text:
Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive 4

Previous discussion
I've archived previous discussion in /Archive 3

Perhaps we can all agree with this?
Can all agree with the use of soft redirects for these category titles? If "Fooish things" isn't the category title, it would point the user to "Things of Foo" and likewise, "Beings of Foo" would point the user to "Fooish beings", whichever the case may be.

For an example of a soft redirect see: Category:Authors which has a soft redirect to Category:Writers. There is already the template which sets this up. Even if we come up with the most brilliant standards for determining category titles, people will categorize things wrong, or look in the wrong place. Soft redirects just help point people in the right direction. As an added bonus, there will be less CfD discussions about the same fooin' categories time and time again. -- Samuel Wantman 08:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that there is presently a bot request open to automatically move wrongly categorized articles following cat redirs. For instance, if Category:Foo redirects to Category:Bar, then this bot should move any article accidentally put in the former, into the latter. Without such a bot, cat redirs may actually be a bad idea, as the editors will never notice that they put their article in the wrong cat (because a non-existent cat would show up as a redlink, letting the editor know that he made a mistake; a cat redir would be blue). Radiant_ >|< 08:40, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah such a bot arangement would be a must. We do have to be wery carefull to have a working "infrastructure" in place to avoid abuse of such a system though. If for example a vandal runs around and redirect a few dozen categories all into the same cat it could cause quite a mess. A means to "undo" all bot actions will be needed (I think Pearle already has that though). An additional safeguard might be to make the bot check the category's history to check when the redirect template was added, and then only take action if it's been in place for at least 2-3 days or so (if no one removes the tag by then it is fairly safe to asume it's not in dispute). --Sherool 16:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I periodically check the redirected cats category and fix them manually. If/when I get my bot running, I can easily set it to do this.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine we would all afree to this, but I am unsure that it solves anything since we still have to determine which cat would soft-redirect to which. -Splash 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

A thought on moving forward
Instead of seeking consensus on category titles unilaterally, would it not be possible to use a method similar to that used at Template talk:Europe, whereby we break categories into general areas, and have polls on each area using the criteria for vote closing that ''each poll question must be voted by a minimum of 15 users. 70% of support is required for a position to be declared a winner (or 30% or less to be declared a loser). Once a position is declared a winner, the appropiate change must be made to the category.''

I know Rick Block listed areas of categories before at Category titles/Categories by country.
 * 30 in "Nationality x" format
 * 26 in "X of country" format
 * 10 inconsistent (subcategories have no dominant name format)
 * 26 in "X in country" format
 * 7 in "Country at" format (all Olympics-related)

Rick's Note: This does not count the 75 or so subcats of Category:Occupations by nationality (which are at least mostly of "nationality occupation" format, although there are some exceptions) or many of the subcats of Category:Subdivisions_by_country (which splinter by country first, so are significantly harder to classify).

So what we could do is where they are inconsistent, a poll could be made to standardise them as per the criteria mentioned above. Where they are already in X of country format a simple poll of the above to standardise that format within the category could be run. The Nationality issue could be settled by first creating some sort of consensus around whether we are to use Nationality in any category names. If we can then agree on a position, we can apply that position. The X in counter and Country at, how do we want to standardise them? Note, however, that we shouldn't unilaterally create a poll without discussing it first. Hiding talk 10:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea in principle is good. However, we need an agreed-upon system to do centralized discussions such as these (and they should always start with a discussion rather than a poll). Standards once more? However, since we're talking about renaming categories, seeking 70% support is far too much. A rename is basically the choice between two (or more) names, which generally only requires a 51% majority support for either choice. Note also that several people feel more strongly about have a standard than about having the standard of their particular preference. An intuitive way of doing this may be to have a poll with four options: "1.standard A", "2.standard B", "3.standard but don't care which" and "4.no standard" (one vote per person). This way, we have a consensus to standardize if 1+2+3 combined have 70% of the votes, and we can pick the standard A or B that has the most votes. Radiant_ >|< 11:46, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the reason we should set a fairly high bar on this is because it is a contentious move, and one that seems to over-ride the common usage policy. If we are setting a standard which is to be applied in the future, then I believe we should seek the highest consensus possible to strengthen the position.  We are not talking about renaming categories, we are seeking to resolve a standard to which categories are renamed, which is different.  It would remove the opportunity to rename a category to something other than the standard, and would therefore become a naming convention, and thus policy.  I agree it is worth seeking a consensus on whether to standardise names within a category, which is why I suggested we use Rick's breakdowns, seek consensus on standardising, and then seek consensus on what to standardise to.  I think your idea as to polling is not without merit, though, as long as we use the categories in groups such as those broken down by Rick. Hiding  talk 15:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite understanding the proposal, Hiding. I think you mean: Is that about what you mean? This could usefully incorporate Radiant!'s suggestion along the way; voters would then still have the option of rejecting any kind of standardisation at all which some are bound to want. -Splash 17:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If a group of topically related cats is inconsistent: poll among the existing options and then rename to the successful option;
 * If a group is already consistent: hold a poll to establish that format for the future.

 * I'd like to suggest postponing areas that are not consistent until after a conclusion about any formal standards that are already consistent. This way the easier stuff is handled first and may give guidance about the more difficult areas.
 * Also, especially for the areas that are now inconsistent, there should be a way to both state a preference for "no standard" and a preference for which standard, if any, is chosen. I'm not sure how well I said that.
 * For example, I should be able to state that I prefer no standard, but if a standard is chosen, I prefer standard B.
 * One way this might be done: Have support and oppose votes for each option, and whichever has the highest ratio over 70 percent wins. Maurreen (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Another way this might be done is holding a simple yes/no vote on whether or not to standardize (>X% support needed to standardize), and simultaneously old an approval vote between several options; vote with the most options becomes the standard (iff the vote-to-standardize passes).
 * However - since standardizing basically involves renaming and editing pages, which are 'no big deal' and can be done by any bold editor - I would like to hear why people would oppose standardization. They may argue that it's a lot of work, but as long as other people volunteer to do the work that's not a big argument. I've heard the argument that it may be confusing or harsh on newbies, but having an unstandardized jumble is more confusing, and the only thing that happens to the newbies is that their articles may end up edited or renamed. Radiant_ >|< 09:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree to the first point, however, I feel I have already addressed your second point, or at least my opinion on why a high consensus should be needed to set a standard. It is not simply a question of renaming, as you put it.  What is being sought is a policy which will be enforced in renaming polls, let us at least be clear about that.  If something is in a category for which the standard is, we are proposing that it be policy that that change can be made, without argument.  If someone opposes the move they have to change the standard.  Therefore, if we want this to become official and we go the poll route, according to Consensus we need at least a 2/3 majority, although the 70% benchmark I set out is also mentioned as popularly used.  As for other arguments against standardisation, see How to create policy, especially the Guidelines for creating policies and guidelines section and Instruction creep, which should point out the danger of standardising too heavily.  Hiding  talk 11:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That wasn't really my point. I was, out of curiosity, asking what reasons people would have to oppose standardization. I do seem to be the only one here who finds a lower percentage than 70% acceptable; we'll have to see if 70% is workable. I hope people who oppose a standards will do so for a reason pertaining to that standard, (e.g. standardizing British vs American English sounds entirely unworkable), rather than the general principle. Radiant_ >|< 11:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Radiant, you say above "since standardizing basically involves renaming and editing pages, which are 'no big deal' and can be done by any bold editor - I would like to hear why people would oppose standardization." The difference is that it would make renaming in one direction nearly automatic, and a much bigger deal in the other direction -- something that can't be done just by being bold. Maurreen (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To the 70%, note that either side needs to achieve 70% before the poll is closed, this would be a poll with no time limit on it. I'd suggest we start on standardising a category already heavily standardised through common usage, probably X of country.  I don't think on this instance we would need to specify a standard, as it is already commonly standardised. Hiding  talk 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it's a good idea to have no time limit, because if there isn't one then the status of the standard can vary between accepted and rejected at any given moment, which may cause confusion in the ranks. I have no objection to reopening, rediscussion or revoting at a later stage, of course. Radiant_ >|< 12:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems to work at Template talk:Europe, but I'm open to opinion. Hiding talk 12:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. TL:Europe closes each poll once it reaches 70% support and has a minimum of 15 voters. That sounds reasonable. But see the bottom of Bible verses for a example of why it's bad to have polls with no clear closing criterion :P . Radiant_ >|< 13:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good grief, yes, we'd want to avoid that. Well the other option is to set a time limit of two-four weeks, perhaps, as votes were still coming in on this straw poll after closing, because if support for a standard fails to achieve either two thirds or 70%, whichever we choose, it automatically defaults to no standardisation, doesn't it?  We can't have a position whereby we enforce a no-standardisation policy, can we? I'm beginning to see your point on why would someone oppose a standard for category naming specifically. Hiding  talk 13:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, that Bible Verses thingy is an extremely badly formed proposal. My personal preference would be to simply put a time limit (one or two weeks) on the poll; then we can close the issue tidily either way, and move on. I might prefer one week, even. The recent WP:CSD expansion poll saw no substantial change in results during the second week. I'd say that if a proposal has majority support but no consensual support, then it should be considered a "good idea" but we shouldn't be enforcing it. Enforcing non-standardization sounds like an oxymoron to me :) Radiant_ >|< 14:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We could split the difference and say ten days. The problem is, as I see it, if we set a two thirds or 70% target and fall short by a very small amount, it would seem silly to have to put it to one side as a good idea when consensus may have been reached during a longer voting period. What happens to a "good idea"? Hiding  talk 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A "good idea" is one of those things Wikipedia has plenty of, and would be a nice reference in any vote on the issue (e.g. "I vote to do this because that page says it's a good idea"). In other words, nothing really happens with it. I believe it's reasonable to say a vote can be extended if the margin is close (e.g. "vote lasts for 7 days, 70% passes. If vote has 60%-70% support, it will be extended to 10 days, then to 14" or a variation thereof). Radiant_ >|< 15:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wild about extending voting. Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no particular preference on how the vote is carried out except this: The vote will have to be organised in such a way that multiple simmilar or unclear proposals don't "dilute" the vote. If we have several simmilar proposals then we should pit them against each other first untill one remain or a compromise proposal is reached and not try to resolve everyting in one huge vote (or have "alternatve" proposals pop up in the middle of a vote). The options in the final vote should be as "binary" as possible, otherwise a high consensis is next to impossible. It should also be explicitly said wether it's a simple "vote for the one you prefeer" type thing or if "oppose" votes are allowed on your least prefered one too and such. --Sherool 11:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * That is the thunking behind picking a group of categories already fairly well standardised, so that we can offer a binary poll on whether to standardise all exceptions to the rule or not, and use that agreed standard as a speedy rename criteria. The next step would be to move outwards until inconsistent categories are reached, where we will first ask if they should be standardised in a binary poll, and then ask what standard in a binary poll, or perhaps split the poll into two binary proposals of whether to standardise or not and to what standard. Hiding  talk 11:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A different voting system?
Can I suggest we use the single transferable vote system? In this, you rank your options in order of preference 1 to N. At close of poll, the votes are initially assigned according to 1st preference votes. The option with the fewest 1st preference votes is elimiinated and its votes distributed according to the second choice votes. Then the option with the fewest total votes is eliminated and its votes redistribuyted according to 3rd choices etc etc. Eventually, one option will emerge the winner.

For this system, I would suggest simply a majority among the final two options is enough for adoption since the various preference routes should be more than enough to satisfy people's various objections and the need for consensus. Note that consensus is not only "getting 70%" but also having the opposition to the chosen proposal being content-enough with it — this STV system would probably achieve that.

It'd be harder to count the votes at the end, but I'd be happy enough to do it, given a few hours. The voting might also be fractionally more complex, but not very much so. -Splash 17:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I might need a little time to digest this idea before I can form an opinion. Maybe before deciding on this, it'd be good for us to take a few days to review the grouping of consistent categories. Maurreen (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming
For those advocating speedy renaming, how would you allow for any flexibility or evolution? Maurreen (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, how do you mean? Hiding talk 16:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think, though am not sure, that the question means to suggest that once a speedy rename criterion (for whatever particular case) is established, that it would be immutable from then on. However, as is the case with all policies, guidelines, conventions etc, any of them can be rediscussed at any moment — we just recently had a major discussion and some reform of the CSDs; possibly the most contentious policy of all. So even once established, they could be changed by discussion and, hopefully, consensus forming. In the meantime, the speedy rename would save on time, repetitive discussion and, in certain cases I'm sure, repetitive conflict. -Splash 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Existing guidelines can be changed. And that's exactly why I wanted a (simple but effective) set of rules-of-thumb on Standards. Radiant_ >|< 09:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, and partly to address concerns over possible exceptions, can I suggest that speedy renaming is added to the two-day-rule presently applied to most speedy deletions? That way we avoid any posssibly accidentally incorrect speedy renames but can still expedite the process. Whether or not the 2-day-rule currently applies to speedy renaming is slightly unclear. It does appear to in Categories for deletion policies but appears not to in the "Speedy" section of CFD. -Splash 16:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy, would it be acceptable under your criteria to object to a speedy renaming on the grounds that "This should be an exception to the standard because ..."? Maurreen (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of a two-day-rule for speedy deletions. However regarding category renaming, I have no objection to delaying two days - I just wish to avoid seeing the same discussions over and over again on CFD. For the sake of argument, however - suppose that we have consensual support for a standard, and according to that standard Category:Foo is nominated for renaming to Category:Bar. Now suppose that User:User did not like the standard. How is this person prevented from objecting to every single rename nominated according to the standard, and starting the debate over and over again even if it is already clear that a strong majority disagrees with him? Radiant_ >|< 09:34, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * It would have to be stipulated somewhere that if something is nominated for renaming according to the standard, the only objections to the rename would be where it doesn't meet the standard. Objections to the standard should be raised on the talk page of the standard. Any object votes that don't state why it doesn't meet the standard should be ignored. --JimmyTheWig 10:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion policies is badly phrased and refers to a renaming as a speedy deletion. It also says things like an empty cat can be deleted 24 hours after "blanking" — though this is hard to tell with a cat. -Splash 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. For instance, assuming for the sake of argument that we were to adopt "United States foo" as a naming convention, then an obvious exception would be "American football" since that's a proper noun ("United States football"? Nah). The only thing I want to avoid is votes like "this should be an exception because I don't like the standard" if the standard has consensual support. Radiant_ >|< 12:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable to me, too. So we'd have a two-day-rule for speedy renaming and would usually only entertain objections on grounds of reasonable claims to exceptions, such as Radiant!'s example. Sounds good. -Splash 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Postpone inconsistent categories
I'd like to suggest postponing areas that are not consistent until after a conclusion about any formal standards that are already consistent. This way the easier stuff is handled first and may give guidance about the more difficult areas. Thoughts? Maurreen (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Hiding, I essentially agree with you: "using Category titles/Categories by country from Rick's list as the first grouping of categories to run a poll on, in which we simply propose to standardise along the common usage already inherent within that group."
 * I don't have a problem with that. --Kbdank71 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and suggested above using Category titles/Categories by country from Rick's list as the first grouping of categories to run a poll on, in which we simply propose to standardise along the common usage already inherent within that group. Is that acceptable? Hiding talk 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we propose that for the "X of country" section of the page above, any future additions use the same format as what is already there? Radiant_ >|< 15:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, was I not clear? Although for that group Rick noted that category:Subdivisions by country had many subcats, not analyzed, so how we take that into account I don't know. It's probably best to get Rick's thoughts before moving on.  We should probably look at how to co-opt Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By country into such a proposal, if neccesary, either by noting it is the place to discuss what form the "of country" should take, or seek consensus on the standards resolved there. As to Naming conventions (country-specific topics), should we discuss whether that is deprecated or to be deprecated, or is it still standing? Is there a template tag for that page to discuss what we're doing? Hiding  talk 16:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should consider Naming conventions (country-specific topics) deprecated as I said before. We've had a lot more input (and likely output) than that proposal, so we can probably move on from it.
 * I'm wary of deprecating it since no mention of our straw poll was listed on that page or at Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions. Hiding talk 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure I've understood which bit of which proposal you mean to poll on. I don't want to make you repeat yourself, but I think you are saying: for, and only for, the 26 "X of Country" in Rick's list, we propose to establish by poll the existing structure as the future structure i.e. the poll would be a formalization rather than a reorganisation. I can see some sense in that, and in adopting the list of country namings suggested. I imagine we could do that without a poll though; is there anyone here who objects to the current form of those 26 "X of Country" subcats? -Splash 17:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You've pretty much got it. Although I'm not sure if it is a formalisation or a reorg, as I don't know how well they all follow the naming convention as outlined.  I believe we should have a poll for four reasons:
 * 1) We are seeking to create a standard to be used in speedy renaming and possibly a naming convention.
 * 2) We will set a precedent for polling conventions when it comes to inconsistent category titles, and will have generated good will within the community.
 * 3) We may well be expanding the categories coming under the scope of the formalisation when we reach the inconsistent categories, and poll on them.
 * 4) It will give us a strong base for moves such as deprecating Naming conventions (country-specific topics) and co-opting Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:By country. I would imagine that when we conclude this process we will either have no standards, a number (2-4) of standards specific to groups of categories, possibly with some categories for which no standard can be agreed, or one standard.
 * I would think once we have run this poll, we could run two polls concurrent to formalise conventions on the remaining groups Rick identified that had a convention, if we so agree, and then run one final poll to sweep up the rest, albeit one which could be broken into many proposals, one for each grouping of categories if neccesary. Since this is, on the face of it, the least contentious poll to run, it seems the best one to run first.  I think we have yet to reach agreement on whether we should categorise by nationality, even if only for people related categories. Although I am happy to be corrected there. Hiding  talk 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

But I think you're also suggesting that first we review Rick's analysis for any potential problems (for lack of better phrasing on my part). I agree with that also. Maurreen (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds sensible. Might want to consider when to use "of" and when to use "in" for example. -Splash 17:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I believe Rick grouped all the in's to another section, but yes, if anyone wants to sift through and have a look, please do. Hiding talk 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thought: ultimately, do we see the intention of this discussion and polling to be that the consensus we achieve be listed as a naming convention and a speedy deletion criteria? If so, we should make a note of that in the poll description, yes? Hiding talk 17:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of starting with some subset we suspect is non-controversial. Can we perhaps generalize the set of category types for the first poll to something like "natural features of foo" (i.e. "rivers of", "mountains of", "deserts of", etc.), perhaps throwing in "government of", "history of", "languages of", and "politics of", rather than all of what seems to predominantly use "of country" from Category_titles/Categories_by_country (I'm not sure how I'd characterize everything in the list other than "everything in this list" which is kind of unappealing to me). I think "of foo" is a de facto standard for these categories already, so all we'd be doing is making it a de jure standard as well. BTW - Hiding is correct about "in foo" vs. "of foo" - I already separated these (interestingly, most of the "in foo" seem to be "man-made objects in foo"). Followup to Hiding's question - where exactly will we codify these naming rules? IMO, Categorization seems like the right spot (Naming conventions refers to it). The procedural rules around how the naming rules are used at WP:CFD seems like a separable issue, but must also be addressed. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay. In that list, I think we should take a look at two sections: "thing OF country" and "thing IN country". While this is somewhat nitpicky, we can probably set a simple criterion for OF vs IN. At a first glance, I'd say anything geographical should be IN (that includes lakes and roads etc, and also localized events such as racing) and anything related to government should be OF (and also, history, economics and other abstract concepts). Then propose that as a standard. Radiant_ >|< 14:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * By my count, our earlier poll has 29 people in support of "of country" (or "in country") when related to anything physically located within the borders thereof; 7 people oppose, 3 oppose standardization in general, and 2 do not express an opinion. That would be 74% support. Radiant_ >|< 14:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yes - we are in effect amending the naming convention (and this poll has already shown over three times as much interest). I've marked the convention as 'under discussion'. Radiant_ >|< 14:28, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think "of" vs. "in" is not nitpicky at all, and I'd prefer if we didn't try to initially institute a rule requiring wholesale renaming. In particular, the "natural feature of foo" categories (rivers, lakes, mountains, etc.) are currently nearly exclusively "of" - in fact, as I recollect these were fairly recently standardized to "of" (from a hodge podge of "in foo" and "fooish").  Are you really proposing changing these to "in"?  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I must repeat again that I see no reason at all to feel restricted by what we already have. Just because that's the way it is does not mean that is the way it must always be. Instituting a wholesale rename is easy, if we ask Beland nicely.
 * The geographic features, my gut reaction is to say "in" and allow them to appear in several countries if necessary; they do in 'real-life', after all. However, if CfD itself just recently agreed to all these (and I do seem to remember seeing the debates though opting out), then I guess we should respect that. -Splash 22:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Standarization to "rivers of foo" was from April 8 (archived here), some of the "lakes of foo" were renamed May 11 (archived here), and some more "rivers of foo" on June 30 (archived here). The June 30 discussion includes a reference to "the geographic categories standard at the country level", which I assume is referring to the earlier discussions here.  I truly thought "natural features of foo" (with "of") would not be controversial, since they're basically all in that format already.  As far as I know we haven't written this down as a standard before, but choosing to change it seems a little perverse (we're here because we don't have standards, but in this case there is an established informal standard that has been previously cited at CFD to create consistent naming).  Writing down a standard we already have, and changing procedures to make it easily enforceable, seems like a good first step.  If this is actually going to be controversial, how about if we pick a different one - perhaps "history/economy/government/geography/politics of foo"? Out of 455 categories of these forms,  31 (mostly in Category:Politics_by_country) do not conform to the "x of foo" naming convention.  Codifying just this much creates 31 renaming tasks and I hope would let us all think we're making at least some progress.  I would really, really like to pick something to start with that we can all immediately agree on. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:14, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really mind where we start since we will have to present a binary poll to the community at large anyway. On the geography point: all those discussions reference one another and the fact that it's already like that. So it's all just internalised. I mean, where is the Amazon river? "In South America", or "of South America". Are the Alps "of France" or "in France"? "In" seems like a no-brainer to me, and "of" is gramatically dubious at best.
 * I would have no problem with "history/economy/etc of Foo" so yes, if you like we could set that as a new speedy-rename first. -Splash 20:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary of consensus on procedure so far
I think this is what have agreement on so far:
 * 1) Any cats that go to speedy renaming will have two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to any standard decided upon. At that point, the cat goes up for discussion.
 * 2) Any poll would need a 70-30 ratio for such a standard to be set.
 * 3) Polling about consistent categories would be done before polling about inconsistent categories. Maurreen (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts:
 * 1) I hadn't realised that was the intent of the exception. It can be gamed too easily. "I think my favourite category should be an exception" and we're into a 7 day discussion. We need to be firmer than that. I'd suggest that, if there is a no-consensus outcome after the 2-day period that only then should it get the remaining 5 days (or maybe the full 7). It'd be much neater. -Splash 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Well, ok, but I'll put money on us standardising no more than one third of what we'd like to, just because we don't agree one way or the other. -Splash 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. -Splash 22:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:

 * 1) I think you've misunderstood this point. It won't allow gaming in that way, as a reason why has not been stated.  You would have to state something like American Revolution should be exempt from this naming system as Revolution in the United States is incorrect and Revolution of the colonies of Great Britain (it might have been the UK) in North America against the Crown is too long.  It's not enough to say my favourite category should be an exception without a reason, and such a vote can be disregarded.  Note also that we should make some mention that this standard will over-ride common usage, so that the reason can not simply be one of common usage.
 * 2) That's slightly negative. It behhoves us to find a middle ground we can go out and sell and achieve consensus on.  I'm not convinced we don't fundamentally agree, and it's worth finding the areas we do agree on.
 * 3) Yep. Hiding talk 07:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, speedy renaming needs to be discussed further. Maurreen (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Speedy renaming 2
Here are ideas raised so far for exceptions to speedy renaming for cats that don't conform to whatever standards are decided:
 * 1) Any cats that go to speedy renaming will have two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to any standard decided upon. At that point, the cat goes up for discussion. Inappropriate reasons include "I want." Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length.
 * 2) Common usage?
 * 3) Other appropriate or inappropriate reasons?
 * 4) If there is a no-consensus outcome after the 2-day period that only then should it get the remaining 5 days (or maybe the full 7.
 * 5) Within two days, there must be an objection (or maybe an objection with an "appropriate" reason) to the speedy by at least two users (or some other number to be determined). Each of these users must have been registered before the speedy nomination was made. (or some other requirement to prevent sockpuppetry) Maurreen (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * These suggestions taken to Centralized_discussion/Speedy_category_renaming. Please respond there. Radiant_ >|< 14:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's appropriate. The purpose of any poll this page is discussing is surely to create a standard that will be applied as a speedy renaming criteria.  So we need to discuss how to frame the speedy renaming criteria.  I think the only question we have is what makes a valid objection, although that should be clarified within the two day peeriod and decided by a closing admin.  I think we all agree one can not simply oppose without expressing a reason why the standard should not be applied.  I think we need to state the standard will over-rule common usage except in areas where the standard is inappropriate, as per the American revolution exaple I gave above. Hiding  talk 09:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My reason was that Maurreen's suggestions relate to speedy renaming in general, which is a broader issue than this discussion. There were some other points on SR'ing elsewhere, too. Radiant_ >|< 10:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, okay. I take it we still discuss them here with regards to how they affect any poll we are proposing here? It makes sense to have all discussion relevant to the poll here, yeah?  Hiding  talk 11:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we should have the parts of the discussion that apply to here, here. And I'm not entirely happy at the removal of SR from the policy page as it stands; it seems like making policy vanish without asking. Still, the discussion on SR does need to be had — and it seems to have died off in its new location. -Splash 20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy page that SR was removed from? Radiant_ >|< 07:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion policies in this diff. If I thought it important enough, I'd have put it back. But whereas prior to that diff there was at least some rule (if in dodgy English) there is now only a mention of a discussion of a rule. Still, non-admins would still have to list at the appropriate section on CfD. -Splash 16:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I understand you; Speedy Renaming is explained down the bottom of that page. I'm not sure where the assertion came from that speedy deletion must wait for two days, but I've removed that as it is clearly contradicted by WP:CSD. Radiant_ >|< 13:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I will have to miss the fun
I am taking an indefinite break. Maurreen (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed poll question?
Okay, just to push things along, here's a proposed poll question. I'm not sure about a suffrage restriction, do we need one? If so, I'd suggest users registered prior to the 17th July, as that was when this current debate was kickstarted at the village pump.

 * Wikipedia has a large number of areas where the topics are categorized by country. These frequently appear on WP:CFD with a request to rename them for consistency.  After much discussion and a straw poll, it has been decided to begin seeking consensus on consistent naming of categories by sections.  Therefore, this poll seeks to codify the standard already inherent within the following categories and subcategories there-of, and also make such a standard a criteria for speedy rename, with the following condition:
 * Any categories that go to speedy renaming to be standardised to the agreed format will have a two-day window in which users may state why the category is an exception to said standard. If there is valid objection to the speedy by at least two users, each of these users having been registered before the speedy nomination was made, the category gets the remaining 5 days. Inappropriate reasons include "I want." Appropriate reasons include factual accuracy and length.

 * The group of categories we seek consensus on standardising are as follows:

 * category:Companies by country
 * category:Demographics by country
 * category:Economies by country
 * category:Foreign relations by country
 * category:Government by country
 * category:Heads of state by country
 * category:History by country
 * category:Languages by country
 * category:Manufacturing companies by country
 * category:Militaries by country
 * category:Politics by country
 * category:Postal systems by country
 * category:Lists of subnational entities
 * category:Weapons by country

 * The standard we are seeking to apply is foo of country, a standard already inherent within these categories through common usage of wikipedians.

 * This is a binary poll to last 10 days and seeks a 70% suppport consensus with the question having been voted on by a minimum of 15 users. If the poll is succesful the standard will be listed at Categorization.

What's everyone's thoughts?

 * We should separate the speedy-rename procedure from the standardisation proposal in terms of how it is presented. People might support one part of this proposal, but not the other. Apart from that, I think I'm happy enough with the phrasing, and things, but wonder if the suffrage might be relaxed a little — we're talking more than a month of contributions. That's not unreasonable I suppose, but what about being registered prior to the first poll: it would seem unfair to allow a hypotheical new user to vote in that one but not this. -Splash 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Feel free to edit the proposed question to how you'd like to see it. That'll be the best way to get it where we want it, won't it?  As for suffrage, yes, that sounds reasonable.  That was the 4th of August, off the top of my head. Hiding  talk 22:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I've some questions over the speedy rename procedure, too: who will decide what is a "reasonable" objection (an admin, I presume) and how will they decide it? -Splash 21:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know. I'm half of the opinion that they should just be standardised and then have the requests for rename from the standard debated upon WP:CFD. We could look through all the categories and see if anything troubles us before we list the poll, though. That would allow us to determine any exceptions.  Hiding  talk 22:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I like most of the proposal, I am not sure about how to work the suffrage. As far as SR and valid objections, I would think a valid one would be most of what was discussed here, and not I want, listed above.  I wouldn't say it would require an admin to decide, as anyone who has spent a fair amount of time on any of the discussions would know a pointless objection over a valid one.  Plus every comment and/or objection would be seen by other users/admins in that discussion, so it could be "un-vetoed" if need be.   ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  22:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * In reponse to the above... I would like to make this actionable; too many repetitive matters appear on CFD these days. Anyway, some comments. First, we don't need suffrage. Suffrage has an "informal" version that is used throughout the wiki unless stated otherwise, and it basically means we can discount sockpuppet votes. Second, I'd remove the objection "by two users" part; a single objection is good enough. And third, we should give a couple of examples of valid exceptions (e.g. "Football of America"). It'd be mostly common sense. However...
 * My main problem here is that we're bureaucratizing the issue. In my opinion, we should be able to set a clear and simple guideline ("use X of country for any categories relating to political, organizational, social or historical articles"). The current list makes the issue bulky and confusing, and makes people likely to vote it down as instruction creep (I also note that our current list has 14 cats, while the main list where it came from has 25). Thus, see below.

Counterproposal
We have a couple of clear structures here. It is easier to define those structures and establish a clear guideline for that, than to establish individual guidelines for each individual category tree. Thus, a counterproposal that feels more intuitive. Basically,
 * 1) Geographical categories should use "in foo"
 * 2) Abstract categories (government, organization, etc) should use "of foo"
 * 3) People categories (professions, sports, etc) should use "fooish"

Note that this roughly corresponds to what is already there. Radiant_ >|< 13:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

By country or by nationality?
Some of the meta-cats are named "thing by country" and others "thing by nationality". Uniformity would be nice. Since this seems mainly a matter of semantics, it will probably boil down to a binary vote. The vast majority of such categories use "by country" (72 to 11, or 86%).

Geographical
These categories represent objects that physically exist within the borders of their country - e.g. lakes, cities, volcanoes and libraries. There seems a tendency towards "in foo" but "of foo" would be an acceptable alternative. None of these uses "fooish".

 * category:Archaeological sites by country (in foo)
 * category:Bridges by country (in foo)
 * category:Buildings by country (in foo)
 * category:Cemeteries by country (in foo)
 * category:Cities by country (in foo)
 * category:Geography by country (of foo)
 * category:Hospitals by nationality (in foo)
 * category:Lakes by country (of foo)
 * category:Libraries by country (in foo)
 * category:Mountain ranges by country (of foo)
 * category:Mountains by country (of foo)
 * category:Museums grouped by country (in foo)
 * category:National parks by country (of foo)
 * category:Peninsulas by country (of foo)
 * category:Protected areas by country (of foo)
 * category:Rivers by country (of foo)
 * category:Roads by country (in foo)
 * category:Subdivisions by country (of foo) (many subcats, not analyzed)
 * category:Towns by country (in foo)
 * category:UN World Heritage Sites (in foo)
 * category:Universities and colleges by nationality (in foo)
 * category:Volcanoes by country (of foo)

Abstracts
These are abstract concepts, generally related to sociology, structure and/or government, that are clearly tied to one country or another. Tendency seems to be towards "of foo", with some exceptions. In particular, for some of them, "in foo" simply sounds better. It's probably a good idea to split this list in two on that criterion. The few "fooish things" here are arguably out of place, and the recent poll seems to confirm that.

 * category:Architecture by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Art by nationality (fooish thing)
 * category:Battles by country (inconsistent) (special case - there are "battles OF country" and "battles IN country")
 * category:Capital punishment by country (in foo)
 * category:Communications by country (in foo)
 * category:Conservation by country (in foo)
 * Category:Culture by nationality (fooish thing)
 * category:Demographics by country (of foo)
 * category:Economies by country (of foo)
 * category:Education by country (in foo)
 * category:Environment by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Foreign relations by country (of foo)
 * category:Government by country (of foo)
 * category:Health by nationality (in foo)
 * category:Healthcare by nationality (in foo)
 * category:History by country (of foo)
 * category:Human rights by country (in foo)
 * category:Languages by country (of foo)
 * category:Law by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Literature by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Media by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Militaries by country (of foo)
 * category:Music by nation (fooish thing)
 * category:Natural history by country (of foo)
 * category:Newspapers by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Politics by country (of foo)
 * category:Postal systems by country (of foo)
 * category:Public holidays by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Religion by country (in foo)
 * category:Television by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Tourism by nation (in foo)
 * category:Transportation by country (in foo)
 * category:Wars by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Weapons by country (of foo)

Business and organizations
This has an obvious crossover with the above (and we may need to swap some of them) but this basically concerns organized groups of people. The issue seems split between "fooish" and "of/in foo", however given their abstract nature it would be easiest to group them with the former.

 * category:Aircraft by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Aircraft manufacturers (fooish thing)
 * category:Amusement parks by country (in foo)
 * category:Business by country (in foo)
 * category:Companies by country (of foo)
 * category:Environmental organizations by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Institutions by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Magazines by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Manufacturing companies by country (of foo)
 * category:Lists of subnational entities (of foo)
 * category:Organizations by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Political parties by country (in foo)
 * category:Radio by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Societies by nationality (fooish thing)

People
Individual people, professions etc. Tendency is obviously towards "fooish", and the recent poll was split on the issue. It seems difficult to get a consensus on this group, but especially here "fooish" simply sounds better.

 * category:Animals by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Athletes by nationality (fooish thing)
 * category:Athletics by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Cricketing nations (fooish thing)
 * category:Cycle racing by country (in foo)
 * category:Football (soccer) venues by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Golf by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Heads of government by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Heads of state by country (of foo)
 * category:Horseracing by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Lists of ministers (fooish thing)
 * category:Lists of office-holders (inconsistent)
 * category:Musical groups by nationality (fooish thing)
 * category:Nationalities by occupation (fooish thing)
 * category:Occupations by nationality (fooish thing) (75 subcats)
 * category:People by nationality (fooish thing)
 * category:Sports by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Sports venues by country (in foo)
 * category:Tennis by country (inconsistent)

Unknown
A few oddbal categories that didn't fit into my system.
 * category:Lists by country (inconsistent)
 * category:Films by country (fooish thing)
 * category:Plays by nationality (fooish thing)

Comments
There is a bigger question implied in all of this. Some "Fooish" categories use "fooish" because they are talking about the origin of the members of the category, and not their current location. So Canadian actors would include all of the Canadians now living in LA. Can this quality of originating in a place, but not necessarily still located there be what determines "Fooish"? I notice that this is not always consistent with "Fooish" categories, but I suspect it should be. The question should be "could these things that originate in Foo be found in other places? If the answer is yes, then "Fooish" is probably the best choice.  If wars are sometimes fought by people of one country in someone else's country, this might be a good choice for "fooish".  This would also imply "American Corporations".  This distinction also sometimes seems to be the difference between "of" and "in" for the geographical categories.  Rivers of Canada are sometimes also Rivers of the United States.  My point is that rather than just determine which categories use "Fooish", we should also say that the reason for using "fooish" is because it has a specific meaning -- things from a country related to people, that aren't by definition located in that country. -- Samuel Wantman 16:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, my first impression is that this counter proposal is a complete sidestep of all the discussion we've just engaged in over the last week where it seemed to me we had agreement on starting on one group of categories that had a clear standard already arrived at by common usage and seek to codify that before moving on to the next grouping. I'm not clear on how this counter proposal addresses that, nor exactly what it is proposing. If you are proposing we have all polls at once, then I was under the impression we had discarded that notion as per Maurreen's summaries. Otherwise, I don't find the listing of counter proposals helpful if the intention is to run them one after the other, as we are muddying water we don't need to as of yet. I thought a decision had been made to leave the nationality issue until after we had standardised other areas that didn't need to address such a split area, and then we could utilise the good faith we had built in each other and the community to tackle that area, and then similarly move on to the inconsistent categories.

I appreciate that you ultimately want to see universal guidelines, but I don't think my proposal is aimed at a single category tree, nor will the outcome neccessarily entail a single category tree approach, but rather end up with a grouping that had grown organically. Hiding talk 18:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Hiding that this proposal is likely too sweeping, but I'd prefer the first poll to be some "meta" category of categories other than simply "the categories in this list". If we can't find an uncontroversial meta-category to start with (and, sigh, I fear we can't - but I still think "geographical features of foo" is a reasonable candidate) I'd rather start with a defined list.  I think the problem is simply too big to tackle all at once.  -- Rick Block (talk) 00:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Right. The reason I trimmed the list from 25 to 14 is because the geographical ones were causing concern with debate over in or of, so that left the 14 above. My own feeling is that we should be seeking small areas where we can agree and then expand outwards.  I'm quite happy for that list of 14 to be added to, if we can all agree on the additions, or for a meta-category to be chosen, if we can.  However, we had previously agreed not to attempt inconsistent categories, and furthermore, I don't actually see this codification as an instance of instruction creep, and would suggest that that argument is going to be used to reject any standardisation attempt.  I would have thought going to the community with a group of categories which are already of x and asking if we could standardise that was better than going and asking if we could unilaterally rename all categories, which seems more of a case of instruction creep.  Hiding  talk 09:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, we don't need to hold all polls at once (although you have to admit it's easier to get attention that way). For instance, we could start with the geographical list above, which almost universally uses the same standard. My point is that a proposal like "geographical categories should use name" is more workable than a proposal like "The following N categories should use name". The latter sounds arbitrary, and non-extensible (to the effect where we'd require yet another discussion on each addition to the list). If you cover the traject slowly, people will lose interest. If you ask to standardize something that is already 100% standardized, people may wonder what you're trying to accomplish. Thus I'm proposing we standardize something that is 80%-90% standardized, and clearly defined; that sounds like something most people would agree on. Radiant_ >|< 09:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * The step from "no codified rule" to "any rule" seems like a big one. I think we should try to make it as easy as possible.  I proposed "geographic feature of foo" and there was some resistance.  Hiding's proposal seems like a pragmatic response to that resistance.  I haven't added up the categories in the 14 classes Hiding proposes, but (per above) within only the 5 classes of "[history|economy|government|geography|politics] of foo" there are 455 categories with 31 not using an "of foo" name (93% conformance).  If was can't agree on "geographic feature of foo" and Hiding's list is too unsatisfying, how about "man-made objects in foo"?  This would be include:
 * category:Amusement parks by country
 * category:Archaeological sites by country
 * category:Bridges by country
 * category:Buildings by country
 * category:Cemeteries by country
 * category:Cities by country
 * category:Universities and colleges by nationality
 * category:Hospitals by nationality
 * category:Libraries by country
 * category:Museums grouped by country
 * category:Roads by country
 * category:Sports venues by country
 * category:Towns by country
 * category:UN World Heritage Sites
 * and perhaps some others not specifically listed in Category_titles/Categories_by_country (like category:Airports, which should clearly be category:Airports by country, but it uses "of" rather than "in"). I suspect any general rule will end up hitting at least one class of category currently standardized in some other form.  Perhaps we want to avoid this, but perhaps we don't.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Regardless of what we do, we will at some point hit upon something either not standardized or standardized in the wrong way. So I don't think that'd be a problem. Can we simultaneously propose that any categories about "man-made objects in foo" use "in foo" as a suffix, and that the parent category should be called "thing by country" (rather than "by nationality)? Radiant_ >|< 14:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am back intermittently. I can't address all the details now, but I prefer Hiding's proposal to Radiant's counterproposal, mainly because of the consensus to handle the already-consistent categories first. Maurreen (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so I feel slightly responsible for the removal of geography from this discussion. However, most if not all of these are binary questions. Do we want (a) or (b)? As such, there's not a whole bundle of point us discussing this among ourselves, since we are going to have present precisely the same two options to the community once we're done. Even supposing we were to agree on whether to use (a) or (b) there's no reason to suppose the community at large will do so. Basically, given this, I wouldn't have a problem with the purpose of this discussion being to carve the categories up into such binary questions (which most seem to be) and present a mass poll. It's either that or a series of smaller polls, and people will get tired of voting and will begin telling us that polls are...etc -Splash 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm getting slightly confused here. I thought we had agreement for leaving contentious categories until last.  I also thought we had agreement on trying to find a group of categories where a standard was almost inherent and seeking consensus on codifying that.  If that is no longer the case, then what are we actually in agreement on? I don't agree at the moment that they are all binary polls, to the extent that some categories are either format (a), format (b), or (c) no standard, which is a three way choice.  This whole discussion is starting to get circular, if I'm honest.  Hiding  talk 20:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, I'm happy enough to do the non-standardized one first if people want to. I'd just been thinking about it a bit, and had reached the conclusion I mentioned above. Still, even with that 3-way choice, it won't matter much what we agree here we think is best, it will still have to go to the community at large. So the difference any discussion here is likely to make is what the options are, rather than a determination of which is the best. But I'm ok with going with the smaller-scale version, as long as people don't think there will be poll-fatigue. -Splash 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, geographical categories for instance are not contentious and have an almost inherent standard. But Splash is correct about vote fatigue. I'm sure we shouldn't do twenty polls simultaneously, but neither should we restrict ourself to asking one single question per week. Radiant_ >|< 08:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm. It seemed as though Rick and Splash had differing opinions on the geographical categories and it was decided they were, for the time being, contentious. I'd also point out that I'm not sitting here suggesting we have twnety poll questions per week.  I thought the plan was to do uncontentious categories that were settled in a format, and then work out a proposal for contentious categories that were settled in a format, and then work out a proposal for inconsistent categories.  I saw it as, at most, a four stage process.  I think at the minute though we all seem to be pulling in different directions.  Perhaps we should take a breath and try to start again at common ground. Hiding  talk 10:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The geographic ones which initially seem mixed between "in Foo" and "of Foo" actually form a distinct pattern. With only two exceptions (both borderline areas - regions and parks) they are "Natural features of Foo" and "Human-made features in Foo". Given that that seems to be a de facto rule, I don't really see what the fuss is about there. Grutness...  wha?  02:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Lost
Having followed these discussions (and added the odd comment along the way) I am now totally lost as to who is saying what and why. I'm taking this page off my watch list.

If someone can come up with a summary of the discussion then please let me know.

--JimmyTheWig 08:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

American/United States
In that mind, it occurs to me to propose that on the American issue we could propose to allow the term American to be used to represent the United States on the basis of first usage, similar to the British/American spelling. If the category is named American, do not rename, and the same for United States. US and U.S. should however, be renamed to United States, and we could also propose placing a notice on categories which use American to the effect that the term is used to convey the nationality of the United States rather than to denote continental nationality. This would prevent systematic bias which could be argued if either side were chosen, and represents the split that seemed apparant on the issue. Thoughts? Hiding talk 20:05, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems to presuppose the discardment of the perfectly good discussions and progress we are making chunk-by-chunk above. I don't see the reason for the sudden changing of heart. -Splash 20:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure about this. I suggest defering it. Maurreen (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair play. The issue hadn't been raised for a while, I didn't really notice any discussion of it, to be honest, and this suggested itself as a nice compromise.  It would be nice to have thoughts on the compromise, but I shall kick it back into the long grass. Hiding  talk 20:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Category names/Archive 4


text:
User talk:Emcee

Welcome from Redwolf24
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.
 * User:Redwolf24/Bootcamp My own personal summarized Bootcamp.

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 (Talk) 22:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

Are you Emcee or Redwold24? Or both? --Nottingham 18:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nottingham and Hong Tran article
Managing Nottingham's behavior is not my responsibility. I warned him in regards to his incivil attack on you and suggested he take a different course of action, even suggested he stop editting the article while the AFD was in process. Anything he did after that is up to him. He seemed to have gotten too wrapped up in what is a rather minor article. Hopefully the forced wikibreak will do him good and he'll come back in a more cooperative state. As for the AFD, I submitted the AFD because I don't think Hong Tran is notable enough to warrant an article in Wikipedia. I also expressed my intention to change the article into a redirect or submit it for AFD prior to you and Nottingham going at it. The only reason I didn't submit it earlier was because the edit war and I wanted to see where it was headed. If the article survives the AFD then Hong Tran is notable enough to keep an article in the view of the Wikipedia community and Nottingham loses one of his reasons for purging the content of the article. Either way. Happy editting. --Bobblehead 15:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

KC Dems
Here's the link for the KC Dems endorsements. --Bobblehead 17:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Mediate us?
I will look at it on Monday. Thanks Wikipedia's   False Prophet   holla at me   Improve Me 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Cantwell
Would you please respond to me at Talk:Maria_Cantwell? At least one of the things you have said is simply false. - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Antiperspirants (Health Effects)
You erased my work in the Antiperspirants page (Health Effects): erasing the work of others is a clear Wikipedia faux-pas. This is in very poor taste, especially considering that it was very well -referenced, mostly from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is a very high quality and reputable source.

Regarding your comment quetioning Aluminium's toxicity: it has been a known neurotoxin for quite some time. Please do research before changing the work of others. And NEVER erase their work, you may only modify or add to it.

Furthermore, when you provide your own references, please use the common referencing format.

Sorry, I forgot to sign this edit

Your recent modifications to this article are very good, those were the types of additions I was hoping people would make! Thank you!

I find your comments in my user-talk page somewhat confusing. I felt that each of the statements I wrote in that article come directly from the journal articles I cited. Perhaps you felt that the abstracts didn't sufficiently relay this, but since you also have a masters, you should be able to access the full text of those articles to confirm (through your school). I got the feeling that you didn't read the referenced journal articles, that you just removed the content and references without justification.

From the Etiquette guide: WP:Etiquette
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible
 * Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle

From the Faux Pas: Avoiding_common_mistakes
 * Deleting biased content (remove the bias, not the content)
 * Deleting without justifying (which is what you did)

Of course, my comment "NEVER ERASE" wasn't completely accurate, but you really do have to provide item-specific justification. Especially when it's heavily cited, as my entries were. Just because you have edited wikipedia more than I have, it doesn't make my contributions any less valuable.

Anyway, sorry if I came across strongly or if my writing was too biased (perhaps both), but it's really frustrating to spend a few hours reading through all types of neuroscience journal articles (etc.) to find high quality relevant research just to have it erased and replaced with a few high level cancer-specific webpages. Let's work on that article and make it reflect current research!

Psi-kat 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One last note: I'm not sure if it's legal to copy/paste stuff from the FDA's website, I reworded it slightly to make sure there were no plagiarism issues.

Psi-kat

My assumption that you thought my contributions were less valuable wasn't because of what you wrote, but because of your actions: you removed a large portion of what I added and gave no justification at all.

I'd like to work in a "cooperative and uncontentious manner" as you stated in my talk page, but your edits are pretty much the definition of contentious: "mice have no sweat glands", "aluminium chloride isn't a known neurotoxin", "oestrogen doesn't inhibit DNA repair in breast cells", "tumours can't turn non-cancerous (become benign)", these are all well known in the field. Accusing me of not reading the articles I cite isn't cooperative, it's just plain rude!

Psi-kat 22:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs Patent attorney
I agree there were too many external links to blogs in this article. However, some of them are very valuable from a legal point of view. Many patent attorneys use these source of information. What criterion could we use to re-insert some of them if possible? --Edcolins 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh?
Umm.. What are you talking about? I removed a pointless flag from her infobox. Flags are indeed sometimes used in infoboxes, but there are more bios without flags and a growing opposition to their inclusion in infoboxes. Check out WP:FLAGCRUFT. It's just an essay, true, but before you start assuming bad faith on me for removing a non-value added image, perhaps you should actually spend some time editing bio articles so you're up on the ebbs and flows of opinions on such things. As for any "mistakes" I've made in the past regarding the Hong Tran article, every single one of my actions in regards to the article has been within the bounds of Wiki-policy. Hong Tran remains a primary election candidate that is in the gray area of notability and, in my opinion, probably shouldn't have an article in Wikipedia. Her article is more NPOV now than the campaign site it was before I came and made my "mistakes". So, please, trundle off for another 2 months and next time you want to question my edits, try and educate yourself before doing so. Tata. --Bobblehead 17:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh good. I wasn't too subtle for you. I was worried. Tata. --Bobblehead 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't assumed good faith since your first post on my talk page... I'd like to see the beginning of good faith before I can answer how you can continue. --Bobblehead 16:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Hong Tran for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hong Tran, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Hong Tran (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Emcee


text:
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Special Forces Groep/Groupe Special Forces

The following comment was added after the discussion was closed:

 * **Government texts are generally copyrighted; don't be misled by the high-profile but unusual exception of the US. Shimgray 18:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Copied to discussion page. --Tony Sidaway Talk 22:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Bob Friend (newscaster)

Bob Friend, MBE (20 January 1938 – 8 October 2008) was one of the original news anchors for the Sky News channel from its launch in 1989 until his retirement in late 2003.

Early days
After completing his education at the Skinners' School, Friend started his career in 1953 aged 15 as a cub reporter on the Tunbridge Wells Advertiser, reporting on the Queen Elizabeth II's Coronation. After he undertook National Service as a corporal clerk with the Brigade of Gurkhas in Hong Kong, Friend served a ten-year freelance career in various British newspapers before starting his broadcast career with BBC News in 1969.

BBC News
Starting out as the Northern Ireland correspondent of the Radio 4's Today programme, Friend served four years in Northern Ireland witnessing sectarian violence at the start of The Troubles. After a short stint in Vietnam he got his first official overseas TV posting as the BBC's first Australia correspondent in 1973, five years as the BBC's Tokyo correspondent, and finally New York City as BBC Breakfast correspondent where his producer was Mark Thompson, who went on to become Director-General of the BBC.

Sky News
After 20 years with the BBC, Friend returned to the United Kingdom to work on the start-up Sky News. Friend's first appearance on Sky News was on 2 February 1989 alongside Kay Burley, but his best known on-screen partner was Anna Botting, and they became one of channel's most popular news duos.

Friend became the best recognised face of Sky News, and as a result of being spotted by Tom Cruise while he watched Sky News on a short visit to London, Friend had cameos in a number of 1990s films, including Independence Day and Mission Impossible.

Radio
Friend was a guest presenter on LBC News 1152 during the 2005 United Kingdom general election.

Honours
In June 2003, Friend was awarded an MBE for services to broadcasting in the Queen's Birthday Honours List, shortly before his retirement presenting alongside Creegor on 23 October, nearly 15 years after his first appearance.

Personal life
Friend was married with two daughters. He died on 8 October 2008 from a brain tumour.

Tributes
Chairman and CEO of News Corporation Rupert Murdoch paid personal tribute to Friend: Bob was a distinguished journalist and an admired broadcaster. He was quick to understand the power of non-stop programming. He was there at the beginning of that long, hard road we all had to travel to make Sky News what it is today.

Memorial Scholarship
The University of Kent's Centre for Journalism has had for many years, since 2009, the Sky News Bob Friend Memorial Scholar. Several previous scholars now work from KM News, Daily Mail Newspaper and Sky News. The annual scholarship of 2013 was presented to Georgia Fry by Neil Dunwoodie, Executive Producer Sky News, at the 2013 Bob Friend Memorial Lecture (by Stephanie Flanders BBC Economics editor ) at the Pilkington Lecture Theatre at the University of Kent's Medway Campus in Chatham.

Partial filmography

 * Mission: Impossible (1996) - Sky News Man
 * Independence Day (1996) - Himself - 'Sky News' Anchorman (uncredited)
 * Quicksand (2003) - Newscaster (final film role)

title: Bob Friend (newscaster)


text: Category:2002 Atlantic hurricane season

title: Category:2002 Atlantic hurricane season


text:
Talk:Sublimis Deus (version 2)

I have posted another article with an alternate (correct?) spelling of this important encyclical Sublimus Dei including the full text. Would someone please link the two articles. I am not a skilled enough wikipedian yet to do this myself. Thanks. Jay Gregg 22:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Done, although the 'full text' should be moved to wikisource (if it's not there) and linked from the article. --Doc (?) 22:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sublimis Deus (version 2)


text:
Ivo Minář

Ivo Minář (born 21 May 1984) is a former professional male tennis player from the Czech Republic. On 20 July 2009 Minář reached his career-high singles ranking of World No. 62. His brother Jan is also a professional player, who has been ranked in the top 200 in the world.

Minář was a member of the winning Czech Republic team in the 2012 Davis Cup.

Minář also worked as coach of Czech tennis player Kristýna Plíšková.

Career
Minář won the European junior championships in Klosters when he was 16, defeating fellow Czech Tomáš Berdych.

Professional career
In his career, he has not won an ATP singles title, but has reached one singles final – in 2005 in Sydney, where he lost to Lleyton Hewitt of Australia. On his way to that final, he dispatched three future top 10 stars in Nikolay Davydenko, Fernando Verdasco and Radek Štěpánek. Later that year, he qualified for the tournament in Dubai and pushed World No. 1 Roger Federer to final set tie-break in the first round, losing 7–6(5), 3–6, 6–7(5).

Minář tested positive for methylhexanamine on 11 July 2009 and was suspended eight months.

title: Ivo Minář


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiFan04

WikiFan04
[ Vote here] (2/12/4) ending 23:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC) withdrawn - I've been around since January 2004, a lot longer than a considerable amount of people here, and have amassed near 1,000 edits, counting my edits as an anon IP. I have been active on VfD, and have taken process in making categories, templates and articles, as well as being a WikiGnome.
 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I accept my self-nomination. :-) -- WikiFan04 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) DOWN WITH EDITCOUNTITIS!!! -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:37, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - I don't see why not. Adminship should not be solely based on edit counts, which happen to be a very poor indicator of activity. Adminship is simply removing some security restrictions because we know the guy is not an idiot. --Phroziac (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. As I write, only 665 edits, and only 130 or so of those to Wikipedia: space, with very few indeed to the various Talk: spaces. Not enough 'stuff' to judge interaction on, which is important for admins. Article work appears ok, but at least several of those on the user page are single-sentence stubs. Some of the others have never been edited by this username, so presumably as an anon. Not really able to consider the edits as anon, unfortunately, since no means of attributing them. Also doesn't use edit summaries nearly enough, and the answer to Question 3 "small-time users or IPs who like to futz around", leaves me feeling very unsure. Do you mean vandals, or just editors whose edits you think are "incorrect"? In any case, come back in a well-distributed thousand edit summaries' time or two, and I'll consider afresh. -Splash 23:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Good editor, but too few edits.   ral  315  23:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) A bit new short on edits; was told to wait by some but decided to self-nom anyway. Voted to keep Coq Roq and then nominated The Subservient Chicken for deletion citing Coq Roq: WP:POINT, confusion, or just pandering? Either way, oppose for now. Try again soon. Andre ( talk ) 23:29, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose you cannot become an administrator until you have made 1,000 edits. freestylefrappe 03:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...since when? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:36, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose —700 edits in 19 months is just too few. Also, needs to use edit summaries more often.   Journalist C./ Holla @ me!
 * 2) Oppose. I'm not comfortable with the editor's grasp of Wikipedia policy based on the relatively low number of edits in the WP namespace (most of which are VfD edits).  Also, the lack of edit summaries is discouraging.  --Alan Au 08:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Needs more experience. More edit summaries would also be helpful. Carbonite | Talk 11:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose now. Needs more experience. utcursch | talk 12:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, hyperbolic confrontational style demonstrated below is not productive, seemingly belies his statement that he is "not one to burst out at other users." Christopher Parham (talk) 17:00, 2005 August 29 (UTC)
 * 6) ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not only is this nomination in the wrong section, but he has harassed me on Wikipedia and on IRC about things I didn't even do.  He blanked my talk page, then told me he'd only stop if I talked to him on IRC.  (The topic he is discussing is related to when he was repeatedly quieted, kicked, and banned, by at least 3 different ops in IRC.  The specific incident he is referring to I had nothing to do with.) CryptoDerk 22:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * As an aside, there is no longer a self-nom section, per a brief discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for Adminship. All noms are just made in one place now. -Splash 23:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, I go away for a couple of weeks and look what happens. My bad. CryptoDerk 01:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Oppose. WikiFan, I'm sorry to do this to you but those links that CryptoDerk posted are rather damning. I think you need to have some more time editing and learning how to deal with stress a little better before you run for admin again. You're a good editor, but you apparently need to work on getting along with others more. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 22:29, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per CryptoDerk's comments. More experience is needed. Jaxl | talk 23:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral - meets most of my criteria, but I haven't interacted with him a lot, save for today. Rob Church Talk 23:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - The user is obviously a productive Wikipeidian, but more experince might serve him. I think he would be found useful though if given Adminship. --CoolFox 05:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. WikiFan04 is on the right path, but could benefit from more experience in terms of interacting with the community. This is not something easily quantified in terms of time or raw edit counts. --MarkSweep✍ 06:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Neutral, needs more community interaction and edit summaries. Alphax τεχ 14:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * Andre, I'm not new. I mean vandals, and "incorrect" editors, like the IP who kept rving the infobox on GNAA. Also, I felt that if Coq Roq was not notable, neither was The Subservient Chicken. --WikiFan04Talk 18:40, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * But didn't you a) create Coq Roq and b) vote to keep Coq Roq? Andre ( talk ) 00:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to me. An editor who disagrees with Wikipedia community standards could nonetheless have a legitimate desire to see those standards enforced consistantly. Aquillion 07:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose you cannot become an administrator until you have made 1,000 edits. freestylefrappe 03:24, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon?!? When did THAT become policy? (answer: it's not.) Kate was right: Editcountitis can be fatal. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It became policy at 2am. --Phroziac (talk) 14:07, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Alan Au, you're saying that since I have a low number of edits, I can't POSSIBLY know Wikipedia policy? Wow. Kate said editcountitis was fatal, just like Fennec mentioned. Having only 700 edits does not make me an utter idiot. --WikiFan04Talk 4:43, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * I apologize if you misinterpreted my comment; I merely indicated that I was personally uncomfortable with your limited scope of interaction in the WP namespace based on a review of your edit history. Technically, I can oppose for any reason, but I was hoping that my feedback might help you earn a support vote from me during a later nomination.  I'm sorry, but your escalated reaction to my comment makes me wary of endorsing you for adminship at this time.  --Alan Au 17:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm told that I don't have enough Wikipedia: edits and user talk page edits (don't talk with the community much). According to the edit tool and a calculator, one out of every five edits I make is a Wikipedia: edit, and one out of every ten is a User talk edit. --WikiFan04Talk 9:30, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * It's true that you do edit in the Wikipedia namespace. However, the vast majority of these edits are deletion or RfA pages. There are only two edits to Wikipedia talk, which is where policy is usually discussed. I also noticed that you voted on two proposed ArbCom decisions earlier this summer:, . I'm sure they were just a mistake, but this shows that more experience wouldn't hurt. Carbonite | Talk 17:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Christopher, how do I belie my statement of not bursting out at other users? An explanation would be appreciated. Oh, and please explain how I am hyperbolic. --WikiFan04Talk 12:17, 29 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 * That was in reference to your outburst in response to Alan Au above, particularly the fact that you seemed to interpret his mild opposition as an egregious personal affront. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)

 * A. I often nominate pages for deletion, vote on VfD, create templates and categories, or carry out Requested Articles tasks. If I were to be given the mop and bucket, I would delete pages, patrol RC, and help regulate bots.

 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

 * A. Well, if you look at my user page, you will see a list of 17 articles I have created, and I also created scientology-stub, which is a template.

 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. Yes, I have been in conflicts over edits I was about to do. And, small-time users or IPs who like to futz around on Wikipedia putting incorrect edits in (such as numerous people on Gay Nigger Association of America) and have caused me Level 2 WikiStress. I can get very agitated (for a short time the "run for cover" graphic was on my user page) but am not one to burst out at other users. I calmly find a way to solve a situation.

--WikiFan04 23:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Fort Pitt Tunnel

The Fort Pitt Tunnel is a vehicular tunnel under Mount Washington in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It connects the West End region on the southwest side to the South Shore neighborhood on the northeast side. The adjoining Fort Pitt Bridge on the northeast end connects to Downtown Pittsburgh. The tunnel carries traffic on Interstate 376 (I-376), U.S. Route 22 (US 22), US 30, and US 19 Truck. The structure comprises two bores, each with two lanes of traffic. The inbound tunnel flows onto the top deck of the double-deck Fort Pitt Bridge, opposite traffic from the lower deck using the outbound tunnel. To accommodate the bridge, the northeast portals of the parallel tunnels are vertically staggered by 30 feet. The tunnel opened in September 1960, a year after the Fort Pitt Bridge.

Before entering the southwest end of the inbound tunnel, travelers see a commonplace view of Southwestern Pennsylvania's hills, but at the northeast end, travelers emerge to a panorama of Downtown Pittsburgh and the surrounding skyline. The view was cited by The New York Times as "the best way to enter an American city". The vantage was the inspiration for the news opening on Pittsburgh's KDKA-TV for several years in the 1980s and 1990s, and is referenced in Stephen Chbosky's novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

The Fort Pitt Tunnel is the third-longest automobile tunnel in Pittsburgh, following the Liberty Tunnels and the Squirrel Hill Tunnel. It is one of four major tunnels passing beneath Mount Washington, including the Liberty Tunnels and the Wabash Tunnel for automobiles, and the Mount Washington Transit Tunnel for public transportation.

History
Before the existence of the Fort Pitt Tunnels (as well as the Penn Lincoln Parkway and West End Bypass), South Hills commuters travelled around the Banksville Circle, which was the northern terminus of Banksville Road and western terminus of Saw Mill Run Blvd at the time. On July 11, 1954, contracts were awarded for the basic design of the Fort Pitt Tunnels. The groundbreaking ceremony for the Fort Pitt tunnel was held April 17, 1957 and drilling began August 28 of the same year. In April 1960 construction on the tunnels was complete and they opened for the first time at 11 a.m. on September 1, 1960, with a dedication ceremony on the southwestern portal by Governor Lawrence, Pennsylvania Transportation Secretary Park H. Martin and Pittsburgh Mayor Joseph M. Barr followed by a "christening" of the tunnels in which the Governor led a caravan of antique cars through. The tunnel cost $17 million (equivalent to $ in ).

On Thursday, May 31, 2007, a bomb threat shut down the Fort Pitt Tunnel along with the Liberty and Squirrel Hill tunnels, causing a major traffic jam.

The tunnel provided AM reception in 1960, but due to design repairs it was discontinued until 1986. It was improved to cover the entire tunnel with strong reception in March 1997. Since August 1987, the tunnels have provided cellular phone reception. With the help of Carnegie Mellon University graduate students, the tunnel has provided FM reception since July 2005 as well as having its AM signals upgraded at that time. In 2015, the original flat ceiling was removed due to its poor condition.

The tunnel was used as a filming location for the 2012 film The Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Dimensions and specifications

 * 3614 ft in length
 * 28 ft wide
 * 13.5 ft vertical clearance
 * Serves nearly 107,000 vehicles per day.
 * There are 1,788 light fixtures with 3,576 bulbs.
 * There are 187200 sqft of tiled surface to wash.

title: Fort Pitt Tunnel


text:
User:Delepaak

A journalist working on natural resource transparency issues, mainly in the Middle East and other places.

title: User:Delepaak


text:
User talk:Jeannehaz

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rob Church Talk 22:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Notability of Thomas Walter Hartfield
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Thomas Walter Hartfield, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Thomas Walter Hartfield seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Thomas Walter Hartfield, please affix the template 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 22:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Hartfield Thomas Walter.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Hartfield Thomas Walter.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Hartfield Thomas Walter.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hartfield Thomas Walter.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Cube00 (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeannehaz


text:
Talk:Tanumshede

I agree with your removal of the text Wiglaf. (I was the one that added the last paragraph about "they may depict something else").

I am actually a little sceptical about the authencity of some of the carvings. They have existed here for at least 2,000 years -- what says that no one during that time would try and imitate them? I know I would have.

Fred-Chess 22:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have been to Tanumshede and have never seen a fjord nearby (unless you consider 10 kilometers nearby), neither have I seen the mention of "fjord" in any of the literature I acquired while at Tanumshede or the Vitlycke Museum there. Of course. some people prefer to revert before discussing, although I personally prefer to discuss before reverting. Fred-Chess 21:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) If you check out a map, you'll find a fjord nearby, close to the "Tanum road". Are you certain that there aren't petroglyphs along the fjord)?
 * 2) The land has been constantly rising since the Ice Age. Are you sure that they were not carved along a contemporary fjord?
 * 3) It was not a revert, as you may notice if you check the edit.--Wiglaf 21:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that they were carved along a contemporary fjord (no longer due to land elevation), but if so they should be mentioned as such. I don't think there are carvings along the current coastal line because the land was under sea level 2000 years ago.
 * Furthermore, the Tanumshede World Heritage Area stretches from Tanumshede down south, and does not cover the coastal area.
 * Fred-Chess 21:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I will change the wording accordingly.--Wiglaf 22:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tanumshede


text:
Yucca de Lac

Yucca de Lac is a high-end restaurant at the Peak Galleria in Hong Kong. The original restaurant was opened at Tai Po Road, Ma Liu Shui, in 1963 and closed on September 20, 2005. Located near the Chinese University of Hong Kong, it was famous for frequently serving as a scene for the black-and-white Cantonese films made in the 1960s. The site of the original restaurant was sold in 2005 to a local businessman at $380 million HKD for redevelopment as a real estate project. There were concerns from environmental groups that woodland on the site would not be preserved. Including the price of the land, developer Yucca Development invested over $1 billion in the 21-home project.

On March 26, 2012 the Fung Lum Restaurant Group opened a USA branch of the bar and restaurant in the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California.

title: Yucca de Lac


text:
Oslo International Poetry Festival

The Oslo International Poetry Festival (OIPF) was held on June 14 to 16th, 1985 and also August 14 to 20th, 1986.

Participants were, among many other:

 * Octavio Paz
 * Sonia Sanchez
 * James Baldwin
 * Andreij Voznesinsky
 * Gherasim Luca
 * R. D. Laing
 * Roger Greenwald
 * Jan Verner-Carlsson
 * Protima Bedi
 * Gherasim Luca
 * Rolf Jacobsen
 * Horst Baumann
 * Piet Hein
 * Albert Nordengen
 * Åse Kleveland
 * Karin Krogh
 * Noel Cobb
 * Lawrence Ferlinghetti
 * William Irwin Thompson
 * Karl Pribram
 * Wayne Garcia
 * Joolz
 * Randall Meyers
 * Hazel Henderson
 * Patricia Leventon
 * Arne Næss
 * Francis Huxley
 * Robert Anton Wilson
 * Adele Getty,
 * Ntozake Shange
 * Ustad Nazim Ali Khan
 * Sirje Kaerma
 * A.T.H. Ljungberg
 * Tomas Tranströmer
 * Göran Tunström
 * Bodil Lindfors
 * Jarkko Laine
 * Ellen Einan
 * Warren R. Carlstrom
 * Arne Nordheim
 * Rói Patursson
 * Anthony Barnett
 * Robert Haraldsen
 * The Fugs
 * Erik Bye
 * Russell Hoban
 * Walter Ahart
 * Mathew Collins
 * Frode Alnæs

The Norwegian author Axel Jensen was chairman of OIPF in 1985 and in 1986. In the committees were also:

 * Olav Angell
 * Lasse Tømte
 * Halfdan W. Freihow
 * Thomas Bay
 * Robert Haraldsen
 * Jan Christian Mollestad
 * Cecilie Sverre
 * Kjell Finstad
 * Kristin Hansen
 * Randi Mikkelsen
 * Tone Hovland
 * Sven Bjørk
 * Pelle Gustavsen
 * Erik Varjord
 * Ellen Lange
 * Pratibha Jensen
 * Bjørn Stendahl
 * Wayne Garcia
 * Khalid Thathad
 * Marte Askeland
 * Geir Giske
 * Trygve Åslund
 * Tom Knutzen
 * Ikhlaque Chan,
 * Klaus Fjellberg.

Robert Anton Wilson dedicates his book "Wilhelm Reich in Hell","...to all political prisoners, wherever they may be."' and writes: "I recently had the honor of writing the statement of principles that concluded the 1986 International Poetry Festival in Oslo, Norway, which was signed by all the participating artists and scientists. That statement is printed below, to transmit again a signal of solidarity with all victims of tyranny:

"We, the undersigned participants in the 1986 Oslo International Poetry Festival, hereby deplore all governments which presently hold in prison artists, writers or scientists condemned for no crimes except creative thought. We affirm our solidarity with all these imprisoned sisters and brothers and send them this signal of our concern and love. We call on all governments to grant amnesty to all such persons and we call on all citizens everywhere to join us in protest against the barbarous practise of attempting to cage the mind and strangle the creative spirit."

title: Oslo International Poetry Festival