes are swamping my watchlsit, when I know that it is a small change. Canterberry 10:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will do as you ask and mark most such changes as minor. However, I think that classification into categories is an important part of an article. Jaraalbe 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
And I totally agree. But all you are doing is renaming an existing category, rather than the article itself. In my mind, thats a minor edit. Canterberry 07:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On this subject, I notice that you've added a new category, Rail Transport in the West Midlands. By consensus, as there are so many articles in the area, all rail-related articles have been placed within "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" categories as subcats of "Transport in West Midlands". Now, I realise that you've simply added the new category, but as all the "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" articles are subsets of "Transport in West Midlands" - if you want to keep "Rail Transport in" cats, shouldn't we add "Rail Transport in (metropolitan borough)" as subcats of "Rail Transport in West Midlands" and "Transport in (metropolitan borough)" so as to remove excessive categorisation, whilst keeping all the rail articles together and keeping the geographical articles together?

It would mean that, say, Walsall to Wolverhampton Line would just be in "Rail Transport in Wolverhampton" and "Rail Transport in Walsall" rather than the situation since your changes of "Transport in Wolverhampton", "Transport in Walsall" and "Rail Transport in West Midlands". Hope that makes sense. Fingerpuppet 10:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with creating "Rail Transport in Walsall" categories, unless it is felt generally, that this is, itself, excessive categorisation. Jaraalbe 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somerset Categories

You seem to be doing some reclassification of article categories related to Somerset. Can I ask if you are going to look at all the sub cats? If you need any help or clarification or to discuss any of these members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset may be able to help.— Rod talk 19:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lasham Airfield

I removed the category for Transport in Hampshire that you added to Lasham Airfield. The airfield is not used for transport of any type. It is a privately owned recreational and industrial facility. JMcC (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting is the correct action if the airfield is not used for any point A to B flights. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Award

The Invisible Barnstar
For your continued work behind the scenes of Wikipedia on various issues without notice, I award you the Invisible Barnstar as a matter of thanks. Chris 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, Chris. Jaraalbe 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houses in ...

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're doing, but when adding a category to London, it would be helpful if you could maintain the list of standard London Categories and consider the effect of adding a further category to one borough, while not changing the 32 others (including CoL). (The purpose of that list is to achieve some level of standardisation, it is not necessarily complete).

I will try to remember to do this. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It might also be worthwhile dropping a line to WP:LONDON, also. Cheers. Kbthompson (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How might I do this (excuse innocence/ignorance)? Jaraalbe (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I included the link (above), there is a discussion page associated with that project page. I apologise for my lack of clarity. Kbthompson (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horse races established in 1952

Shouldn't Category:Horse races established in 1952 be a subcategory of Category:Recurring events established in 1952? Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

In a ideal world, yes it should. It should also be a sub-category of Category:Sporting events established in xxxx, but that hierarchy does not yet exist. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microdem maps

Hi, I just saw the topographic relief maps you have made from SRTM data using Microdem and uploaded to (the?) Commons in 2006. I think they are beautiful and wondered how much of your time and effort went into making a map like Image:Guernsey_small.PNG. If there is an online manual you have followed or written, perhaps you could point to it via your (as yet empty) user page on Commons so other editors can use your method to produce other similar maps of other places. Thank you for your contributions. Wikipeditor (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

These maps are not too difficult to make. Download Microdem (look up Peter Guth microdem on Google), install, and read microdem's help. Microdem can download the SRTM data automatically. I am not really satisfied with the altitude colour choices for near sea level regions, but yes the images can be beautiful. Microdem is not the only tool for this, but is almost "plug and play" with few rough edges. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I didn't expect the program to get its data automatically. Sounds not as difficult as I thought. Thanks again. Wikipeditor (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1921

Hi Jaarlbe, I saw your note about having mistakenly created Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies established in 1921, so I have deleted it and created Category:Northern Ireland Parliament constituencies established in 1921, and recategorised the articles which were in your original category. Hope that's OK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated. Jaraalbe (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saatchi Gallery

It's not a museum.[4] It's a gallery showcasing a (changing) private collection. Tyrenius (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Point, noted and accepted. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category templates

Hey, thanks for being so diligent with the museum & other "established in" category templates. I set them up but got tired after dozens ... when I went back to finish them off, you'd done it already! --Lquilter (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; more hands make lighter work. Jaraalbe (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~
Thanks, I might visit your Wikiproject if I come across another related article I intend to edit. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military organizations

The intent of Category:Military organizations was to cover groups that weren't actually within the military (excluding, in particular, actual units and formations). Categorizing those would be helpful, I suppose; but they should really go into distinct categories, to keep them separate from non-military bodies. I'd suggest the following:

  • Category:Military units and formations by year of formation
    • Category:Military units and formations formed in 1953

Kirill 19:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternately, the standard
to avoid the awkward "formations formed" bit. :-) Kirill 19:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, sounds reasonable. Most of the articles that I have categorised are military units and formations. What do you think is the best process for a transfer? Can we avoid a complete manual renaming? Jaraalbe (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As you're the only editor to have worked on the sub-categories, you could probably get away with asking for a speedy renaming; that would eliminate the need to rename things by hand. I'm not sure if that'll work, so we'll keep the manual renaming as a backup plan; so long as additional categories are created with the new names, moving the current set by hand should still be feasible (if not particularly interesting). Kirill 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that might make the distinction between organization of the military and Category:Military-related organizations more clear. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would work. (Or perhaps Category:Organizations associated with the military? I'm not sure what the normal naming of such categories is.) Kirill 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Now listed for cfr. Jaraalbe (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Defunct magazines of the United Kingdom

That's a worthy effort. I added The Face. No article for Rave :( Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Also Smash Hits, and Record Mirror. I see that Melody Maker is in the Category:Defunct newspapers of the United Kingdom - possibly some of the the other music weeklies should be moved there? Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, for the comments. I hope to diffuse some more of the articles in Category:Defunct magazines of the United Kingdom. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some of your recent edits in Category:Defunct magazines and sub-categories

You recently removed Fantasy Fiction (magazine) and another magazine from "Category:Science fiction magazines" on the premise that they are already covered by the more specific "Categories: Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States". While that may seem like a good idea there aren’t sub-categories for all the different types of Science fiction magazines. Since "Category:Science fiction magazines" covers all of the types of SF magazines all of them (including the ones in "Categories: Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States") are already listed there.

Now of course if you are planning on creating the following subcategories, listing them under "Category:Science fiction magazines" and then putting all of the science fiction magazines in one of these subcategories that would be great.

  • Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States
  • Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United States
  • Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom
  • Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom
  • Category:Defunct science fiction magazines from other countries
  • Category:Current science fiction magazines from other countries

Pmcalduff (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I fail to understand your criticism. "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States", which in turn in a member of "Category:American magazines". "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is also a member of "Category:Science fiction magazines". "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines of the United States" which is a member of "Category:Defunct magazines by country", a member of "Category:Defunct magazines". Therefore "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" covers all the categories that I deleted from Fantasy Fiction (magazine). I will consider your suggestion to make "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom", as there are a number of such magazines. It think it best to leave those published in multiple countries in "Category:Science fiction magazines", and not to create "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines from other countries", but wait until several appear from a particular country and create a specific country category. Jaraalbe (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess my real problem was that you moved two defunct American magazines out of the "Category:Science fiction magazines" and into "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United States" but left 39 other defunct American magazines in the "Category:Science fiction magazines" which resulted in having some of them in one category and some of them in another which will cause a lot of confusion for anyone trying to find them. Pmcalduff (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is temporary, if you have no further objection, I will edit the others this weekend. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The remainder of articles covered by the template DefunctAmericanSFMagazines have been edited. I'll continue checking the parent catgeories. Jaraalbe (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Sounds good. What are your thoughts on creating categories for current magazines?

  • Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United States
  • Category:Current science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom

By the way, if you want we could divide up the work.Pmcalduff (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom". When I finished that I created the following templates to go with the DefunctAmericanSFMagazines template:
That's great. However, we must watch against the charge of overclassification. We also can not create country specific categories unless the statistical distribution of articles guides us in that direction. Jaraalbe (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I agree. After I made the "Category:Defunct science fiction magazines of the United Kingdom" I noticed that only had four magazines in it which is why when I created the template for British magazines I combined the Defunct and Current magazines into one template.
By the way, I noticed on your profile that you're from the UK. What’s better "British magazines" or "United Kingdom magazines"? ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland magazines" is way to long to consider) Pmcalduff (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
"British magazines" is probably the best format, next best being "Magazines of the United Kingdom". The defunct categories have settled on the "...of the country" format.
v • d • e
British science fiction magazines
Defunct magazines:
Current magazines:
v • d • e
Current American science fiction magazines

[edit] Royal New Zealand Navy World War II minesweepers

Hi Jaraalbe. You recently created the above category. However the name does not conform to Wikipedia country-specific naming conventions. The country should come last. A better and shorter name would be World War II minesweepers of New Zealand. You can see from these subcategories that this better conforms with existing practice. However I don't know how to rename categories! --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that information about item of country categories, I was not aware of that. I will consider requesting a re-name, as this probably does fall into that class. I don't know how to re-name categories, but I know how to start process for re-name requests (see Category:Categories for discussion, Category:Categories for renaming). Jaraalbe (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain

Any chance you might turn your hand to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain and its subcats. I've been having a bit of a discussion with User:Benkenobi18 over some aspects of it, but I think the categories could do with a root and branch reform, and I don't really have much experience in that area. functionally the Church is divided into two, England and Wales are grouped together as one hierarchy, and Scotland as a separate one, so I htink this should be reflected in the structure. Within these, Dioceses are the main organisational blocks. David Underdown (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly in a few weeks time, if no-one has tidied it then. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Green Lane Masjid

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Green Lane Masjid, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Green Lane Masjid. EmmetCaulfield (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ayrshire Yeomanry

Hi, I am actually a serving officer in this unit and had previously created a page named with the full regimental title. I will be expanding the page even further over the next while as part of a regimental project for the whole QOY. My problem is that because your page does not include the (Earl of Carrick's Own) piece in the middle of its title it is more sucessful in searches. Would you consider redirecting your page to mine? Ayrshire_(Earl_of_Carrick's_Own)_Yeomanry Jwkyle (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not my page! I only edited it. Please ensure all relevant and correct information from it is on your page and this one can become a redirect. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy First Day of Spring!

Happy First Day of Spring!

[edit] Biblical art.

Please put these in the correct sub-categories, like Category:Paintings of the Virgin Mary and Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus - both of these have statues subcats. Are you going to delete Cat Biblical art when done? There seems little point to it now. Johnbod (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it would be more useful to set up a Category:Paintings depicting Jesus sub-cat to match the Mary one, which could then be a sub-category of both. Most of the biblical art ones are not in the current Category:Artistic portrayals of Jesus, where they should be. A Virgin and Chld only need go in the Mary category I feel - I am adding a note to the Jesus category to say this. A Pieta should go in both. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that Biblical art includes more forms of art than paintings. Biblical themes are also not just limited to Mary and Jesus. For example, all art depicting Old testament themes. There is, therefore, a requirement for a parent category. Christian art includes that which is not biblical, such as depictions of 2nd century and later saints; so there is a distinction between biblical art and Christian art. I agree that for completeness there should be a Category:Paintings depicting Jesus category (and possibly even a sub-cat on cruxifications). If you have a stronger argument, I would consider deletion. Thank you for the comment, sometimes it is good just to have some notice. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree in theory, but there is now nothing left in the cat now except the Bosch garden, which could/should as well be in a Xtian cat, as it certainly depicts no specific scene in OT or NT, & the museum. I'm happy to leave it to see what develops. There are certainly many paintings that could go in. One day we will have a cat for Nativities/Adoration of the Magi also. A Passion of Christ cat might be better than just a Crucifixion one, as the depositions etc could go in too. I too prefer that works of art are at least initially classified by subjerct in all media, not just paintings. Really it should be Category:Works of art by subject etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I will work on classifying paintings and other works of art. Your comments will be most welcome. As to Passion/Cruxification, let us leave that for now. Jaraalbe (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice going! Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you really mean to add Handel's Zadok the Priest to a category on Biblical art? The work is definitely biblical, and personally, I find it artistic; however I suspect you'll open the flood gates if you allow musical works in this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HWV258 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's treat it as a test case for discussion. Would you like to expand your opinions on the Talk page for Category:Oratorios? Jaraalbe (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Not particularly (Handel's Zadok the Priest being an anthem). My opinion is that musical works should have their own category page (and sub pages) if they are to be grouped on a biblical basis (but I'll leave it to wiser Wikipedians to decide).  HWV 258  22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Museums Categories

Hi, You seem to be a real expert at sorting out categories. At the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums we tried to identify relevant categories for a bot bot to tag appropriate articles within the scope of this project & ran into all sort of difficulties (see the talk page topics: Special Interest Areas, Categories and To-do sections, Huge Category List, Wikipedia:WikiProject Museums/Categories, Mis-tagged categories, etc - with several; lists referenced from the discussions. Basicically many articles & sub categories were included under sub sections of Category:Museums which shouldn't have been - if you had suggestions about the best way to sort all of these out I'm sure they would be appreciated on the project talk page.— Rod talk 14:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

if I am expert, it is at manual category sorting. There are probably sufficient talented people already at work on this high profile problem. Thanks for the invite, though. Jaraalbe (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How's it going?

What's up? How are the cats and whatnot? -(BrutusCirrus (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Rabbi cats

Hi, just to let you know there are other cats of Rabbi by period here Category:Rabbis_by_period. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, of which I was aware. Categories by century are a tighter time definition; they also fit well with other categorizations of people by century. In the case of rabbis, I do not believe that all rabbis would be given the status of Geonim, Rishonim etc., so century categories have a wider definition. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bombing of Essen in World War II

Why you added Category:1942 in Germany and Category:1943 in Germany in this article? This event is not specific to any particular year. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, not limited to 1942 and 1943, two of the most serious raids are documentated in the article as occurring in 1942 and 1943. If any evidence appears in the article as to dates of significant raids in other years then categories for those years can also be added. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zemax

Hi. You previously edited the article Zemax, which was subsequently deleted. The article has now been restored through a deletion review and I have merged the various past versions of the article and expanded it. You might want to take a look and see if you have anything to add.--Srleffler (talk) 03:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it is good to see Zemax back. It has as much right to inclusion as Oslo V etc.. I will look at it later. Jaraalbe (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cetinje Monastery

Does it really belong to the 17th century category? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was probably too quick in reclassifying. Reading the article more carefully, I see a 1485 establishment and a re-establishment in the 1700s. If you agree, one of us can chnage it. Jaraalbe (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)