text: Category:Pianists

title: Category:Pianists


text:
Nemeth Braille

The Nemeth Braille Code for Mathematics and Science Notation is a Braille code for encoding mathematical and scientific notation linearly using standard six-dot Braille cells for tactile reading by the visually impaired. The code was developed by Abraham Nemeth. The Nemeth Code was first written up in 1952. It was revised in 1956, 1965, and 1972. It is an example of a compact human-readable markup language.

Nemeth Braille is just one code used to write mathematics in braille. There are many systems in use around the world.

Principles of the Nemeth Code
The Nemeth Code Book (1972) opens with the following words:

"This Braille Code for Mathematics and Science Notation has been prepared to provide a system of symbols which will allow technical literature to be presented and read in braille. The Code is intended to convey as accurate an impression as is possible to the braille reader of the corresponding printed text, and this is one of its principal features. When the braille reader has a clear conception of the corresponding printed text, the area of communication between himself and his teacher, his colleagues, his associates, and the world at large is greatly broadened. A test of the accuracy with which the Code conveys information from the print to the braille text is to effect a transcription in the reverse direction. The amount of agreement between the original printed text and one transcribed from the braille is a measure of the Code's accuracy."

One consequence is that the braille transcriber does not need to know the underlying mathematics. The braille transcriber needs to identify the inkprint symbols and know how to render them in Nemeth Code braille. For example, if the same math symbol might have two different meanings, this would not matter; both instances would be brailled the same. This is in contrast to the International Braille Music Code, where the braille depends on the meaning of the inkprint music. Thus a knowledge of music is required to produce braille music.

Greek letters and Latin letters
Greek and Latin letters are based on the assignments of International Greek Braille.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Nemeth Braille


text: Category:Television presenters

title: Category:Television presenters


text:
User:Xgkkp

Pictures I have Added

 * Image:Reverend_Robert_Stirling.gif
 * Image:1-D Box.jpg
 * Image:Brighton Pavilion.jpg | Image:Brighton Royal Pavilion.jpg
 * File:Brighton West Pier 20040624.jpg

Notes to self
Pulse jet engine Cognitive Therapy

title: User:Xgkkp


text: Category:Scientific societies

title: Category:Scientific societies


text:
Done in the Open

Done in the Open was a verse collection published by in 1902 American author Owen Wister. The book was a collaboration with the artist Frederic Remington, the verses being written to accompany Remington's drawings.

title: Done in the Open


text: Category:Society of the United Kingdom

title: Category:Society of the United Kingdom


text:
Edward Tuckerman

Edward Tuckerman (December 7, 1817 in Boston, Massachusetts – March 15, 1886) was an American botanist and professor who made significant contributions to the study of lichens and other alpine plants. He was a founding member of the Natural History Society of Boston and most of his career was spent at Amherst College. He did the majority of his collecting on the slopes of Mount Washington in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Tuckerman Ravine was named in his honor. The standard botanical author abbreviation Tuck. is applied to species he described.

Early life and education
Tuckerman was the eldest son of a Boston merchant, also Edward Tuckerman, and Sophia (May) Tuckerman. He studied at Boston Latin School and then at his father's urging at Union College in Schenectady, which he entered as a sophomore and where he completed a BA in 1837 and to which he returned for his MA after taking a law degree at Harvard in 1839, traveling in Germany and Scandinavia, and making the first of his botanical studies in the White Mountains. In 1846, he returned to Harvard as a senior (telling the President he intended to correct his father's error in breaking the family tradition), completed a second BA in 1847, then two or three years later entered the Divinity School and graduated from there in 1852. His brother was Frederick Goddard Tuckerman (1821–1873), the American poet and his first cousin was Henry Theodore Tuckerman (1813–1871), an American writer, essayist and critic. His sister was the writer and spiritualist medium Sophia May Eckley (1822-174).

Career
When Meriwether Lewis and William Clark went on their 1804-1806 expedition across the western United States, they collected many plant, seed, and flower species that had never been seen before. Lewis wrote notes about these species and they were put on scrap book paper. After Lewis supposedly committed suicide in 1809, dozens of his scrapbook pages were stolen by a botanist who was supposed to draw and classify the plants collected on the expedition. He took the papers to England to sell for money at an auction in 1842. Tuckerman noticed the auction and the significance of these papers. He bought them and then donated them to the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia.

After teaching at Union College, Tuckerman was a professor at Amherst College from 1854 until his death, successively Lecturer in History, Professor of Oriental History, and from 1858 Professor of Botany. Amherst awarded him an LLD.

He was elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1855.

His first paper, on New England lichens, was given in 1838 or 1839. In 1843, he published privately the first serious systematic analysis of the genus Carex, Enumeratio Methodica Caricum Quarundam. Tuckerman liked to write his botanical studies in Latin. He also made the first systematic study of native Potamogeton, and after becoming Professor of Botany at Amherst, began preparing A Catalogue of Plants Growing without cultivation within 30 miles of Amherst College (published in 1875). However, his main focus was lichens. He published a number of important studies in the field, drawing on both his own collecting and specimens sent to him from elsewhere, in particular by Charles Wright from Cuba. His career culminated in the publication of Genera Lichenum: An Arrangement of the North American Lichens (1872) and Synopsis of the North American Lichens, Part 1 (1882). Between 1847 and 1863 Tuckerman edited three exsiccata-like series, one of them being Lichenes Americae septentrionalis exsiccati, curante Edvardo Tuckerman. His last botanical publication was in 1884, and he may have published anonymous theological articles after that. Tuckerman did not accept that lichens are a combination of fungi and algae, a theory advanced late in his life.

Honours
He was honoured in the naming of several plant taxa including; Tuckermania (family Ericaceae) now a synonym of Corema. and Tuckermannia (Asteraceae family) now a synonym of Coreopsis.

In 1933 Hungarian lichenologist Vilmos Kőfaragó-Gyelnik circumscribed the lichen genus of Tuckermannopsis. Tuckneraria is a genus of lichen-forming fungi, which was published by Randlane & A.Thell in 1994. Lastly, Esslinger in 2003 published Tuckermanella, a genus of lichen-forming fungi in the family Parmeliaceae.

Personal life
Tuckerman was married to Sarah, daughter of Thomas Parkman Cushing, who was his father's business partner. They had no children. Tuckerman died on March 15, 1886.

title: Edward Tuckerman


text: Category:Learned societies

title: Category:Learned societies


text:
Wikipedia:News sources/Collections

Headline links meta catalogs
External links to catalogs of collections of headline links:
 * Open Directory Project: Headline Links - a list of websites that provide headline links

News collections
External links to
 * All Headline News AHN Global News Organization.
 * Google news The latest world news as it happens.
 * Tucows NewsHub
 * Common Dreams News Center
 * HavenWorks News Search Engines
 * HavenWorks News Sources
 * Schema-Root.org 13,000 topics, with current headlines from news sources worldwide. Heavily cross-referenced.

Broadcast

 * Al Jazeera (QA)
 * Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) (AU)
 * British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) (UK)
 * Channel NewsAsia (CNA) (SG)
 * CNN IBN (IN)
 * Democracy Now! (US)
 * Flashpoints (US)
 * FOX News Channel (FOX) (US)
 * NDTV (IN)
 * Radio Netherlands (NL) [English Edition]
 * Radio Telefís Éireann (RTÉ) (IE)
 * Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) (HK) [English Edition]
 * Sky News (UK)
 * Tagesschau (DE) [English Edition]

Print based sources

 * Aftenposten (NO)
 * The Age (AU)
 * Bangkok Post (TH)
 * The Business Times (SG)
 * China Daily (CN)
 * Daily Telegraph (UK) (free registration required)
 * Dawn (PK)
 * The Deccan Herald (IN)
 * Der Spiegel (DE)
 * The Economist (UK)
 * The Financial Times (UK)
 * Gazeta Wyborcza (PL)
 * Granma International (CU) [English Edition]
 * The Globe and Mail (CA)
 * The Guardian (UK) (free registration required for media section)
 * Haaretz (IL)
 * The Hindu (IN)
 * The Hindustan Times (IN)
 * Hong Kong Economic Journal (HK)
 * The Independent (UK)
 * The Indian Express (IN)
 * The International Herald Tribune (US in Paris)
 * The Nation (TH)
 * The National Post (CA)
 * Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ) (CH) [English Edition]
 * The New Indian Express (IN)
 * The New Paper (SG)
 * New Straits Times (MY)
 * The New York Post (US)
 * The New York Times (US) (free registration required)
 * The News (PK)
 * Philippine Daily Inquirer (PH)
 * Pravda (RU)
 * The San Francisco Chronicle (US)
 * South China Morning Post (HK)
 * The Star (MY)
 * The Statesman (IN)
 * The Straits Times (SG)
 * The Sun (UK)
 * The Sydney Morning Herald (AU)
 * The Telegraph (IN)
 * The Times (UK)
 * The Times of India (IN)
 * The Toronto Star (CA)
 * The Washington Post (US) (free registration required)
 * The Washington Times (US)

Wire

 * Agence France-Presse (AFP) (France)
 * Google News update india(Googlenews) (US)
 * Associated Press (US)
 * Inter Press Service (IPS)
 * MercoPress (Latin America)
 * Reuters (UK)
 * Xinhua News Agency (CN)

Internet-only

 * All Headline News AHN Global Nes Org.
 * The NewStandard (US) —-> archival only, stopped adding new content in 2007
 * Newswire Today (US-UK) [English Edition] World Headline News
 * Daily News Central: Health News Online Health News
 * Opalesque - Finance Online Finance News and Analysis
 * Yahoo! News, world news and general information
 * Google News
 * Telepolis (DE) [English Edition] Magazine of Internet culture.
 * AOL News
 * ABC NEWS NETWORK (an online news and contents agency)
 * An Indian community news portal
 * India News
 * South CN (CN)
 * The Sofia Echo (BG)
 * Chinastakes.com (CN, China Financial Review)
 * The China Perspective CN (CN)
 * REPORTLINE News
 * Kitco News (US-CA) Metals and Mining Headlines
 * Caucasus News Online News
 * Armenia News Online News
 * Karabakh News Online News
 * Azerbaijan News Online News
 * Georgia News Online News
 * Iran News Online News
 * Russia News Online News
 * Turkey News Online News

title: Wikipedia:News sources/Collections


text:
Category:Academic institutions

This category and its children are for articles about particular academic institutions. For articles about types of academic institutions, see Category:School types.

title: Category:Academic institutions


text:
Roothaan equations

The Roothaan equations are a representation of the Hartree–Fock equation in a non orthonormal basis set which can be of Gaussian-type or Slater-type. It applies to closed-shell molecules or atoms where all molecular orbitals or atomic orbitals, respectively, are doubly occupied. This is generally called Restricted Hartree–Fock theory.

The method was developed independently by Clemens C. J. Roothaan and George G. Hall in 1951, and is thus sometimes called the Roothaan-Hall equations. The Roothaan equations can be written in a form resembling generalized eigenvalue problem, although they are not a standard eigenvalue problem because they are nonlinear:

 * $$\mathbf{F} \mathbf{C} = \mathbf{S} \mathbf{C} \mathbf{\epsilon}$$

where F is the Fock matrix (which depends on the coefficients C due to electron-electron interactions), C is a matrix of coefficients, S is the overlap matrix of the basis functions, and $$\epsilon$$ is the (diagonal, by convention) matrix of orbital energies. In the case of an orthonormalised basis set the overlap matrix, S, reduces to the identity matrix. These equations are essentially a special case of a Galerkin method applied to the Hartree–Fock equation using a particular basis set.

In contrast to the Hartree–Fock equations - which are integro-differential equations - the Roothaan–Hall equations have a matrix-form. Therefore, they can be solved using standard techniques.

title: Roothaan equations


text:
Category:British television comedy

This category features articles about British television comedy. Articles should be featured in one or more subcategories, where possible, rather than this parent cat.

title: Category:British television comedy


text: Category:Comedy

title: Category:Comedy


text:
Woody Shaw

Woody Herman Shaw Jr. (December 24, 1944 – May 10, 1989) was an American jazz trumpeter, flugelhornist, cornetist, composer, arranger, band leader, and educator. Shaw is widely known as one of the 20th century's most important and influential jazz trumpeters and composers. He is often credited with revolutionizing the technical and harmonic language of modern jazz trumpet playing, and is regarded by many as one of the major innovators of the instrument. He was an acclaimed virtuoso, mentor, and spokesperson for jazz and worked and recorded alongside many of the leading musicians of his time.

Early life and background
Woody Shaw was born in Laurinburg, North Carolina. When Shaw was a year old, his parents, Rosalie Pegues and Woody Shaw Sr., took their son to Newark, New Jersey,. Shaw's father was a member of the African American gospel group, the "Diamond Jubilee Singers." Both parents attended the same secondary private school as Dizzy Gillespie: Laurinburg Institute. Shaw's mother and Gillespie were both from the same town, Cheraw, South Carolina.

Shaw began playing the bugle when he was 9 and performed in the Newark Junior Elks, Junior Mason, and Washington Carver Drum and Bugle Corps. Though not his first choice of instrument, he began studying classical trumpet with Jerome Ziering at Cleveland Junior High School at the age of 11.

In a 1978 interview, Shaw explained:

The trumpet was not my first choice for an instrument. In fact, I ended up playing it by default. When we were asked what we wanted to play in the Eighteenth Avenue School Band, I chose the violin, but I was too late since all the violins were taken. My second choice was the saxophone or the trombone but they were also all spoken for. The only instrument that was left was the trumpet, and I felt why did I have to get stuck with this "tinny" sounding thing.

When I complained to my music teacher that I didn't think it was fair that all the other kids got to play the instruments they wanted, he told me to just be patient. He said he had a good feeling about me and the trumpet, and he assured me I'd grow to love it. Of course my teacher was right, and it didn't take long for me to fall in love with the trumpet. In retrospect, I believe there was some mystical force that brought us together.

Ziering encouraged him to continue his study of classical trumpet playing and pursue an education at the Juilliard School of music with trumpet instructor William Vacchiano, but Shaw had a deep interest in jazz. His first influences were Louis Armstrong and Harry James. After skipping two grades, he began attending Newark Arts High School (alma mater of Wayne Shorter, Sarah Vaughan, Melba Moore, Savion Glover, Larry Young, and many others), from which he graduated.

As a teenager, Shaw worked professionally at weddings, dances, and night clubs. He eventually left school but continued his study of the trumpet under the influence of Gillespie, Fats Navarro, Clifford Brown, Booker Little, Lee Morgan, and Freddie Hubbard. He later discovered that he had picked up the trumpet during the same month and year that Brown died: June 1956.

Paris and Eric Dolphy (early 1960s)
In 1963, after many local professional jobs, Shaw worked for Willie Bobo (with Chick Corea and Joe Farrell), and performed and recorded as a sideman with Eric Dolphy, with whom he made his recorded debut, Iron Man. Dolphy, who was living in Paris, unexpectedly died in June 1964. Shaw was nonetheless invited to Paris to join Dolphy's colleague, Nathan Davis, and the two men found steady work all over Europe. While living in Paris, they frequented the club Le Chat Qui Peche, and Shaw crossed paths with musicians such as Bud Powell, Kenny Clarke, Johnny Griffin, Dexter Gordon, Art Taylor, other lesser-known musicians such as John Bodwin, and French musicians including Jean-Louis Chautemps, Rene Urtreger, Jacques Thollot and Jef Gilson. After some time, Shaw demanded that two of his contemporaries, organist Larry Young and drummer Billy Brooks, be relocated to Paris. The four young musicians – Davis, Shaw, Young, and Brooks – continued living and performing in France, intermittently touring cities in Europe, including Berlin, Germany.

Blue Note Records (mid-to-late 1960s)
By the mid-1960s, Shaw had successfully absorbed the concepts and influence of his mentor and friend, saxophonist Dolphy, and was meanwhile exploring the harmonic innovations of saxophonist John Coltrane and pianist McCoy Tyner. Both musicians contributed greatly to the development of Shaw's style as a trumpeter and composer.

Shaw returned to the U.S. from Paris in 1965, and began his career as one of the Blue Note labels regular trumpet players, working steadily with their roster of artists. He replaced Carmell Jones in the Horace Silver quintet (1965–1966), and made his Blue Note debut on Silver's The Cape Verdean Blues, followed by Larry Young's Unity (1965); the album with Young featured three of his compositions ("Zoltan", "Moontrane", and "Beyond All Limits"). "Moontrane", dedicated to Coltrane, was written when Shaw was 18 years old and was his earliest composition.

Shaw also collaborated frequently and recorded with Corea (1966–67, 1969), Jackie McLean (1967), Booker Ervin (1968), Tyner (1968), Andrew Hill (1969), Herbie Hancock, and Bobby Hutcherson. In 1968–69, he worked intermittently with Max Roach, touring with him in Iran. Shaw also worked as a studio musician, in pit orchestras, and on Broadway musicals.

Contemporary and Muse (early-to-mid 1970s)
In 1970, Shaw recorded his first album as a leader, Blackstone Legacy, for Contemporary Records. Blackstone Legacy featured Bennie Maupin, Ron Carter, George Cables, Gary Bartz, Clint Houston, and Lenny White. This was followed by a second release under Shaw's name, entitled Song of Songs. During this time, Shaw moved to San Francisco to explore new opportunities and became closely associated with musicians on the West Coast such as Bobby Hutcherson, Eddie Moore, Eddie Marshall, and Henry Franklin.

In 1974, Shaw returned from California to New York, beginning an association with Muse Records, recording the albums – The Moontrane, Love Dance, Little Red's Fantasy and Iron Men, with musicians from the mid-western creative black arts scene such as Anthony Braxton, Arthur Blythe and Muhal Richard Abrams.

Columbia Records (late-1970s)
After working frequently with Hutcherson, Art Blakey, Tyner and others, Shaw emerged as a band leader during the early 1970s, which was a time when many jazz artists began to explore jazz-rock. A younger statesman among his elders, Shaw saw himself as an heir to the musical legacy of trumpeters such as Gillespie, Navarro, and Brown, and, being an alumnus of Blakey's Jazz Messengers, felt responsible for upholding the integrity and appreciation of the tradition.

After releasing several albums for the Muse label, Shaw signed to Columbia Records in 1977 following an endorsement from Miles Davis. He then recorded the albums Rosewood, Stepping Stones: Live at the Village Vanguard, Woody III, For Sure!, and United.

Rosewood was nominated for two Grammys and was voted Best Jazz Album of 1978 in the DownBeat Readers' Poll, which also voted Shaw Best Jazz Trumpeter of the Year, and No. 4 Jazz Musician of the Year.

1980s
Throughout the '80s, Shaw continued performing and recording as a leader with sidemen such as pianists Onaje Allan Gumbs, Mulgrew Miller, and Larry Willis, bassist David Williams, drummer Terri Lyne Carrington, and trombonist Steve Turre, recording a number of more "traditional" but highly lyrical albums (Solid, Setting Standards, In My Own Sweet Way) consisting mainly of standards and tunes from the hard bop repertoire. During this time he also worked on projects with saxophonists Benny Golson, Kenny Garrett and Dexter Gordon, as well as fellow trumpeter Freddie Hubbard on three albums (Double Take, and The Eternal Triangle, reissued on Blue Note as The Freddie Hubbard and Woody Shaw Sessions) and Golson's Time Speaks.

Health issues and death
By the late '80s, Shaw was nearly blind from retinitis pigmentosa, an incurable degenerative eye disease. A heroin user throughout his adult life, Shaw was in poor health when he returned to the U.S. in early 1989 from a lengthy stay in Europe and needed a wheelchair at the airport. On the morning of February 27, 1989, Shaw was struck by a subway car in Brooklyn, New York, which mangled his left arm and caused other injuries including head trauma; doctors were forced to amputate his arm. The night before the accident, Max Roach sent a limousine to Newark where Shaw was staying, to bring Shaw to the Village Vanguard to hear Roach play. After the set, Roach put Shaw into a taxi around midnight with enough money to get back to Newark. Shaw did not go to Newark; it is unclear what led to the accident later that morning. During his hospital stay at Bellevue, Shaw suffered kidney failure, was put on a respirator and lost consciousness for more than a month. He died from kidney failure May 10, 1989, at age 44.

Awards

 * Talent Deserving Wider Recognition, Downbeat International Jazz Critics Poll (1977)
 * Jazz Album of the Year, Downbeat Readers Poll: Rosewood (Columbia 1978)
 * Best Trumpeter, Downbeat Readers Poll (1978)
 * Grammy Nomination – Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Soloist: Rosewood (1979)
 * Grammy Nomination – Best Jazz Instrumental Performance, Group: Woody Shaw Concert Ensemble, Rosewood (1979)
 * Best Trumpeter, Downbeat Readers Poll (1980)
 * Downbeat Hall of Fame (1989)

Legacy revival
The years between 2003 and 2013 saw a resurgence of interest in, and recognition of, Shaw's music. In 2003, Shaw's son, Woody Louis Armstrong Shaw III, launched The Official Woody Shaw Website, which helped to bolster appreciation for Shaw's contribution to music. Since then, many of Shaw's long-out-of-print recordings have been reissued, remastered and repackaged, under the curatorial oversight of Shaw's son and long-time producer Michael Cuscuna.

In 2012, PopMarket, a division of Sony Legacy, released Woody Shaw: The Complete Columbia Albums Collection, and in 2013, Mosaic Records released Woody Shaw: The Complete Muse Sessions, for which NPR described Shaw as "the last great trumpet innovator".

Shaw III, the primary inspiration for Shaw's third Columbia album, Woody III (dedicated to Shaw's father and newborn son), is the sole heir to the Shaw family legacy. Today, Shaw III preserves the Shaw legacy through the production, management, archiving and preservation of his father's life's work. As of 2013, he is stated to be authoring the first official biography on his father's life and music. Shaw's legacy is kept active and relevant through the use of social media and the official website. The Shaw name and legacy are administered by Woody Shaw Legacy LLC.

Innovations
Shaw was noted for his mastery and innovative use of "wide" intervals, often fourths and fifths, which are considered relatively unnatural to the trumpet and difficult to employ skillfully due to (a) the technical facility required to do so, (b) the architecture of the instrument, (c) the trumpet's inherent harmonic tendencies based on the overtone series, and (d) its traditional association with intervals based more commonly on thirds and diatonic relationships.

In both his improvisations and his compositions, Shaw frequently used polytonality, the combination of two or more tonalities or keys (i.e. multiple chords or harmonic structures) at once. In his solos, he often superimposed highly complex permutations of the pentatonic scale and sequences of intervals that modulated unpredictably through numerous key centers. He was a master of modality and used a wide range of harmonic color, generating unusual contrasts, using tension and resolution, dissonance, odd rhythmic groupings, and "over the barline" phrases, yet always resolving his ideas according to the form and harmonic structure of a given composition while adhering to the conventions of jazz improvisation and simultaneously creating new ones.

His "attack" was remarkably clean and precise, regardless of tempo (Shaw often played extremely fast passages). He had a rich, dark tone that was distinctive with a near-vocal quality to it; his intonation and articulation were highly developed, and he greatly utilized the effects of the lower register, usually employing a deep, extended vibrato at the end of his phrases. Shaw also often incorporated the chromatic scale, which gave his melodic lines a subtle fluidity that seemed to allow him to weave "in and out" of chords seamlessly from all "angles".

Shaw was also born with an extraordinary memory and perfect pitch. Max Roach once stated: "He was truly one of the greatest. I first had occasion to work with Woody on a trip to Iran. One of the most amazing things was his uncanny memory. I was just flabbergasted. After one look, he knew all of the charts, no matter how complex they were."

Shaw's improvisational and composing style bears the influences of his idols Dolphy, Coltrane and Tyner, as well as many European modern classical and 20th-century composers such as Béla Bartók, Zoltán Kodály, Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg, Anton Webern, Erik Satie, Alexander Scriabin, Carlos Chavez, Ernest Bloch, Olivier Messiaen, Paul Hindemith, Charles Ives, Edgar Varese, Igor Stravinsky, Claude Debussy, Maurice Ravel, and Colin McPhee. Shaw also listened closely to traditional Japanese music, Indonesian Gamelan, Indian classical music, Brazilian music, and various other musics of the world.

Educator
Throughout his career, Shaw gave countless clinics, master classes and private lessons to students around the world. During the 1970s, he and Joe Henderson were faculty members in Jamey Aebersold's jazz camp. NEA Grant recipients who studied with Shaw include Wynton Marsalis (musical director of Jazz at Lincoln Center), and Ingrid Monson (Quincy Jones Professor of African American Music, Harvard University). Other students and apprentices include Chris Botti, Wallace Roney, and Terence Blanchard.

Admiration among musicians
As a musician and trumpeter, Shaw was held in high esteem by his colleagues and is seen as one of the most technically and harmonically advanced trumpet players in the history of jazz and of the instrument itself. Miles Davis, a notoriously harsh critic of fellow musicians, once said of Shaw: "Now there's a great trumpet player. He can play different from all of them." Trumpeter Dave Douglas stated: "It's not only the brilliant imagination that captivates with Woody Shaw – it's how natural those fiendishly difficult lines feel... Woody Shaw is now one of the most revered figures for trumpeters today."

Shaw is credited with having extended the harmonic and technical vocabulary of the trumpet. Upon hearing of Shaw's death in 1989, Wynton Marsalis stated: "Woody added to the vocabulary of the trumpet. His whole approach influenced me tremendously." Multi-genre producer, instrumentalist and rapper, Madlib, also cites Shaw as an inspiration. In an interview with Red Bull Music Academy, Madlib listed Shaw as his favorite trumpet player, saying of his music: "It’s electric and acoustic, traditional and non-traditional — that’s what I’m all about."

Travels
Throughout his life, Shaw travelled all over Europe. He first moved to France at 19. As a sideman with Roach, he traveled to Iran in 1969. He also toured such places as Japan, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia.

During a 1980s tour for the United States Information Service, Shaw ventured to such countries as Egypt, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates. Recently, it has been discovered that Shaw spent significant time performing and giving clinics in India, working in cities such as New Delhi, Bombay, Bangalore, and Calcutta. When asked by film producer Chuck France in an interview whether he thought traveling was important, Shaw responded: "Most definitely. I think every great artist should share his music with the world."

As leader/co-leader

 * 1965: In the Beginning (Muse, 1983)
 * 1970: Blackstone Legacy (Contemporary, 1971)
 * 1972: Song of Songs (Contemporary, 1973)
 * 1974: The Moontrane (Muse, 1975)
 * 1975: San Francisco Express – Getting It Together (Reynolds, 1979)
 * 1975: Love Dance (Muse, 1976)
 * 1976: Little Red's Fantasy (Muse, 1978)
 * 1976: The Woody Shaw Concert Ensemble at the Berliner Jazztage (Muse, 1977) – live
 * 1977: Lausanne 1977 with Louis Hayes (TCB, 1977) – live
 * 1977: The Iron Men with Anthony Braxton (Muse, 1980)
 * 1977: Woody Shaw Live Volume One (HighNote, 2000) – live
 * 1977: Woody Shaw Live Volume Two (HighNote, 2001) – live
 * 1977: Woody Shaw Live Volume Three (HighNote, 2002) – live
 * 1977: Rosewood (Columbia, 1978)
 * 1978: Stepping Stones: Live at the Village Vanguard (Columbia, 1979) – live
 * 1978–79: Woody III (Columbia, 1979)
 * 1979: At Onkel Pö's Carnegie Hall Hamburg 1979 Vol.1 (Jazzline, 2019)
 * 1979: For Sure! (Columbia, 1980)
 * 1981: United (Columbia, 1981)
 * 1981: Tokyo '81 (Elemental Music, 2018) – live
 * 1981: Woody Shaw Live Volume Four (HighNote, 2005) – live
 * 1982: Lotus Flower (Enja, 1982)
 * 1982: Master of the Art (Elektra/Musician, 1982) – live
 * 1982: Night Music (Elektra/Musician, 1983) – live
 * 1983: The Time Is Right (Red, 1983) – live
 * 1983: Setting Standards (Muse, 1984)
 * 1983: Live in Bremen 1983 (Elemental Music, 2018) – live
 * 1985: Woody Shaw with the Tone Jansa Quartet (Timeless 1985)
 * 1985: Double Take with Freddie Hubbard (Blue Note, 1985)
 * 1986: Bemsha Swing (Blue Note, 1997)
 * 1986: Solid (Muse, 1987)
 * 1986: Dr. Chi with the Tone Jansa Quartet (Timeless, 1989)
 * 1986: 2 MFs - Live at The Closet 1986 with Gary Bartz (bandcamp, 2020)[digital download] – live
 * 1987: In My Own Sweet Way (In + Out, 1989) – live
 * 1987: The Eternal Triangle with Freddie Hubbard (Blue Note, 1987)
 * 1987: Imagination (Muse, 1988)

Compilations
 * Woody Plays Woody (HighNote, 2012) – compilation drawn from the HighNote live albums above
 * Field Recordings of A Jazz Master (International Trumpet Guild, 2012)

Box-sets
 * The Complete CBS Studio Recordings of Woody Shaw (Mosaic, 1992)
 * Woody Shaw: The Complete Columbia Albums Collection (Columbia Legacy, 2011)
 * Woody Shaw: The Complete Muse Sessions (Mosaic, 2013)

As sideman
With Art Blakey
 * Child's Dance (Prestige, 1972)
 * Buhaina (Prestige, 1973)
 * Anthenagin (Prestige, 1973)

With Roy Brooks
 * The Free Slave (Muse, 1972) – rec. 1970
 * Duet in Detroit (Enja, 1983)

With Chick Corea
 * Tones for Joan's Bones (Atlantic/Vortex, 1966)
 * The Complete "Is" Sessions (Solid State,1969)

With Nathan Davis
 * Peace Treaty (SFP, 1965)
 * Happy Girl (Polydor, 1965)

With Eric Dolphy
 * Conversations (Douglas, 1963)
 * Iron Man (Douglas, 1963)

With Dexter Gordon
 * Homecoming: Live at the Village Vanguard (Columbia, 1976) – live
 * Sophisticated Giant (Columbia, 1977)
 * Gotham City (Columbia, 1981) – rec. 1980

With George Gruntz
 * For Flying Out Proud (MPS, 1977)
 * GG-CJB (MPS, 1979)

With Louis Hayes
 * Ichi-Ban with Junior Cook (Timeless, 1976)
 * The Real Thing (Muse, 1977)

With Joe Henderson
 * If You're Not Part of the Solution, You're Part of the Problem (Milestone, 1970)
 * Joe Henderson Quintet at the Lighthouse (Milestone, 1970)

With Andrew Hill
 * Grass Roots (Blue Note, 1968)
 * Lift Every Voice (Blue Note, 1970)
 * Passing Ships (Blue Note, 2003) - rec. 1969

With Bobby Hutcherson
 * Bobby Hutcherson Live at Montreux (Blue Note, 1973)
 * Cirrus (Blue Note, 1974)

With Jackie McLean
 * 'Bout Soul (Blue Note, 1969) - rec. 1967
 * Demon's Dance (Blue Note, 1970) - rec. 1967

With Hank Mobley
 * Reach Out! (Blue Note, 1968)
 * Thinking of Home (Blue Note, 1970)

With Horace Silver
 * The Cape Verdean Blues (Blue Note, 1965)
 * The Jody Grind (Blue Note, 1966)

With Buddy Terry
 * Natural Soul (Prestige, 1968)
 * Pure Dynamite (Mainstream, 1972)

With Mal Waldron
 * The Git Go – Live at the Village Vanguard (Soul Note, 1987) – live rec. 1986
 * The Seagulls of Kristiansund (Soul Note, 1987) – live rec. 1986

With others
 * Gary Bartz, Home! (Milestone, 1970) – rec. 1969
 * Black Renaissance, Body, Mind And Spirit (Baystate, 1977) – rec. 1976
 * Walter Bishop Jr., Coral Keys (Black Jazz, 1971)
 * Joe Chambers, The Almoravid (Muse, 1974)
 * Stanley Cowell, Brilliant Circles (Freedom, 1972)
 * Booker Ervin, Tex Book Tenor (Blue Note, 2005) – rec. 1968. released in 1976 as part of Back from the Gig.
 * Sonny Fortune, Serengeti Minstral (Atlantic, 1977)
 * Kenny Garrett, Introducing Kenny Garrett (Criss Cross Jazz, 1984)
 * Benny Golson, Time Speaks (Baystate, 1982) – also with Freddie Hubbard
 * Lionel Hampton, Music of Charles Mingus (Philips, 1977)
 * Azar Lawrence, Bridge into the New Age (Prestige, 1974)
 * Pharoah Sanders, Deaf Dumb Blind (Summun Bukmun Umyun) (Impulse!, 1970)
 * Neil Swainson, 49th Parallel (Concord, 1989) – rec.1987
 * McCoy Tyner, Expansions (Blue Note, 1968)
 * Carlos Ward, Lito (Leo Records, 1989) – rec. 1988
 * Tyrone Washington, Natural Essence (Blue Note, 1967)
 * Buster Williams, Pinnacle (Muse, 1975)
 * Larry Young, Unity (Blue Note, 1965)
 * Joe Zawinul, Zawinul (Columbia, 1970)

title: Woody Shaw


text:
Vladimir Keilis-Borok

Vladimir Isaacovich Keilis-Borok (July 31, 1921 – October 19, 2013) was a Russian mathematical geophysicist and seismologist.

Biography
Keilis-Borok was born in Moscow, Russia. His father, Isaak Moiseevich Keilis, was a jeweler. His mother, Ksenia Ruvimovna Borok, was from Lithuania. Both were Jewish.

In 1948, he received a Ph.D. in mathematical geophysics from the Academy of Sciences in Moscow. He was the founder, and Director Emeritus, of the International Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Moscow. He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1969), Austrian Academy of Sciences (1992), US National Academy Sciences (1971), Pontifical Academy of Sciences (1994), Russian Academy of Sciences (1988), Academia Europaea (1999), and the Royal Astronomical Society (1989).

He served as the President, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (1987–1991), Vice President, International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior (1983–1987), Board Member and Chair of Mathematics and Natural Sciences Section, International Council of Scientific Unions (1988–1991), Founding Chairman, International Committee for Geophysical Theory and Computers (1964–1979), and Expert, Technical meetings on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1960–1990). He was also a member of: Committee for International Security and Disarmament, Russian Academy of Sciences (1998–2000); The Union's Scientific Committee for the UN Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction (1990–1999); International Working Group on the Geological Safety of Nuclear Waste Depositories (1994–1997).

He was awarded the First Lewis Fry Richardson Medal for exceptional contributions to non-linear geophysics (1998), a Doctor Honoris Causa, Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris, and the 21st Century Collaborative Activity Award for Studying Complex Systems, McDonnell Foundation.

His team of researchers have used new algorithmic methods for earthquake prediction. Keilis-Borok's method has been retroactively applied to 31 cases dating back to 1989, with correlation 25 times (not including two near misses), including the Samoa area quake (September, 2009) and the Sumatra quake (September, 2009). In response to his prediction of an earthquake in California in 2005, US Geological Survey has said: "The work of the Keilis-Borok team is a legitimate approach to earthquake prediction research. However, the method is unproven, and it will take much additional study, and many additional trial predictions, before it can be shown whether it works, and how well." The California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council determined, "To date there is no evidence that these, or related methods, yield useful intermediate term forecasts." No earthquake occurred in the predicted location or time period.

Keilis-Borok, in collaboration with Allan Lichtman, used some of his techniques to make socioeconomic predictions with notable success.

Between 1998 and 2013, Keilis-Borok was a Regents' Professor, Professor, and Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Los Angeles. He was the research group leader at the International Institute for Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Russian Academy of Science, and the Co-Director (and Founder) of the Research program on non-linear dynamics and earthquake prediction of the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste.

He died in Culver City, California, on October 19, 2013.

title: Vladimir Keilis-Borok


text:
Category talk:American actors

Merge with US Actingand Actresses
You may want to think about merging this with Category:US Actors and actresses. DJ Clayworth 17:07, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * How about we merge both into "U.S. actors"? -- Infrogmation 06:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the whole point of doing this was to impose consistency by eliminating "and actresses". Very Verily 06:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. I'd long thought the "and actresses" unnecessary, and am glad to see it go. However with the eternal discussions about American bound to come up again, I'd prefer either "U.S. actors" or "United States actors" as a better choice for the name. -- Infrogmation 06:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, we already have Category:American people, and lots of others I don't want to list. I think it's better this way, and I've already converted a good deal of them anyway. Very Verily  06:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fork?
Maybe actors and actresses should have their own separate categories. There's a lot of articles in this category, and it would work out for the best to split it before it gets too big. -- LGagnon 17:57, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think splitting them would be a good idea. Lachatdelarue [[User talk:Lachatdelarue|(talk)]]

U.S. actors
This has been brough up before, but I would like to revive this discussion. Why is this category not called U.S. actors instead? It seems less ambiguous than "American" which can mean many things, and most of the other categories-by-nationality use U.S. in lieu of American. Hall Monitor 22:02, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking at Category:Actors by nationality, 56 categories are '(nationality) actors' and 3 are '(nation) actors. Even the parent categority is by 'nationality', not by 'nation'. Unless you want to change all of them, I think it should stay 'American actors'. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely such a menial task could be scripted to avoid ambiguity? Hall Monitor 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed tag
I removed the tag about the category getting too large. The tag suggests that people use the subcategories to classify actors. However, the subcategories duplicate the listings in this category. For example, Halle Berry can be found on this caategory and Category:African-American actors. This is the way it should be. The only reason to move people from this list to a set of subcategories would be if there was a set of subcategories that had a place for every entry. An example would be "American actors by state". I don't think subcategories by state would be a good idea either. Perhaps there is a good way to subcategorize actors and someone will have a brilliant suggestion. What is the problem with the category being big? I can get wherever I want using the table of contents. I'd like to leave things be. --Samuel Wantman 06:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * For those just stopping by, this idea is also being discussed at Category talk:Film actors. (For the record, I disagree that a table of contents is all that helpful in a category if you don't already know the person's name.) NickelShoe 22:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this category could be classified by decade? (and yes, some actors would have multiple classifications) For me it seems more useful to browse "American film actors of the 1930's" if I'm looking to make connections between people whose name I'm not sure of. Likewise I think a "by genre" classification system would be wonderful. "American film noir actors," "British sci-fi television actors," "Chinese horror film actors," etc. Just a thought. See also Wikipedia talk:Categorization. David Gale 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

 * All these schemes run the risk of adding to overcategorization. By decades will put some actors in 6 or more categories (Katharine Hepburn), By genre will also put many actors in multiple categories.  I suspect that these subcategorizations might be suitable after a future upgrade of the software.  Until then, perhaps lists for these groupings might be more appropriate. -- Samuel Wantman 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Asian-American Actors
I've noticed that a few minorities have their own subcategory. Don't Asian-Americans deserve a subcategory as well? I was just trying to look for such a list, but couldn't find one. True, there is not a terribly great number of Asian-American Actors out there, but I thought it would be a good idea nevertheless.
 * I don't see why not. NickelShoe 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality before proceeding. -- Samuel Wantman 01:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actresses?
There seems to be a consensus of sorts here that we shouldn't use the word 'actresses' in this category's title. To me seeing women described as 'actors' looks ridiculous. Does anyone else agree? Terrafire 18:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think actors is much better. An actor is somebody that acts.  Calling them actresses because they're women is like calling female Jews "Jewesses" or even calling female doctors "doctresses".  I admit that the usage of actress is much more common than Jewess, but since there is usage the other way, I think we should stick with it. NickelShoe 17:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The usage of 'actress' to mean a female who acts is far more common than the use of 'actor'. In daily usage most people in my experience would consider it strange to call a woman an actor. I don't know whether that's a difference between the UK and other countries, but the usage of actress has definitely not died out. When I wanted to find an article on an actress I specifically looked for the 'actresses' category, ignoring the actors category, and there must be others who do the same.

You can propose the change at WP:CFD. It is sure to generate a good deal of discussion. I would first look around for pages that discuss this issue, as it has come up many times. -- Samuel Wantman 00:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to breach good practice applied to all other professions
Leaving people in this category just creates category clutter, and category clutter is getting out of hand on biographical articles. Everyone should come out of this. Those of us who are against the idea of adding people to this category can't stop other users doing so, but given that what we prefer is very much in line with normal practice, there it is not acceptable to try to ban us from tidying up articles by removing this category. Chicheley 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like most all other American profession categories are fully populated, so depopulating this category would be breaching good practice. It also looks like the actor categories of other countries are fully populated as well. -- Samuel Wantman

Category duplication
(This was copied from User talk:Chicheley)

Hi Chicheley, I've been dealing with this issue for about a year and a half, so I want to give you some background on the issue and explain what I'm doing:

When Categories began, about 2 years ago, the situation was very different than it is now. Category "clutter" was not an issue because nothing was in categories. The big problem that shaped the initial discussions was the problem of categories getting "too big". "Too big" at that time was larger than a few hundred categories because there no easy way to navigate a large category. Back then, there were no table of contents for categories. To deal with large categories the standard practice was to create subcategories and depopulate the larger ones. The first categories that were "too big" were people categories, and subcategories "by nationality" were created to break them up. As this was happening, I and others became frustrated as some perfectly fine categories with 500 or so articles got broken up into 'by nationality' categories that were much less useful for browsing.

Another oft stated principal of categorization is that categories could be broken into different systems of subcategorization, so that several systems of subcategorization could co-exist. As more and more subcategorization methods proliferated, more and more categories got broken up into small pieces. Early guidelines for categorization reflected this way of doing things.

This was about the time I started getting involved in categorization policy. Two categories particularly bothered me. One was Category:Film directors which in its first incarnation contained film directors from all over the world. One day I discovered that it had been depopulated and replaced by Category:Film directors by nationality. The original category made it very easy to browse through all the articles on film directors. When it was broken up it became difficult. I found this especially irksome because I don't find nationality to be at all relevant to film directors.

Another category that bothered me was Category:Bridges in New York City. I spend alot of time working on articles about bridges. At the time, all the toll bridges in New York City had been removed from the category because they were in the sub-category:Toll bridges in New York City. It didn't make sense to me that a reasonably sized category would have half of its contents removed because there was a sub-category that was a subset of the larger category. Someone looking for the bridges in NYC shouldn't have to look in both places. The distinction of a bridge being a toll bridge may be of use to some people, but it is not an important attribute of bridges.

When I inquired about the reasons for the categorization policy, the rationale given was that categories had to be broken up when they got to big to make them useful. This inspired me to create the first version of a category table of contents which has evolved into the TOC found in virtually every large category in wikipedia. With the acceptance of CategoryTOC, I started examining what parts of the categorization policy was out of date. This led to some long discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization, a rewrite of the page about 7 months ago, and the addition of Categorization/Categories and subcategories.

This leads us to our current situation. Here is the issue in a nutshell: The problem is that these 3 qualities of categorization conflict unless there is categorization duplication. If there is no duplication, the larger categories are less useful for browsing and indexing. If everything is broken into small subcategories it is very difficult to browse through all of them. If they exist combined and broken up, you can browse at whatever level you desire. After the discussion about this at talk page, or the relevant discussions at Wikipedia talk:Categorization (linked from the talk page). We decided to fully populating the actors categories as an experiment to see if this way of categorizing can gain wider acceptance.
 * Wikipedia's categorization scheme allows for multiple taxonomies. This is a good thing and a powerful feature.
 * People want to create subcategories which are essentially intersections of larger categories.
 * Wikipedia categories act as indexes that help users browse through subjects.

If populating higher level categories gains wide acceptance, we will need a way to make it clear which categories get populated and which do not. We have noted on the Category:Film actors page that the listings are duplicated, and there can be some sort of standard format for this. I don't really think it is all that bad, and our new way of doing it fits into the natural order of how people put people into categories. First they get entered into the more general category, and then added to the more specific subcategory The populating of categories should be an all or nothing decision. Either they contain all the articles that fit or none of them. I find the current common situation, where categories only contain the un-differentiated articles to be very unsatisfactory.

The downside, as you mention is category "clutter". Categorization is imperfect. The solution, most talked about is to have an automated way to do category intersections, so you could take Category:Film actors and Category:American people and find the intersection. If this is implemented, there would be no need for a great number of the subcategories we now have. Categories would be populated at the "level of notability", by which I mean that people are notable for being actors or film actors. In these days of globalization, people are rarely known for being American film actors. So what we are doing is fully populating the actors categories at the "level of notability" and below. This essentially is the system that people hope will happen by having a software upgrade. The upgrade (if it happens) will add intersections that do not yet exist, create them on the fly, and remove a good deal of category clutter in articles.

Until there is a software upgrade the question is which is worse, having a little "clutter" in the category listings of articles, or depopulating categories at the topic level. I'd much rather live with the clutter. As more and more category intersections are created, I'd like to hope that people will think of the intersection categories as the clutter, and not the topic level categories. -- Samuel Wantman 07:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not against putting things in parent categories and main categories in a few special cases, but I don't think that the actors categories are special cases. It started off with film actors, then it seems all American actors were also to be put in Category:American actors, even if they had been fully subcategorised. But what about television, stage, musicial theatre, silent film, voice and radio actors. What about people with dual nationality? We could end up with people in not one or two, but 14 or 16 or more extra categories. That would be a disaster. I remain convinced that your approach is misguided, and that the "consensus" you trumpet for it does not exist. Chicheley 21:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You also utterly misunderstand the usage of categories. The upgrade would not reduce the desirability of thorough subcategorisation at all, because they facilitate browsing. The intersections would only be used by people who were actively looking for something, whereas sharp subcategories encourage serendipity. Your proposal would either rob parent categories of huge amounts of relevant material or encumber them with even more irrelevant material. For example instead of placing Category:British stage actors in Category:Theatre in the United Kingdom, a choice would have to be made between using Category:British actors, withs its hundreds articles about actors who do not work in theatre, and having no actors in the theatre category at all. By suggesting that the subcategories should be abolished you are proposing to chronically undermine one of Wikipedia's finest attributes, that is its serendipity. Chicheley 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another issue is that many of the actors are not actually in both categories. If we work on getting everyone out of Category:American actors and into the appropriate subcategories, then we will know that people who visits those places will be see all the names the should see. Otherwise, that happy situation might never be reached. I try to recategorise at least a hundred people a day across a wide range of fields as the general standard of precision and completeness of categorisation of biographical articles is low, and I am quite happy to do much of the donkey work in this area. Chicheley 22:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Having clicked on some random names, it seems that only a minority of the names are dual categorised. Not a minority of the big stars, but a minority overall. Thus your basic premise that we currently have a dual system is false. We just have a messy, inaccurate, incomplete system that needs an upgrade. Chicheley 22:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, and I'm also not sure that you understand what I am saying, so let's keep at this. There is nothing strange about having Category:American actors fully populated. Actor categories from other countries are fully populated and other American occupation categories are fully populated. There is nothing against policy old or new about having this category populated. Except for two incomplete subsets (actor-singers and child actors), American actors are only fully duplicated in their grandchildren categories and not their two children. The two subsets are incomplete and fits one of the acceptable exceptions for duplication. As for Category:Film actors. Film is international. I have seen films with Americans, Canadians, Brits, Italians and French all in the same movie. If an occupation category is international, it seems that it should be populated with people of all nations. I have not proposed adding people above their level of notability, and this might just mean repopulating Category:Film actors. It doesn't mean that we would fully populate Actors, Entertainers, etc... Theatre, by its nature, is not very international, so perhaps this would not need repopulating. Instead, I'd probably want to add actors "by language" as this seems a natural way to collect theatre actors. Under the current system, there would be no reason not to add "Theatre actors by language" as a subcategorization scheme, so adding this category has nothing to do with the issue of duplication. My point is that there is a natural place to combine people together in fields that are international in nature.

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying about a software upgrade. Many subcategories are being added below the level of notability that are the intersection of larger categories. For example, there ethnicity subcategories like, Category:African Americans and occupation categories like Category:Film actors. So currently an African-American film actor like Laurence Fishburne is in | African-American actors | American film actors | etc... but maybe after a software upgrade he would be in | Actors | People of African descent | American people | Film people | etc... With such a system you could find and browse through categories for
 * all actors
 * all people of African descent
 * all Americans
 * all film people
 * all American actors
 * all film actors,
 * all American film actors,
 * all American film people
 * all actors of African descent,
 * all film people of African descent,
 * all African Americans
 * all African-American actors
 * all African-American film people
 * all African-American film actors.

By categorizing Fishburne in the four large categories he would also automatically be in all 11 of the intersection categories. Now I don't know if, when and how category intersection will ever be implemented, but my question to you is which of the 15 possible categories mentioned above should Fishburne be in now, until a new system is created? The problem as you point out is that we cannot create and fully populate all possible categories without creating quite a bit of clutter. Each additional attribute roughly doubles the number of possible combinations. My point is that Fishburne is notable as a film actor. I will forgo many of the other possible combinations if he is in at least the category for which he is known. In my view, what has happened in the past is that the important categories got chopped up and depopulated for the sake of the intersections. I just want to add back some of these significant categories.

I am certainly NOT advocating removal of ANY subcategories. Absolutely not. I am just saying that duplication should be considered more acceptable since there has been a proliferation of subcategories that are the intersection of larger categories. Let me give you another example. Recently, someone took Category:Bridges in England and depopulated it by moving all the bridges to dozens of smaller categories, one for each county in England. I plan on repopulating the larger category because I find the smaller categories are much less useful, and unlikely to create serendipity for users (especially those who are not British).

It may seem useful for those of us who categorize to have these large categories function as a holding tank for the articles that haven't yet been categorized more precisely. But I think these categories, randomly populated with a small number of obscure people, look very bad to the general user of Wikipedia. If people have a natural inclination to put someone in the category "Film Actor" I think that sends the message that this is what makes the person notable. A small number of people appearing in a category may be be the result of users not understanding how to categorize. A large number seems to be evidence that WE have made a mistake and the category needs to be repopulated. I know this means some extra work, but I think it is worth it. Yes we have a messy, inaccurate, incomplete system that needs an upgrade. It also needs a consensus as to how it works. I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to do, and I hope you will reread what I have written above. When I mention a dual system, what I mean is that some people think it is x and some think it is y. I'm trying to push this issue so that there can be some agreement about how it works. What I am proposing is that whenever we categorize someone we should say this person is notable for being _______. If they are notable for being a film actor they should be in the category for film actors. If they are notable for being a film director they should be in the category for film directors. Same for English-language authors. If their profession is not international, they may be notable for being an American politician, a German lawyer, etc... Just because someone is in a small subcategories should not be a reason for taking them out of the larger notability categories. They can be duplicated in the smaller categories. People who want to browse through the small categories are able to. I don't understand why we don't want to have a single category that functions as a central index of film actors, yet allow dozens of Actor by series categories adding to category clutter. -- Samuel Wantman 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I am copying this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Categorization Please reply on the Categorization talk page. --Samuel Wantman 08:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI regarding the (now deleted) California actor categories
Just wanted to post a quick follow-up here on the now-deleted categCategory:California film actors and Category:California television actors. Unfortunately I missed the discussion on the deletion (apparently it wasn't on my watch list), or I would have responded to some of the comments there. But better late than never.

Contrary to what appears to have been assumed, those categories were NOT created solely as a means to subcategorize Category:American actors. Rather, I made them in the process of cleaning up and subcategorizing Category:People from California, which was overly large at the time. In doing so, I wanted to use two common subdivisions of bio articles: division by geographic area (eg by county) and division by occupation (eg writers, actors, politicians). Many of those subcategories already existed, and some didn't.

As it turns out, there was no "Category:California actors" subcategory, even though acting is one of the major professions in that state. Since American actors already had the major divisions of Film actors and Television actors, it seemed like those would likewise be good choices for California people by occupation.

So Category:California actors would be meant as a way to identify people from California with similar occupations. The side effect is that everyone is that category is also, by definition, an American actor, and so therefore can be removed from that parent category. Articles normally are not in both a parent category and its subcategories simultaneously, since it would be a redundant duplication of information. Thus when an article qualifies for "Cat:California actor", it wouldn't appear directly in either "Cat:American actors" or "Cat:People from California".

Hope that clears up the reason for the categories. In fact, were I to do it again, I would not bother with the "film/tv" split and would simply do "California actors" for all actors, because probably 90% of the film/tv actors have done both. Dugwiki 21:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

American actors to American male actors
Should actors in this category be moved to Category:American male actors considering there's only a few actors in the Category:American actors?--Mjs1991 (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Category talk:American actors


text: Category:Europe

title: Category:Europe


text: User talk:66.121.167.14

title: User talk:66.121.167.14


text: Talk:Zigzagoon

title: Talk:Zigzagoon


text:
User:Elektron/monobook.css

/* ns--1 is special:, ns-1 is talk,, ns-2 is user:, ns-3 is User_talk: ns-4 is Wikipedia: */

body, body.ns--1, body.ns-1, body.ns-4, body.ns-3, body.ns-2 { font-family: serif; line-height:1.1; background: #f9f9dd; color: Black; margin: 0; padding: 0; }

font-family: "Times", serif; line-height: 1.3; }
 * 1) notcontent {

/* tweaks to link colour */ a { color: #0000FF; } a:visited { color: #406040; }

a.stub { color:#0000ff; } a.new { color:#ba0000; }

/* very useful for viewing diffs */ span.diffchange { background-color: #CC0000; color: #FFCCCC; }

title: User:Elektron/monobook.css