Mahjongg |
=Categorization=
Hello! I ve removed some of your category contributions since they were redudant, see 09:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Thanks RustyCale, I was aware of the problem but you are one step ahead of me.
=Mahjongg=
Do you love 12:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, yes, both kinds (the multi player version and the single player version), but actually my nick is also inspired by my real name, Martin de jongg.
Actually both my first name and my last name are so common in Holland that it was hard to think of a login or e-mail name that was not allready in use, (even ten years ago) so instead of choosing to log in as mdejong245 I chose to use mahjongg as my login name, and I also started to use it as my nickname.
=Ski tow=
Personally, I think adding 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes I agree, there are several topics that are in a grey area , you have to draw the line somewhere!
For example I could have chosen to include a topic about the Transportation of illness from one person to the next. Because you could argue about this as being a form of Transport of bacteria or virii, but that would really be a stretch. (actually I did add topics about transporting heath and information).
But personally I think that adding anything that is used to transport persons or goods should be included, Elevators and escalators are used to transport people so I added those, but yes the decision to where to draw the line is a difficult one.
But think, if every topic should fall in *some* main category, then in what other category should a ski tow fall than in this one
Not including the Transportation of illness is acceptable because it falls under the main category of category:medicine and a person who walks the topics tree is more likely to start with the topic of Science=>Medicine than Science=>Transport, but a tow lift does not fall directly under any other main category that I can think of, so I included it in this one.
Okay, I have given this some more thought and came up with the idea of creating the sub category Vertical transportation devices, of which the ski tow is a member (along wth lifts and escalators etc). So I could replace the category: Transportation with the category Vertical transportation devices . I hope this solves your objection, although the creation of Vertical transportation devices may cause others to object that this sub category is a bit of a stretch. We will see......
= lists of monarchs, &c. =
These should be categorized in 18:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see....and does that mean that when the &c. happens to be currently in office I should _only_ put them in not in both, nor in both this category and the category Lists of people What is the rule here exactly and why
I know that generally I should not put a subject in both a category and a subcategory of that category, but sometimes the _why_ of this rule seems less obvious when applied to a somewhat more involved practical situation instead of the simple example that is given to explain this rule in the help pages.
For example: perhaps I shouldn t categorise red headed asian jews in the category Lists of people because there is a category asian jews of which red headed asian jews is simply a subcategory so I would be breaking the rule if I did. But then, asian jews itself is simply a subcategory of jews , so perhaps I should not put asian jews in Lists of people too, which is absurd...
Shouldn t the categorising be there to help navigate between similar topics It seems to me that strictly adhering to the subtopics rule is not allways helpfull.
Anyway, it is not only the six or so variations on lists of monarchs that are to be moved to .
I do understand your logic, but in my opinion too if the list is talking about diplomats that are currently in office.
To make my point clear: what happens when half of the list
I think I should be able to put them in BOTH! Similarly I think lists of monarchs, &c. should be both in lists of people AND Lists of office-holders . Monarchs are people too, and perhaps a user will not look for list of monarchs in the category list of office holders but will try to find it in list of people instead, and there is no reason, in my opinion, why he should not be able to find it there if he so chooses to browse through wikipedia...
: Lists of Officeholders is a clear wikipedia category which means a list that shows succession within an office. 03:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
03:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::Okay, I see your point now. only lists with a timeline should go into .
::I agree, ).
::still my real question is this: where do I draw the line in the desire to keep main categories as clear as possible . Sometimes I see situations where it is not so clear that this rule should be strictly adhered to. See my above example with sub-sub-sub categories.
::However for .
= Article Licensing =
Hi, I ve Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the template into their user page, but there are other options at . The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
:Option 1 :I agree to all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to , county, or city article as described below: :
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace with . If you only prefer using the|
|