text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 11

Ships by country

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the items in the "Undecided by country" section of Naming conventions (categories). It needs to be resolved with some urgency as there are several duplicate categories at present. Most of the categories are in the form "nationality ships". I think this is preferable because ships are often anthropomorphized. The likes of "Ships of Poland" sounds ugly to me, and is certainly not normal usage. So rename/merge all to "X ships". If this proposal gets a vote or two I will go through and tag all the categories. CalJW 20:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename/merge everything in Category:Ships by country and Category:Ships by nationality per nom (and hope nobody can find a ship of the Holy Roman Empire suitable for an article). Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Remame/merge per CalJW and Kirill. SoLando (Talk) 23:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep Category:Ships by country, and transfer all entries there from Category:Ships by nationality. "Country", rather than "nationality", is used in most other contexts to denote geopolitical boundary entities.  (We don't say Cities by nationality or Books by nationality or Companies by nationality, e.g.).  I have less problems with Ships of the United States than United States ships, which might easily be read to include all ships made in the USA, even if sold to some other country for actual usage. 12.73.195.105 00:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment x2
 * Might there be some virtue in keeping categories grouped "by nationality" in the format Barish foo while those grouped "by country" as Foo of/in Bar? (I'm not saying don't merge in this case, I'm merely saying try to match the name format to the category title which is kept)
 * Might we want to look into clarifying what defines the appropriate country/nation to file a ship under? For instance, are various ships flying under a flag of convenience Panamanian, Liberian etc.?  Or do we care about the nationality of the crew?  Or how about the homeport?  Or do we care about the place of manufacture?  All those question marks make me wonder if something like "Ships registered in Foo" or "Ships under the flag of Foo" might be the best way to go about things.  The drawback is it might be less informative when it comes to commercial shipping in the modern era where we'll get the Foobarbata Maru and the MV Queen of Fooba both categorized as from the Netherlands Antilles.
 * -The Tom 01:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment Per the Tom, most ships transporting cargo internationally are registered to a flag of convenience, e.g. Panama, Cyprus, etc., crews are gathered from around the world (particularly asia). Additionally, certain countries (i.e. the United States) have very restrictive laws on registering ships (must be manufactured in the US, always owned by American parties, crewed by Americans, etc.) whereas others clearly do not.  In short, ships can't generally be said to have "nationality" in the modern age, nor are they strictly "of" a country.  I would suggest "Ships registered in Foobaria" as preferable and potentially slightly less confusing than "Ships under the flag of Foobaria" ("under the flag of" might theoretically confuse some landlubbers or those whose English is less than perfect). siafu 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * By far the majority of the articles in these categories, however, are military ships, for which the question of registration is somewhat irrelevant. Perhaps a split into "Ships registered in Foo" and "Naval vessels of Foo" might be worthwhile. Kirill Lokshin 00:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that is a good idea. siafu 16:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment We already have Category:Naval ships which categorises in the form "Fooian naval ships".
 * Note also that many ships did not sail under the United Kingdom flag, for instance the Golden Hind, although it remains correct to categorise them as British. Hiding talk 17:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that's a historical loophole that's bound to dog any country-based rather than nationality-based categorization, and I imagine we could grin and bear this one... put the Hind and its contemporaries in an "under the flag of England" cat, which could be either promoted to root or be subcatted in a technically-innacurate way under the "under the flag of the United Kingdom". -The Tom 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that a proposal to basically eliminate any top-level breakdown of ships by country/nationality, then? Separate civilian and naval cats from the root, and then no more cross-referencing on the country level?  Just making sure we're all on the same page -The Tom 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, as I don't see any problems with having "Naval ships by country" and "Civilian ships by country" both under "Categories by country". Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, but are you proposing having or not having a "Ships by country > Ships of Elbonia > Civilian ships of Elbonia" supercategorization? -The Tom 14:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I didn't realise this area was so complicated. I'm going to leave it for shipping enthusiasts to sort out at some future time. CalJW 23:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Good idea! Nice and simple. There will be a lot for Liberia! Wallie 07:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge as appropriate to Category:Ships by country and set that as standard in usual fashion, with the form "Ships of X". Christopher Parham (talk) 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Prize in Economics winners to Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 02:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This category should have "Nobel" added to the beginning of its title, since "Prize" is rather nondescript. Suggest renaming to Category:Nobel Prize in Economics winners. -- tomf688 {talk} 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename CalJW 20:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 22:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Surely there are other prizes in economics. BD2412  talk 17:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a Nobel price, so calling it Nobel Prize in Economics is wrong. Shanes 18:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is generally referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. It could be renamed the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, as the article suggests, but leaving it simply as "Prize" is unacceptable. -- tomf688 {talk} 20:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics or Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics, make Nobel Prize in Economics a categoryredirect. — Instantnood 05:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename makes it simple Youngamerican 05:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a Nobel Prize. Category:Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics winners would be better. NatusRoma 22:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a Nobel Prize because that is what it is normally called. The category system is a navigation tool, and your proposed name will make it much harder to find. The technicalities can be discussed in the article. CalJW 23:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Korean drama to category:South Korean television drama

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Add "South" as per the nomination below and "television" for clarity because that is what this category is for. So rename category:South Korean television drama. CalJW 19:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:Korean television seriesto category:South Korean television series

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 02:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

- I'm in the process of reorganising the Korea, South Korea, and North Korea menus so that articles can easily be reached from any of them and categories contain what they say they contain. Many aspects of culture are best dealt with at all-Korea level, but in television a distinction is valuable as it largely or entirely post-dates division and the contrast between the television of the two Korean states is stark. And all the articles appear to be about South Korean series, so rename category:South Korean television series. CalJW 19:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename for consistency with its child cat (kitten?) above. siafu 22:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American journalists to Category:United States journalists

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deferred pending Naming conventions. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 06:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(Since Mexican journalists are "American" too. – Quadell (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. --Kbdank71 19:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mexican journalists are "Mexican" in English. That is normal English usage. If it is different in Spanish, that is a matter for the Spanish Wikipedia. Over 80% of U.S. people categories are correctly termed "American" and that should be increased to 100%. Wikipedia should not be used to try to change the English language for political reasons. CalJW 19:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In theory "United States journalists" could also apply to Mexicans as the country is the United Mexican States. In the real world "Americans" means Americans not Mexicans. I thought there was a discussion on this whole issue? JW 20:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename - The statement above " 'Americans' means Americans not Mexicans" proves the need - this is a nationalistic POV-driven use of the word "American" to be synonymous only with (?white/Euro-ancestered) citizens, culture, science, inventions, institutions, et al. of the United States of America, one of several American nations past & current. 12.73.195.105 00:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not nationalistic or POV, its based on more or less universal usage. JW 09:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I highly doubt Canadians or Mexicans would like to be called "Americans." You clearly have a POV here, which seems to be to label people "American" who don't call themselves American. As well, when something is a common standard -- e.g. correct English usage -- it's not the same as saying "everybody else does it." It seems this is your own private, uncommon standard that you want to foist on others. And why are you arguing so vociferously for this point from an anonymous account? Smacks of sockpuppet action, IMHO. If you don't value your own opinions enough to sign in and use your account, how do you expect other people to value them? David Hoag 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Everybody else does it" is not a sufficient justification for adopting poor English as a language standard! 12.73.194.194 12:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't poor English, it is standard English. It is the alternative that is poor English. And isn't nationalistic either. Piccadilly 14:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename for Wikiclarity. BD2412  talk 00:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Do whatever is consistent with established Wikipolicy for US-related categories. Rename if "United States" is the accepted norm; don't rename if "American" is. Consistency of US-related category names with each other is the paramount concern here. And I speak as a non-US resident, so this vote is most certainly not coming from an Americentric POV. Bearcat 00:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment What to call categories of things related to the United States in a "nationality x" format is not decided; there is no existing "Wikipolicy". Considerable discussion on this has already occurred, perhaps most recently in the archived discussions related to Naming conventions (categories).  -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Defer this and all similar until full-fledged debate can be held, preferably in some dedicated TalkPage. As a Canadian, I personally dislike it when it's implied Canadians have some sort of claim on the term on the term "America" and we've gotta share it with those-who-carry-passports-with-the-word-"United States of America".  No.  It's theirs.  Seriously.  They can have it.  We don't want it.  Off with them :). -The Tom 01:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * How about at Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Current title is common & correct English. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current name is normal English. Piccadilly 13:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer it as it is too. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename This debate has been held many, many times. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename POV, clarity, and it just sounds better Youngamerican 05:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is point of view to want to change it, it is no clearer (those who vote for change no what it means as well as those who want to keep it as it is) and it sounds worse. CalJW 10:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Silly political correctness; Canadians and Mexicans certainly won't like it; non-standard usage; foisting private opinions with the silly rationale that it's nationalistic otherwise. It's as foolish as "Freedom Fries." David Hoag 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Actor appearing on Neighbours to Category:Neighbours actors

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 02:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

This has just been through one vote and was closed as "no consensus". But a vote which leaves an illiterate and non-standard name in place when not a single person supported it merely exposes the weaknesses of Wikipedia's collaborative processes, and does not endorse the status quo. So please let's not have any quibbles this time, just a change to a coherent name. The proposed form is the predominant one for such categories. If you have would prefer a different name, how about letting it at least get put into this form first to avoid Wikipedia looking illiterate, and then proposing another form in a third vote? This process is very poor for dealing with multiple options as there are often too few votes after the extra option is thrown into the mix for a concensus between three options to become apparent. CalJW 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "so avoid Wikipedia looking illiterate"? I'm speechless.  Rename.  --Kbdank71 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a what is known as a "typo". CalJW 19:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Democracy at it's finest. Rename. -- tomf688 {talk} 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment EVERY comment and vote counts on Wikipedia, including yours. To state that Wikipedia is flawed because you did not approve of a decision based off of a community supported consensus system, is contrary to your participation in it. Also, in the future, if you object to a speedy renaming, please copy the suggested proposal to normal CFD and not a modified one that fits your preference. Although this one matches the standard of the parent category the original proposal should not be ignored. Thanks.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The system is flawed because the result was something that no-one supported, just because not enough effort went into achieving a resolution at the right time. Everyone was against the retention of the singular form. I renominated it because there was a consensus to pluralise which did not get implemented, and that consensus is being confirmed this time round.
 * I do not believe it is a controversial point that this process fails to achieve its objective of arriving at a quality decision sometimes. Participation levels are feeble, the discussion is not real time, things get in a muddle when there are two issues, and the level of participation falls from low to almost zero in the second half of the seven day period. It is not a good system, but it is what we have. All I am doing here is tackling a small example of its failings.
 * I made this proposal in response to seeing the closed page before I saw the other vote, so please check the date stamps in future. CalJW 23:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If the grounds for a rename are based on grammar or spelling, it doesn't require a vote. You can just list it in the speedy section, or even just apply the change yourself if you're so inclined. I don't think it's really all that helpful to rant about CfD's failure to apply a change that anybody can make at any time without needing CfD consensus to do it. But since the debate's already here, and fairly straightforward, I'll vote in favour of the rename anyway. Bearcat 21:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as proposed Piccadilly 13:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename I was original nominator of this rename --TimPope 21:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Actors appearing on Neighbours, which is rather more coherent than the proposed rename. siafu 23:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But it is factually incorrect as applied to most of the actors in question. It would have to be Category:Actors who are currently appearing on Neighbours or have done so in the past. The length of that suggests why "X actors" is the prevalent form. CalJW 23:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying that an actor is "appearing on Q" does not imply that it is only in the present; such a statement would make it absolutely meaningless, as it would only be valid during the hours the show was actually airing, which is clearly not what is meant. siafu 18:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is clearly imprecise and confusing. It could easily be a subcategory of "Neighbours actors" alongside "Former Neighbours actors". CalJW 19:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as proposed. Carina22 09:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tourism of Cambodia to Category:Tourism in Cambodia

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 02:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form. CalJW 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. --Kbdank71 19:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 23:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename (could be speedy per #4). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wholesalers in the United Kingdom

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). «» Who ? ¿ ? meta 06:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Some of these companies are international. Rename to standard form Category:Wholesalers of the United Kingdom. CalJW 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Isn't that confusing, in an unintentionally funny way? These companies aren't selling the country, after all. – Quadell (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete and upmerge all articles to Category:Wholesalers. There is only one company that is in wholesalers that isn't in the UK, but according to the article, they operate there.  So this subcat isn't necessary.  --Kbdank71 19:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it is necessary. These are British companies and belong in a British category. Your ideas on the development of the category system are out of date. It is now clearly established that we categorise by subject area and country. METRO AG is a 60 billion dollar German company with about 2% of its turnover in the UK. There are many multi-billion turnover wholesalers. I will mark the category "popcat". CalJW 19:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's ideas like that which cause many unnecessary, yes unnecessary categories to be created. Not everything needs to be categorized by subject and country.  Especially with only seven articles.  Of course, I'm not up on recent developments in established categorizing, so if you would point me to a policy that states that, I'll change my vote.  --Kbdank71 20:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone waste their time writing a policy stating the obvious, at the risk of a needless wrangle with the likes of you and radiant!, when this principle has been applied tens of thousands of times in practice without being challenged? I prefer to get on with the practical business of categorisation. Your ideas about the level of categorisation required have been superseded by events. As the number of articles and categories increases this will become more and more obvious. CalJW 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is of course assuming that the number of articles is going to increase, which it may well not do. For now, Kbdank71's proposal seems perfectly reasonable to me.  There's no reason to be dogmatic when it just creates extra and unnecessary levels of recursion. When the number of articles does increase (perhaps you'd care to write some?), then we can seperate it by region. siafu 23:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the number of articles in Wikipedia as a whole, which increases every minute, but it is most improbable that this particular category will not increase. I am not being "dogmatic" and I am making thousands of edits to improve the category system. I believe that only by doing so can one learn how essential thorough classification is to bring together closely related articles which can otherwise be categorised in different category systems, or not at all. And the category system is tremendously valuable to Wikipedia; when the category links were removed from the main page on an experimental basis, hits fell by more than a third. CalJW 23:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am neither suggesting that the category system is not valuable (Huh?), nor that your efforts at improving it are not appreciated. I am merely stating that all else being equal, the category structure should have as few levels as necessary, and in this case there doesn't seem to be much representation from multiple regions, therefore dividing by region is currently superfluous. siafu 23:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we should have categories which will clearly be needed in the long run as soon as possible as it will make the articles easier to find and reduce the amount of categorisation time in the long run because articles will only have to be categorised once rather than two or three times. CalJW 19:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Operating on this principle seems particularly foolish in cases like these. If the category isn't needed, then why would we have it?  We're just increasing the server load to have categories for articles that we are merely theorizing may exist in the future.  Unless someone is going to step forward now and state clearly that they intend to create articles for retailers in other regions in the immediate future, this is something that should be left in as finished and parsimonious a state as possible until the situation demands a change. siafu 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Please withdraw this personal attack. Also please pay attention to earlier comments. Wholesalers aren't retailers.' We wouldn't have much of a category system at all if your principles applied. Every national category was created for one country first. CalJW 10:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that wholesalers are retailers; how is this relevant? And no, national categories only become meaningful when "X of Foobaria" can be contrasted to "X of Elbonia", otherwise it's pointless. siafu 12:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's also perfectly possible to accomplish the stated goal by using the existing categories Category:Wholesalers and Category:Retailers of the United Kingdom. While CalJW is right that established policy favours some kind of categorization under both subject area and country, it doesn't necessarily require new "this particular subject area by country" subcategories in every single case. There are a lot of cases where it's actually more appropriate to separately apply two categories, one for "subject" and one for "nation", than it is to create a single "this particular subject area in this particular country" category. No vote, because I don't know whether this is such a case or not. Bearcat 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wholesalers aren't retailers. CalJW 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as nominated. Companies are primarily categorised by where they are based rather than by where they operate, because if we did it the other way, many would need to be in a hundred or more categories. There will be more articles in this category. The FTSE 100 companies don't all have articles yet, and little more than a quarter of the FTSE 250 articles are started. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons stated above. siafu 19:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If you must create complitcations of this sort, could you at least indicate that the proposed amendment should be implemented if the category is not deleted? This may now end in "no consensus". What a frustrating waste of time. Also please withdraw the personal attack above. CalJW 10:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose that, since I must "create complication", I would point out that I am trying to avoid a waste of resources rather than perpetuate one for no purpose. But, by all means, if I'm outvoted I prefer "of" to "in". siafu 12:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment If no one actually votes against the proposed name, and the category is not deleted, which looks unlikely, could the closer please rename it with "of"? This system does not cope well when more than one issue arises, but if no-one has voted for the status quo, implying that it is the worst of all the options considered, it seems inappropriate to preserve it. It certainly makes one wonder whether making proposals for simple cosmetic changes is worth the effort - and there are reams of categories which need simple cosmetic changes which no-one has got round to proposing yet. CalJW 10:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Closing note. There has been no further discussion in 5 days of closing. There was no consensus to rename, so the request to rename at the bottom is against the consensus, reguardless of policy. Policy states that there still has to be consensus if there is an objection to the proposed naming, in this case, the other contention is to delete, not to rename in another format or keep. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta  06:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cinema chains
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 02:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

These categories are all named in American English, which is a breach of the policy that British and American English have equal status in Wikipedia. Cinemas are never called "movie theatres" in the UK and some other countries. Rename all CalJW 16:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Movie theatre chains in the United Kingdom --> Category:Cinema chains in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Movie theatre chains in Hong Kong --> Category:Cinema chains in Hong Kong
 * Category:Movie theatre chains in Australia --> Category:Cinema chains in Australia
 * Category:Movie theatre chains in the Republic of Ireland --> Category:Cinema chains in the Republic of Ireland
 * Rename. Bearcat 21:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 14:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 23:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all, including in USA; 'Cinema' is generic Wikipedian for "movie theater" (and "movie" is slang in addition, so it would have to become Film theater chains where not Cinema chains, anyway).  12.73.195.85 02:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Weblogs to Category:Blogs
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 02:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Blog is today the overwhelmingly more common term, and our own article is at blog. - SimonP 15:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename CalJW 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go with the rename, but I'd also suggest that "Weblogs" should be kept as a soft or hard redirect. While "Blogs" fits with the "most common name" policy, the unabbreviated "weblogs" is still a term with enough currency that I can still see some users expecting that to be the normative term. Bearcat 22:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Congo DR football to Category:Football in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename Category:Football in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in line with the policy of avoiding abbreviations and the standard format for this country. CalJW 12:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as always. - Darwinek 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. -- Reinyday, 13:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 23:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Gay UK MPs
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #aaffff; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This should preferably be deleted. But if we must have it, it should be Category:Homosexual British politicians or something similar. Not all of these people are MPs, they're MSPs, MEPs, European Commissioners, etc. JW 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Piccadilly 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, different types of politicians are included, though that's the fault of the articles included, not the category. So why "should" the category itself be deleted?  Care to state any reasons? Unless reasons are stated, my vote has to be Keep.  Cleduc 16:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom. Cleduc 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My own feeling is that it makes no sense to categorise by sexual orientation when we don't do it by gender. But as I know a significant number of users support these kind of categories it should at least have the proper name, as "UK" and "MPs" are both abbreviations. We could change it to "British Members of Parliament" or whatever, but that would be long-winded and would exclude MSPs et al. JW 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd still like to hear the rationale for nomination, as grounds have not been sufficiently explained. However, I will point out that this category does not fit within the current category structure for LGBT politicians (which does not break down by nation). Cleduc 20:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought I had explained, but OK. There are two schools of thought on this, 1) Don't classify people by race/gender/sexuality/religion at all, 2) Its legitimate to classify people in this way, and its of interest to others. I am more sympathetic to not classifying in these ways at all. If we don't classify by gender, then we shouldn't do it by sexuality either. But as we are unlikely to get agreement to delete these kind of categories we should rename this one so that it is more accurate and doesn't use abbreviations. JW 09:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Categories serve as an index to find articles of interest, or related articles. These categories have been discussed in CfD before, removed, and subsequently restored.  Oh, and by the way, we do classify politicians by gender sometimes. Cleduc 17:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete All categories of this type are primarily intended to promote the idea that homosexuality is widespread and that there are many talented and influential homosexuals. They are irredeemably pov under any name and prone to abuse as the activists cram in everyone they can on the basis of the slightest scrap of evidence. They are part of a propaganda drive that has nothing to do with producing an encyclopedia. CalJW 17:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is based on facts. Facts are not POV -- and when they are not facts, they should be challenged (for example, in specific cases).  The fact of the matter is, today there are many gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans-etc people that are in politics, and their identity as such is notable (especially in politics), and an established fact.  Assuming agendas is a tricky thing: one could make the converse statement that there is a "widespread conspiracy of homophobes that deliberately erase the identity, nay, the existence of non-straight people," but that would be inappropriate.  So, don't assume agendas -- it is offensive, and misleading.  It turns out that subcategorization by profession is driven by a desire to make Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people smaller and more useful.  Cleduc 20:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I will assume agendas where I believe them to be blatant. The choice of which facts to highlight most certainly provides opportunities for bias. These categories display a mixture of cynicism and naivety. The cynicism I have already referred to. The naivety arises when an intellectual fashion is so prevalent and so rarely challenged, that its proponents are unaware that they are promoting a particular point of view, and that their bias is obvious to outsiders. The way that gay rights activists expect be able to manipulate Wikipedia without being challenged is very offensive. CalJW 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Not even fractionally as offensive as the notion that "Wikipedia should have no gay-related categories at all" is somehow a neutral point of view. Bearcat 02:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I'm naive, and don't even understand my own motivations? Fair enough.  My inappropriate comment above is appropriate after all.  I sincerely regret the benefit of the doubt.  Cleduc 13:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In this particular instance I'd favour a rename. Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom is the most appropriate title, since they aren't all MPs, they aren't all gay men and "homosexual" is never an appropriate word under which to categorize individual people. But the point remains that "gay-related categories should be deleted" is not, and never can be, a neutral POV. The category serves to list people who have openly identified themselves as being members of the LGBT community, and because they have openly self-identified as such, the category is by definition a relevant and objective fact about them. The idea that a person might be included for dubious reasons is a red herring -- in the highly unlikely event that such actually happens, the answer is to remove the person or discuss the matter on their talk page; it does not render the entire category invalid. Rename but keep. Bearcat 20:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom (per Bearcat, and in keeping with Category:LGBT politicians from Canada) or rename the former to Category:British LGBT politicians and the latter to Category:Canadian LGBT politicians. -The Tom 01:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also someone who finds these categories somewhat fluid, if you'll excuse any pun. I'm not convinced I'd place Michael Portillo here, and I also find there to be an implication in the lacking of a Category:Undeclared or non-LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom, for want of a better name.  I think that if we split by gender we should split equally, mirroring any female categories with male ones, otherwise there may be uncomfortable implications, and that applies somewhat equally to sexuality.  However, I'm also aware that such categories will never be deleted due to the fluid nature of wikipedia. Also note Horace Walpole has never been a politician of the United Kingdom. Hiding  talk 18:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is no evidence about a specific person then s/he should be removed from the category, as that would be a problem with the article. There's no need for an "undeclared sexuality" category anymore than there's a need for a "non-politician" category. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem with Michael Portillo is that he has admitted to homosoexual encounters whilst a youth, but to my knowledge hasn't admitted to being bisexual, now being happily married. I guess the way I view that sort of thing is similar to smoking.  I haven't smoked a cigarette for five years, so does that make me a smoker or a non-smoker?  Would we have a category for smokers?  If not, I wonder if we should categorise for sexuality. I'm inclined to vote delete, and certainly oppose any rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom, as people are categorised by nationality as per Naming conventions(categories).  If it is to remain, my preference is for rename to Category:British LGBT politicians. I think I also oppose this LGBT subcategories on the grounds that it seems at odds with the category structure.  It doesn't seem an important sub category within the profession category.  I can certainly see the appeal in categorising LGBT people, and sub-categorising by nationality, but to sub-categorise by profession seems to lead to a flaw.  I believe I'm correct in saying that if Category:Homosexual British politicians is a sub cat of Category:British politicians then articles contained in the former do not appear in the latter.  That seems somewhat counter productive to my eye. It appears odd that Michael Portillo's namenot be prominately displayed in Category:British politicians but in a sub-category, when other people are not somehow equally sub-categorised.  Why should we not also sub-categorise confirmed hetero-sexual people?  If it seems inappropriate to do that, then I believe it is inappropriate to do the other.  I believe there should be an even handed approach, otherwise there is a risk of POV pushing, if only by implication. Hiding  talk 18:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Most British politicians already aren't filed directly in Category:British politicians; they're filed in subcategories such as Category:British MPs or Category:British politicians by party. So there's no conflict here; even if this were deleted, Michael Portillo still wouldn't be filed directly in Category:British politicians. Bearcat 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hiding's excellent reasoning above, especially the point about articles not appearing in both parent and subcats leading to peculiarity in this case. -Splash talk 02:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It leads to no peculiarity whatsoever. See my comment just above. Bearcat 18:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * rename per bearcat Youngamerican 05:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename but to LGBT not "homosexual" as we are not the Victorians --TimPope 08:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Renaming to Category:British LGBT politicians (and if rename is the final decision, I believe this would be the correct new name) appears superficially attractive - I have no qualms about categorising people by sexuality - but the issue raised by Hiding remains valid. Despite Bearcat's reasonable comments that most British politicians are in subcats of Category:British politicians there remain 88 who are in the parent cat (because for example they are members of small parties or defunct parties that don't merit a subcat within the British politicians by party hierarchy, of for some other valid reason). Such an issue occurs whenever you attempt to shoehorn two separate hierarchies in one category. An LGBT politician from the UK should therefore be in two categories: - Category:British politicians (or an appropriate subcat of that) and Category:LGBT politicians. Valiantis 18:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't the issue he raised; the issue he raised was specifically Michael Portillo. And of those 88 who are still filed in Category:British politicians, I just now did a completely random sampling of nine of those articles, and found that five of the nine could be reassigned to more specific subcategories that already exist. In fact, some were already redundantly filed in both British politicians and a subcategory. If that percentage holds, the category will be down to 40 politicians in a flash, and that's not even counting the probability that some of those last 40 will be assignable to valid subcategories that just haven't been created yet. Bearcat 19:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That is the issue I raised, Portillo was merely an example, the nearest name to hand. I agree that an LGBT politician from the UK should therefore be in two categories: - Category:British politicians (or an appropriate subcat of that) and Category:LGBT politicians, if such a category is neccessary.  Hiding  talk 09:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that you raised an issue that doesn't actually create the problem you claimed that it creates as a reason not to have this category. Which more or less makes it an invalid argument. Bearcat 18:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So it would be fine to be listed in Category:British LGBT politicians and in Category:British MPs? And then if someone creates Category:LGBT British MPs this would not be as a subcategory of Category:British MPs?  Hiding  talk 18:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In answer to your first question, yes; neither is a subcategory of the other, so it doesn't even come close to raising the issue you claimed. There's no rule against filing an article in multiple subcategories of the same parent; there would only be an issue with further filing the article in the parent itself. In answer to the second, I hardly think that would even be a necessary subcategory; the number of people filed here at present simply doesn't warrant further breakdown. Bearcat 19:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've amended my vote above. I have to say I still don't like the fluidic nature of the category, but if the goal is to avoid sub-catting which would cause confusion, I can live with that. Hiding talk 20:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom or similar. Snrdon 08:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's kept, people are categorised by nationality so Category:British LGBT politicians would be correct. Valiantis 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:British gay politicians. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Hiding's reasoning above. Siebren 10:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename per Bearcat. Jonathunder 07:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

United States X Amendment case law
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I realize this is yet another mass nomination, but it's really an all-or-nothing question. The United States is not the only country to have Amendments (or even Amendment-related case law) - see Second Amendment, Thirteenth Amendment, Twenty-seventh Amendment, and most of those in between. I propose that all "X Amendment case law" categories be changed to "United States X Amendment case law". BD2412 talk 03:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:First Amendment case law --> Category:United States First Amendment case law
 * Category:Second Amendment case law --> Category:United States Second Amendment case law
 * Category:Third Amendment case law --> Category:United States Third Amendment case law
 * Category:Fourth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law
 * Category:Fifth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fifth Amendment case law
 * Category:Sixth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Sixth Amendment case law
 * Category:Seventh Amendment case law --> Category:United States Seventh Amendment case law
 * Category:Eighth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Eighth Amendment case law
 * Category:Ninth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Ninth Amendment case law
 * Category:Tenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Tenth Amendment case law
 * Category:Eleventh Amendment case law --> Category:United States Eleventh Amendment case law
 * Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Thirteenth Amendment case law
 * Category:Fourteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fourteenth Amendment case law
 * Category:Fifteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Fifteenth Amendment case law
 * Category:Seventeenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Seventeenth Amendment case law
 * Category:Nineteenth Amendment case law --> Category:United States Nineteenth Amendment case law
 * Rename all CalJW 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all -- it's bad form to be so United States-centric. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all. Bearcat 21:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are category names, which go on the article they are relevant to.  They are subcats of, so there is no ambiguity about which country they belong to.  This is not being United States-centric.  This is preventing unnecessarily long cat names. -- Reinyday, 14:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * And what, then, shall we do with a case like Attorney General v. X - a case relating to the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland? Put it in our Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law, with an asterisk? BD2412  talk 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. Unless subcats somehow create their own sub-namespace to avoid collisions, BD2412 has a valid point in the preceeding comment. Putting an Irish case under Category:Thirteenth Amendment case law would otherwise cause it to appear in a U.S. subcat, which is more wrong than having unweildy cat names. --Kgf0 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all The idea that they don't need clear names because they are in a U.S. category is mistaken. One could put category:Companies in the United States category on the same basis. Carina22 09:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename all Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ottawa schools to Category:High schools in Ottawa
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename per Naming conventions. See closing note. «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I went and created Category:Ottawa elementary schools for those few schools that qualify to be in there. I think the categories should be more descriptive. -- Spinboy 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Should Category:High schools in Ottawa be a subcat of Category:Ottawa schools? I'm sure will be getting other types of schools.  Or is it OK if they are all a subcat of Category:Education in Ottawa. Vegaswikian 03:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine for them to all be under Category:Education in Ottawa. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 22:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We should have three categories called category:Schools in Ottawa, category:High schools in Ottawa and Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. That is the only way to fit things into the category system properly. CalJW 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still personally hate the idea of school articles on principle. But if they have to be there, then yes, I'd favour separate categories for elementary schools and high schools. Rename. Bearcat 20:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support change, though keeping a parent category:Schools in Ottawa would do no harm. - SimonP 19:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. No argument. siafu 23:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support CalJW's 3 categories. Vegaswikian 23:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I went and created the proposed category, with Category:Ottawa schools as the higher category for it, and Category:Ottawa elementary schools. Above Category:Ottawa schools is Category:Education in Ottawa followed by the Ottawa category itself. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * So as I understand it the changes now required are quite different from the original proposal, but seem to have support, ie rename Category:Ottawa schools as Category:Schools in Ottawa and rename Category:Ottawa elementary schools as category:Elementary schools in Ottawa. Carina22 09:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think they are fine as-is. If anything, Category:High schools in Ottawa should be renamed to Category:Ottawa high schools. I'd be happy to do that right now. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 16:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment it is good to be bold, but only if the community is going to accept the new categories. Please do not create more categories in the middle of the discussion or depopulate categories, as if consensus goes in another direction, we are stuck with newly created categories. Also, it may cause a closing of "no consensus" which this one is close to. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 01:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename with parent category, per SimonP. Cleduc 20:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename per CalJW. Currently the standard is "X in place"  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  01:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The non-standard and duplicate category:Ottawa high schools should be merged and deleted as part of the closure process. I have tagged it. CalJW 10:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment There's nothing that says they can't remain with their current names. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 18:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Closing note Categories were created during the discussion, which the community had not properly reached a consensus. The following categories will be renamed per Naming Conventions (categories), as there is a consensus to rename for both sets:
 * Category:Ottawa schools to Category:Schools in Ottawa
 * Category:Ottawa high schools to Category:High schools in Ottawa
 * Category:Ottawa elementary schools to Category:Elementary schools in Ottawa
 * «» Who ? ¿ ? <sup style="color:#cc6600;">meta 01:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
James Worrall

James Worrall, (June 23, 1914 – October 9, 2011) was a Canadian lawyer, Olympic track and field athlete, and sports administrator.

Born in Bury, Lancashire, England, Worrall emigrated to Montreal, Quebec in 1922.

He received a Bachelor of Science degree from McGill University in 1935, then received his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Ontario, going on to practice law in Toronto.

A track and field athlete, Worrall was the Canadian team flag bearer at the 1936 Summer Olympics opening ceremonies in Berlin, Germany, competing in both hurdling events.

In the 110 metre hurdles event as well as in the 400 metre hurdles competition he was eliminated in the first round.

Previously, at the 1934 British Empire Games held in London, he won the silver medal in the 120 yards hurdles contest. In the quarter mile hurdles event (440 yards) he finished fourth.

Following his competitive retirement, he moved into sports administration within the Olympic movement. From 1964 to 1968, Worrall was the president of the Canadian Olympic Committee and he rose to be a member of the International Olympic Committee – a position he held from 1967 to 1989.

In 1989, he was made an Honorary Member of the International Olympic Committee. Worrall was a member of the Board of Directors of the organizing committees for the 1976 Summer Olympics and the 1988 Winter Olympics.

In 1976, Worrall was made an Officer of the Order of Canada.

In 1987, he was inducted into Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. In 1991, he was inducted into the Olympic Hall of Fame. In 1998, he was inducted to the McGill University Sports Hall of Fame.

In July 2009 Worrall was noted as Canada's second oldest living Olympian, and he became the oldest upon the death of Marjory Saunders in November 2010.

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

title: James Worrall


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 11


text:
Talk:Helsingin Sanomat

Alignment
Hi. Can HS really be described as "non-aligned"? After all, they support membership in NATO and "all Western institutions" like the article says. (As a reader since childhood, my personal understanding is that they're more or less "liberal centre-right".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.72.94.233 (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
Is Kuukausiliite really "entertainment-oriented"? I find NYT-liite to be entertainment-oriented, whereas Kuukausiliite is a kind of Time magazine filled with 'stories'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.4.246 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Financial information
Would need some basic financial information like revenue (total and by source), profit, trends. --Nemo 08:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helsingin Sanomat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090601160935/http://www.levikintarkastus.fi/english/statistics.php to http://www.levikintarkastus.fi/english/statistics.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helsingin Sanomat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514065434/http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917.html to http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515064557/http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917_3.html to http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917_3.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515064602/http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917_4.html to http://www.sanomanews.com/history/1889-1917_4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helsingin Sanomat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701075714/http://www.hs.fi/english/article/WHO+Aatos+Erkko/1101981548320 to http://www.hs.fi/english/article/WHO+Aatos+Erkko/1101981548320

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helsingin Sanomat


text:
User:P0x

what does this button doo..? jk i love zdaemon so much, i cant get enough of it.!! YOU ROCK ZDAEMON! Whats your username?

title: User:P0x


text:
Talk:Kitchen Debate

Untitled
The phrase about the "obvious shortfalls of the American military" or however that reads is POV and needs a cleanup.

About "machine that put food into the mouth and pushes it down"
The original text is :

Khrushchev: "Don't you have a machine that puts food into the mouth and pushes it down? Many things you've shown us are interesting but they are not needed in life. They have no useful purpose. They are merely gadgets. We have a saying, if you have bedbugs you have to catch one and pour boiling water into the ear."

the statment in the article about the "machine that put food into the mouth and pushes it down" is misleading...

now corrected to "satirically asked if". --Hkchan123 08:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I am either having a hard time finding the complete text of the "debate" or Nixon did not reference "...lawnmowers, supermarkets stocked full of groceries, Cadillac convertibles, makeup colors, lipstick, spike-heeled shoes, hi-fi sets, cake mixes, TV dinners, and Pepsi-Cola." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.139.209 (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Balance
Can anyone find the Soviet opinion of the debate? So many of the Soviet Union articles only talk about American thoughts on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.128.73 (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite. Four years on, I've tagged the article as needing to be more balanced in this regard. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

An External link doesn't work
"A more complete version" of the kitchen debate text is said to be on a turnerlearning site, but the link has not been working for several months. I cannot find other webpage that contain full text of this debate, but if there's somebody who knows one, please fix it. Shaind (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Radiation
I blanked this section for a consensus. I'm not sure how we could word it, but I believe it would be warranted to mention how grossly improbable this irradiation story is. Ionizing radiation cannot be turned on or off for the purposes of detection unless it is an X-ray (which would require a bulky power supply that couldn't be easily concealed) or a radioisotope in a shielded container with a moveable aperture perhaps. An atomic battery (in the attic!) was suggested as a source. At the time, those contained gamma emitting isotopes which could be detected by the dosimeter, however they wouldn't have that aperture and the distribution of the radiation also makes that sound implausible. The atomic battery story was even doubted by Golden it says. It sounds like the dosimeters were a quartz fiber type, which only detected gamma and X-ray at the time. I don't know if this was a cold war psyop, or some sort of malfunction of the dosimeters due to a static field perhaps. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kitchen Debate


text:
James Wong (filmmaker)

James Wong (born April 20, 1959) is an American television and film director, screenwriter and producer. He is known for co-writing episodes of the Fox science fiction supernatural drama series The X-Files with his writing partner, Glen Morgan. Morgan and Wong are founders of the Hard Eight Pictures and co-created Space: Above and Beyond. Wong also directed the films Final Destination (2000) and Final Destination 3 (2006) in the Final Destination film series, The One (2001), starring Jet Li, and Dragonball Evolution (2009).

Early life and education
Wong was born in Hong Kong. At age ten, he moved to the United States along with his family, settling in San Diego, California. During his youth, he met his future writing partner Glen Morgan at El Cajon Valley High School. Later on, he went to Loyola Marymount University, joining a comedy improvisational group. Originally seeking a major in engineering, he later switched to a film major after seeing Apocalypse Now at the Cinerama Dome. After graduating, he landed a job as an assistant to Sandy Howard. During this time, both Wong and Morgan wrote screenplays, eventually having one produced.

Personal life
James Wong is married to Teena Wong, and they have three children.

Career
With Morgan, he co-wrote The Boys Next Door. After this Wong became a story editor on the short-lived ABC crime drama Knightwatch. Later, with Morgan, Wong would work on many Stephen J. Cannell productions, including Wiseguy (as supervising producer), The Commish (as supervising producer), and as a staff writer and story editor for 21 Jump Street and its spinoff, Booker.

Wong and Morgan began working with Chris Carter in 1993 on the science fiction/drama The X-Files, about two FBI agents investigating the paranormal, filmed in Vancouver.

In 1995, Wong and Morgan were offered an $8 million, four-year contract deal with 20th Century Fox Television to write and produce television series. As part of this deal, Morgan and Wong went on to create the short-lived series Space: Above and Beyond.

They returned to The X-Files briefly in its fourth season (1996–1997) when they wrote the horror episode Home. Wong also made his television directing debut with the conspiracy-themed "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", written by Morgan. Wong and Morgan also took on production and writing duties for Carter's Millennium. Later, they would go on to executive produce the short-lived NBC paranormal series The Others.

During 1995, both Wong and Morgan were hired by producer Joel Silver to write the third intended Tales from the Crypt movie called Body Count. Their script was loved by executive producers Silver, Richard Donner, Walter Hill, David Giler and Robert Zemeckis but the main producers Gilbert Adler and A L Katz hated it and Universal thought it would be too expensive to shoot.

In 2000, Wong directed Final Destination, which was originally conceived as an X-Files episode by writer Jeffrey Reddick and was then reworked by Wong and Morgan. Wong followed the directorial debut with The One (2001), an action film starring Jet Li, and with more horror films, including Willard (2003), directed by Glen Morgan and starring Crispin Glover, and a second sequel, Final Destination 3 (2006), directed by Wong. In late 2006, Wong and Morgan's remake of Black Christmas was released; the script was by Wong and Morgan and the film was directed by Morgan.

In 2009, Wong directed the live-action film adaptation of the anime and manga media franchise Dragon Ball. It was poorly received by both critics and audiences.

Since 2011, Wong has been working with Ryan Murphy as an executive producer on American Horror Story.

In 2015, Wong wrote and directed one episode, Founder's Mutation, for the tenth season of The X-Files. He returned again in 2017 for The X-Files season eleven to write and direct the episode Ghouli, and to direct the episode Nothing Lasts Forever.

The X-Files
As part of the initial production crew on The X-Files, Wong was among the most influential four writer-producers who worked closely with X-Files creator Chris Carter to define the characters, plots and aesthetics of the new series (the others were Glen Morgan, Howard Gordon and Alex Gansa). Wong was responsible with his longtime writing partner Glen Morgan for introducing a number of elements that defined The X-Files throughout its run.

Notable episodes co-written by Wong:

 * "Squeeze", only the second X-Files episode ever produced, and the first "monster of the week" episode, which would provide a template for two thirds of the future episodes of the series.
 * "Ice", the first episode to focus centrally on the Mulder/Scully relationship as the key to its plot.
 * "Beyond the Sea", the first episode to receive notable critical acclaim beyond the science fiction genre, the first episode with serious character development for Gillian Anderson in her role as Dana Scully, and also Carter's personal favorite episode of the series.
 * "E.B.E.", the first episode to introduce The Lone Gunmen trio of characters, whose popularity resulted in their own short-lived spinoff series (without Wong's participation) in 2001.
 * "Tooms", the first episode to introduce the character of Walter Skinner, Mulder and Scully's boss, who would become a more central character over the remainder of the series, and also the first episode to give a speaking part to the Cigarette Smoking Man, the main nemesis of Mulder and Scully for most of the series' run.
 * "Little Green Men", the first mythology episode to make use of voiceover and flashback.
 * "Blood", the first episode to include a story contribution from Glen Morgan's brother Darin Morgan, who would become the most acclaimed X-Files writer and the only one to win an Emmy for his writing.
 * "3", the first episode in which Mulder or Scully was involved in a sexual situation.
 * "One Breath", the resolution episode for the abduction plot that was the foundation of the series' long running mythology.
 * "Die Hand Die Verletzt", the first episode in which Kim Manners, who became the series' most prolific director over its nine seasons, was brought on board to direct, being an acquaintance of Morgan and Wong from their work with Manners on previous TV series.
 * "Home", the first episode to be preceded by a warning from the network that it was intended for mature audiences only due to its disturbing content.

In his directorial debut, Wong also directed the episode "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", for which he received an Emmy nomination, also becoming the first member of the series's regular writing staff (after Chris Carter) to direct an episode, as well as the only person of color to ever direct an X-Files episode. Wong's Emmy nomination for directing "Musings" made him the first Asian American to receive an Emmy nomination for directing anything on television; at that time, no Asian American and no person of Chinese descent had yet been nominated for an Oscar for directing a film. Wong was also, along with Chris Carter (nominated a year later) the only director of an X-Files episode to be Emmy nominated for his work.

As part of The X-Files main production team in 1994–1995, Wong shared the show's first Golden Globe Award win for Best Dramatic Series, and also shared its second win in the 1996–1997 season. (The X-Files would go on to become the first series to win a Golden Globe three times.) Wong was honoured as his name was used as character in The X-Files game released on the PS1 in 1998.

Television

 * Booker (writer, story writer) (1989–1990)
 * 21 Jump Street (writer, story editor) (1989–1990)
 * Wiseguy (supervising producer) (1990)
 * The 100 Lives of Black Jack Savage (producer) (1991)
 * The Commish (writer, supervising producer) (1991–1993)
 * The X-Files (director, writer, co-executive producer, consulting producer) (1993–1997)
 * Space: Above and Beyond (co-creator, writer) (1995–1996)
 * Millennium (executive producer, consulting producer, writer) (1996–1998)
 * The Others (executive producer, writer) (2000)
 * Tower Prep (director – Episode: "Whisper") (2010)
 * THE EVƎNT (director – Episode: "Arrival"; writer, co-executive producer) (2010–2011)
 * American Horror Story (writer, co-executive producer) (2011–2019)
 * Rosemary's Baby (writer) (2014)
 * The X-Files (director, writer) (2016–2018)
 * 9-1-1 (director) (2022-2024)

title: James Wong (filmmaker)


text:
Talk:List of Wisconsin county name etymologies

Dunn County -> Dodge? Should there be an explanation about why the entymology doesn't contain the word "Dunn?" Mercer5089 01:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


text:
User:Kiaparowits/sandbox

Figure out biographies /-- put good example biography here w/ sidebar --/

title: User:Kiaparowits/sandbox


text:
Talk:Steering law

"bird's eye" view
Currently the article refers to a "bird's eye view of the tunnel" which makes little sense in terms of idiomatic English. That idiom refers to what a sharp-eyed hawk could see flying high above the Earth - it does not have the same meaning as "top down" view or "God's eye" view (or even "fifty thousand foot" view, which implies a lack of clarity). A bird flying high above a tunnel sees only the entrance and exit points! It would be better to avoid idioms like these all together, since they are essentially slang and quite likely to confuse anyone who doesn't have English as their milk tongue ;) but if you must use an idiom, at least use the right one. --Charlie  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cascading menus on the mac different
From the article: "where the user must travel from one end of the path to the other as quickly as possible, while staying within the confines of the path. One potential practical application of this law is in modelling a user's performance in navigating a hierarchical cascading menu."

On Macs, the previously pointed-at submenu is kept open even if the cursor travels over other items to remove the need of the user to stay "inside a corridor", therefore accelerating pointing operations. The algorithm checks whether the cursor trajectory actually moves towards the submenu at a certain minimum speed, which has been chosen pretty well (though some users feel that the OS9 speed was perfect and the OSX speed is set highter, too high actually, so the submenu closes for very slow mousers). Anyway, this could be added to the article, somehow. Cheers! Peter S. 23:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This MacOS functionality can be described as a triangular corridor with associated minimum speed limit.

 * Original research: In Windows 7, at least in some applications, the submenu stays open even if you wander off the narrow path for a very brief time. I am not sure if this an implementation of a “triangular corridor” or a consequence of a delay time in closing the submenu.   Solo Owl   08:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Prior work, attribution, and name of the law
I feel that it is entirely inappropriate for the so-called steering law to be called Accot's law. Accot was about 26 years late in coming up with this law. many of us know it as Drury's law after its original developer Colin Drury of State University of New York Buffalo. Accot is aware that Drury was the first to come up with this law and i am sure that he must be embarrassed that it has been put in his name. 26 years and many publications is a travesty of justice in naming a law. The problem appears to be that people working in HCI do not read other journals that publish similar material

Errol Hoffmann, PO box 89 Halls Gap, Vic 3381 Australia

 * Please don't type in all-uppercase (I've reformatted the above post); it impairs legibility and might be seen as shouting. Note I've removed the following text from the second paragraph; it needs citations and cleanup before it might be worth re-inserting:

 * "(Actually first published in the journal Ergonomics by Colin Drury in 1971, 26 years prior to Accot acknowledging it -- to many it is known as Drury's law as he was certainly the discoverer of the law. To call it Accot's law is far from correct and the error must be corrected. Credit where it is due)"

 * Irrel 17:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've added some references to earlier work by Drury and by Rashevsky. I haven't had time to look up and read the work by Drury or by Rashevsky, however it is discussed a bit in the Zhai, Accot, and Woltjer (2004) article.  I trust that Prof. Errol Hoffmann has some valid concerns over calling the steering law "Accot's law", or the "Accot-Zhai" law, so perhaps a compromise would be to change the name of the article to "Steering law".  However, from the discussion in Zhai, Accot, and Woltjer (2004), it's not clear to me how Drury's prior work was empirically verified.  Was it verified with a driving task involving an automobile?  Or with users holding a pointing device?  Would it be fair to say that the task tested by Accot and Zhai, where the user steers with a pointing device and a bird's eye view of the tunnel, had never been tested before Accot and Zhai's work?  Would it also be fair to say that the mathematical formulation given by Accot and Zhai is more general?  If so, these things could be pointed out in a revised wikipedia article. Perhaps the Steering law in a general sense can be attributed to Rashevsky and/or Drury, however perhaps the demonstration of its validity in tasks with hand-held pointing devices and a bird's eye view of the tunnel is properly due to Accot and Zhai. MichaelMcGuffin 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Response by Shumin Zhai
(BEGIN: note added by Shumin Zhai, 00:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

This is Shumin Zhai, one of the co-authors of (Accot & Zhai, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002; and Zhai, Accot, & Woltjer, 2004).

I have not edited any entry of wikipedia. I thought it was particularly inappropriate for me to edit this entry on steering law since it involved our own work. However, given Dr. Hoffmann's recent comments I feel it should be helpful to share our knowledge in this discussion page.

We were not aware of Drury's work when we did our studies on path steering (Accot & Zhai, 1997, 1999, 2001), which is very unfortunate. In 2002, for a study on 2D Fitts' law effect (Accot & Zhai, 2003), we read (Hoffmann & Sheikh, 1994) which references (Drury, 1971). We were very surprised that we did not know about this related work earlier, considering that hundreds of people had read our papers or heard our talks on the law of steering, including many experts in motor control, manual tracking, driving research, and human factors and psychology in general but none of them knew about Drury’s work. Once I discussed the steering law at a party attended by many knowledgeable engineering psychologists and noted human factors pioneers, no one made the connection with Drury’ work while Prof. Drury himself was at the party. It is unfortunate that Drury’s important work was not better known. I found Drury and colleagues' later work (Drury, Montazer, & Karwan, 1987; Montazer, Drury, & Karwan, 1988) also very interesting but they too were largely unnoticed in the literature. To date, I cannot find any reference to (Drury, 1971) in major handbooks, textbooks, or surveys such as (Boff, Kaufman, & Thomas, 1986; Keele, 1986; Schmidt, 1988; Wickens, 1992; Helander, Landauer, & Prabhu, 1997). This is in a sharp contrast with Fitts' law on pointing, which has countless citations and descriptions.

In further research after discovering Drury's work, we also found that the basic thought that a regularity existed in steering was also put forward by Rashevsky in as early as 1959 (Rashevsky, 1959, 1965, 1970). Part of the problem was the different authors were motivated with different problems and used different words to describe a novel concept (at least novel to them). Suggested by a colleague of mine, we used the term steering to describe movement control within a constrained path. We cannot be sure that Rashevsky was necessarily the very first in dealing with a steering model.

We wrote a short review paper about the early literature and the differences among the three separate lines of studies. We submitted it to CHI 2003 but unfortunately it was rejected, on the ground that the steering law work was not relevant to HCI, probably due to the fact that driving was the primary concern in Rashevsky’s and Drury’s work. Part of the rejected paper was later incorporated in (Zhai, Accot, & Woltjer, 2004).

The findings in Accot and Zhai (1997) in parts rediscovered the early works by Rashevsky and Drury. There were also new findings including path steering with varying width, path steering with complex spiral shape, and the general form of steering law (the line integral of the inverse of the path width as the index of steering difficulty). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Accot and Zhai (1997) was the "thought experiment" that connected the steering law with Fitts' law, using goal crossing as intermediate steps. That was probably why the original author of this entry, who succinctly summarized the main ideas in Accot and Zhai (1997) did not revise the entry when I first read the entry and informed him about Drury and other prior work. --- Shumin Zhai

References:

Accot, J. (2001). Les Tâches Trajectorielles en Interaction Homme-Machine — Cas des tâches de navigation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Toulouse 1, Toulouse, France.

Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (1997). Beyond Fitts' law: models for trajectory-based HCI tasks. Proc. CHI 1997: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 295-302.

Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (1999). Performance Evaluation of Input Devices in Trajectory-based Tasks: An Application of Steering Law. Proc. CHI 1999: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 466-472.

Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (2001). Scale effects in steering law tasks. Proc. CHI 2001: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Letters 3(1), 1-8.

Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (2002). More than dotting the i's - foundations for crossing-based interfaces. Proc. CHI 2002: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Letters 4(1), 73 - 80.

Accot, J., & Zhai, S. (2003). Refining Fitts' law models for bivariate pointing. Proc. CHI 2003, ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Letters 5(1), 193-200.

Boff, K., Kaufman, L., & Thomas, J. (1986). Handbook of perception and performance. New york: John Wiley & Sons.

Drury, C. G. (1971). Movements with lateral constraint. Ergonomics, 14(2), 293-305.

Drury, C. G., Montazer, M. A., & Karwan, M. H. (1987). Self-paced Path Control as an Optimization Task. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, 17(3), 455-464.

Helander, M., Landauer, T., & Prabhu, P. (1997). Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.) Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Hoffmann, E. R., & Sheikh, I. H. (1994). Effect of varying target height in a Fitts' movement task. Ergonomics, 36(7), 1071-1088.

Keele, S. W. (1986). Motor Control. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (pp. 30.31-30.60). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Montazer, M. A., Drury, C. G., & Karwan, M. H. (1988). An Optimization Model of Self-paced Tracking on Circular Courses. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, And Cybernetics, 18(6), 980-916.

Rashevsky, N. (1959). Mathematical biophysics of automobile driving. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 21, 375-385.

Rashevsky, N. (1965). Man-machine interaction in automobile driving. Traffic safty, 9, 161-167.

Rashevsky, N. (1970). Mathematical biology of automobile driving IV. Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 32, 71-.

Schmidt, R. A. (1988). Motor control and learning - A Behavioral Emphasis ( 2nd ed.): Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance: HarperCollines Publishers.

Zhai, S., Accot, J., & Woltjer, R. (2004). Human Action Laws in Electronic Virtual Worlds - an empirical study pf path steering performance in VR. Presence, 13(2), 113-127.

(END: note added by Shumin Zhai, 00:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC))

 * Oh, well, yet another example of Stigler's law – No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer.   Solo Owl   08:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Steering through sharp curves
Anyone who has ever driven a car (or navigated through cascading submenus) knows that you have to slow down at a sharp curve. As presented here, the Steering Law ignores this complication. This a serious deficiency.

Have any of the discoverers, or other researchers, acknowledged this shortcoming? If so, Wikipedia should mention that. If anyone has attempted to modify the Steering Law to account for the amount of curvature, that should be mentioned also.   Solo Owl   08:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Steering law


text:
Kobeřice

Kobeřice (Köberwitz, Kobierzyce) is a municipality and village in Opava District in the Moravian-Silesian Region of the Czech Republic. It has about 3,200 inhabitants. It is part of the historic Hlučín Region.

Etymology
The name is probably derived from the personal name Kober or Jakub. According to other theories, it may be derived from the German words Korb ('basket') or Köbler (designation of a small house next to a farmhouse).

Geography
Kobeřice is located about 11 km northeast of Opava and 23 km northwest of Ostrava. It lies in the Opava Hilly Land. The highest point is at 313 m above sea level. The stream Oldrišovský potok flows through the municipality. The municipal territory briefly borders Poland in the north.

History
The first written mention of Kobeřice is from 1234, when the village was owned by the Hradisko Monastery in Olomouc. The document that mentioned Kobeřice in 1183 was a forgery from 1236.

From 1742 to 1918, after Empress Maria Theresa had been defeated, the village belonged to Prussia. In 1920, it became part of the newly established Czechoslovakia.

Transport
The I/46 road (the section from Opava to the Czech-Polish border in Sudice) passes through the municipality.

Sights
The main landmark of Kobeřice is the Church of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary. It was built in the neo-Gothic style in 1896, when it replaced an old wooden church from 1711.

title: Kobeřice


text: Category:Subdivisions of New Zealand

title: Category:Subdivisions of New Zealand


text:
Ronee Blakley

Ronee Sue Blakley is an American actress, singer-songwriter, composer, producer and director.

She is perhaps best known for her role as the fictional country superstar Barbara Jean in Robert Altman's 1975 film Nashville, for which she won a National Board of Review Award for Best Supporting Actress and was nominated for an Academy Award. She also performed roles in Walter Hill's The Driver (1978) and Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Life and career
Blakley was born in Nampa, Idaho, one of four children born to Ronald Blakley, a civil engineer, and his wife Carol (née Brown), who became a gay rights activist in support of Blakley's brother, Stephen. In addition to Stephen, Blakley had a brother John and a sister Marthetta.

1970s
Blakley released her self-titled debut album on Elektra Records in 1972. The album featured Blakley's original songs, self-accompanied on piano. Blakley also made the musical arrangements. The song "Bluebird" featured a duet with Linda Ronstadt. Blakley's songs were published by her own company, Sawtooth Music. Her second album, Welcome—produced by Jerry Wexler and recorded at Muscle Shoals Sound Studio in Alabama—was released on Warner Bros. in 1975. That same year, Blakley appeared in what may be her most widely known performance in Nashville. Her character, Barbara Jean, looked similar to country star Loretta Lynn, though Blakley stated that the character was based on Lynn Anderson. Blakley performed her own songs in character, including "Tapedeck In His Tractor," "Dues" and "My Idaho Home." In her review for The New Yorker, film critic Pauline Kael wrote: "This is Ronee Blakley's first movie, and she puts most movie hysteria to shame. She achieves her gifts so simply, I wasn't surprised when somebody sitting beside me started to cry. Perhaps, for the first time on the screen, one gets the sense of an artist being destroyed by her gifts."

Blakley's performance in Nashville was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture and for Best Acting Debut in a Motion Picture (Female), BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role and the Grammy Award for Album of Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or Television Special, and won the National Board of Review award for Best Supporting Actress. She was featured on the covers of Newsweek, American Cinematographer and Interview magazines.

She toured in Bob Dylan's traveling Rolling Thunder Revue, singing a set of solo original songs accompanying herself on piano. She also sang with Dylan and other headlining musicians on the tour, released on The Bootleg Series Vol. 5: Bob Dylan Live 1975, The Rolling Thunder Revue. She recorded backup vocals on "Hurricane" for Dylan's album Desire. Blakley has also recorded with Leonard Cohen and Hoyt Axton.

Blakley starred in the 1977 film She Came to the Valley. She also appeared in several TV movies including Desperate Women, Ladies in Waiting, Oklahoma City Dolls and the Ford 75th Anniversary Special presentation of The Glass Menagerie. Her guest starring roles in television series include Vega$, The Love Boat, Highway to Heaven, Trapper John, Hotel, The Runaways, Beyond Westworld and Tales from the Darkside.

1980s
Blakley starred in The Baltimore Bullet in 1980. She appeared on Broadway in 1982's Pump Boys and Dinettes and starred in Rain for the Indiana Repertory Theatre. Blakley played the role of Marge Thompson in the 1984 horror film A Nightmare on Elm Street.

She wrote, produced, directed and starred in her own feature music docudrama, I Played It for You, in 1985. The movie debuted at the Venice Film Festival and was screened at several other film festivals around the world. Sheila Benson of the Los Angeles Times called it "passionate and brave, an absorbing work." FX Feeney of LA Weekly called it "a valuable document." The film was released on DVD in 2008, bundled with the soundtrack on CD and a new spoken word poetry album titled Freespeak.

Personal life and recent activity
Throughout her career, Blakley has performed on behalf of several political and social causes, with an emphasis on civil rights and equal rights for women. During the 1976 presidential campaign, she toured performing before the speeches of Jerry Brown and later performed at the final Los Angeles rally of Walter Mondale with Kris Kristofferson. Blakley was married to German filmmaker Wim Wenders from 1979 to 1981. Having previously graduated from Stanford University in 1967, she completed a master's degree at California State University in 2002. She has one child, author Sarah Blakley-Cartwright, who graduated from Barnard College in 2010 and is known for penning the novel adapted into the 2011 movie Red Riding Hood. Blakley's career was put on hold while she raised her daughter and also recovered from a back injury.

Her 2009 album, River Nile, was inspired by a trip she made to Egypt. In October 2010, she appeared on stage at New York's Bitter End for the first time in 20 years. She wrote, produced and directed the 2012 film Of One Blood, her first foray into films in over 20 years. Her daughter appeared with her in the film.

Discography

 * Ronee Blakley (1972) – Elektra (re-released by Collector's Choice 2006)
 * Nashville Soundtrack – MCA
 * Welcome (1975) – Warner Bros. (re-released by Collector's Choice 2006)
 * I Played It for You (2007) – RBPI (CDBaby.com)
 * Freespeak (2008 – RBPI (CDBaby.com)
 * Lightning Over Water Soundtrack (2008) – RBPI (CDBaby.com)
 * Ronee Blakley Live at the Mint (2008) – RBPI
 * River Nile (2009) - RBPI
 * Grief Holes (2009) - RB[O
 * Live at the Bitter End (2011) -RBPI
 * Djerassi Collection (2012) - RBPI
 * Atom Bomb Baby (2020) - RBPI

Film

 * Wilbur and the Baby Factory (1970)
 * Nashville (1975) as Barbara Jean
 * Three Dangerous Ladies (1977) as Simone (segment "The Mannikin")
 * The Private Files of J. Edgar Hoover (1977) as Carrie DeWitt
 * Renaldo and Clara (1978) as Mrs. Dylan
 * The Driver (1978) as The Connection
 * She Came to the Valley (1979) as Willy Westall
 * Good Luck, Miss Wyckoff (1979) as Betsy
 * The Baltimore Bullet (1980) as Carolina Red
 * Lightning Over Water (1980, Documentary) as Herself
 * A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) as Marge Thompson
 * Cinématon (1985)
 * A Return to Salem's Lot (1987) as Sally
 * Student Confidential (1987) as Jenny Selden
 * Someone to Love (1987) as Attendee
 * Murder by Numbers (1990) as Faith
 * Rolling Thunder Revue: A Bob Dylan Story by Martin Scorsese (2019) as herself

Television

 * Desperate Women (1978)
 * Vega$ (1 episode, 1978) : Second Stanza (1978)
 * Ladies in Waiting (1979)
 * The Love Boat (1 episode, 1979) : Doc's Ex' Change/Gift, The/Making the Grade (1979)
 * Beyond Westworld (1 episode, 1980) : Sound of Terror (1980)
 * The Oklahoma City Dolls (1981)
 * Highway to Heaven (1 episode, 1984) : Song of the Wild West (1984)
 * Trapper John, M.D. (1 episode, 1985) : So Little, Gone (1985)
 * Tales from the Darkside (1 episode, 1985) : The False Prophet (1985)
 * ABC Afterschool Special Sherman (1 episode, 1987) : Divorced Kids' Blues (1987)
 * Hotel (1 episode, 1988) : Double Take (1988) TV episode

Composer

 * Welcome Home, Soldier Boys (1972)
 * Nashville (1975)
 * Lightning Over Water (1980)
 * Docu Drama (1984)

Soundtracks

 * Nashville (1975) (writer: "Bluebird", "Tapedeck in His Tractor", "Dues", "My Idaho Home") (music: "Down to the River") (lyrics: "Down to the River") (performer: "Tapedeck in His Tractor", "Dues", "My Idaho Home", "One, I Love You", "Down to the River")
 * Renaldo and Clara (1978) (writer: "Need a New Sun Rising") (performer: "Need a New Sun Rising")

Director, writer & producer

 * Docu Drama (1984)
 * Of One Blood (2012)

title: Ronee Blakley


text:
Grand Avenue Project

The Grand Avenue Project was a government lead revitalization effort for the Bunker Hill neighborhood of Downtown Los Angeles on Grand Avenue and centered around Grand Park, its surrounding county government buildings and its parking lots. It was administered by the Grand Avenue Authority, a joint powers authority consisting of Los Angeles County and City. The first task was to improve the streetscape of Grand Avenue. The second element was to upgrade the 12 acre Grand Park in 2012 with a refurbished fountains, lawn furniture, walkways and the planting of native gardens. And lastly, constructing several residential buildings, including a two-tower complex on the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and 1st Street, designed by Frank Gehry.

History
On February 14, 2007, both the Los Angeles City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the project, and officials originally hoped to break ground in December 2007. The project has been developed in stages due to the recession between 2007 and 2009. On July 26, 2012, Grand Park opened to the public as the initial phase of the project, In October 2014, The Related Companies completed The Emerson, a 19-story tower marketed to older adults that includes an affordable housing component. The Broad, a contemporary art museum, opened between the Disney Concert Hall and the condo tower in 2015. The final phase of the project, on a lot directly east of the Disney Concert Hall, has two skyscrapers, a 45-story residential tower and a 25-story tower featuring apartments and the Conrad Hotel. The development was designed by Frank Gehry. Construction began in December 2018 and completed in 2022.

Design
Grand Park is 16 acre, stretching between the development's two boundaries: City Hall and the Department of Water and Power building. The park was designed to be pedestrian friendly and connects Bunker Hill to the Civic Center. The park includes tree-shaded sidewalks, fountains, plenty of street lights, benches, and kiosks to encourage walking and exploration of the area, which was designed to encourage residents and visitors to enjoy a family-friendly green space in downtown Los Angeles with musical events and other park activities. The project also included a redevelopment of the Music Center Plaza, the Broad Museum designed by Diller Scofidio + Renfro, and a redevelopment and refurbishment of the Los Angeles Music Center plaza. Two towers were built across from the Disney Concert Hall, designed by architect Frank Gehry as part of the Grand LA. The towers have since been named The Grand by Gehry residences and the Conrad Los Angeles hotel.

title: Grand Avenue Project


text: User talk:70.247.196.80

title: User talk:70.247.196.80