User talk:Stephenb/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello Stephenb/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 22:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Your 'corrections' the the hyphenation of the bombing article are not helpful. The correct hyphen character to use is U+2010 (‐ or ‐). Nicholas 8 July 2005 10:33 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect, as posted to your talk page: (a) the 8208 code I corrected didn't work in my IE browser (displayed square box), (b) other uses on the same page used the hyphen I used (e.g. double-decker), (c) all your reversions back to the unicode code have since been reverted back again(!), and (d) hyphen doesn't use the unicode version either. Thanks for the comments though! Stephenb 08:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Monopoly

Hello. I've just been visiting and updating the Monopoly page (and localization article) to reflect the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 - for the latter article, I notice you changed the "Delete" to a "Merge". Since I don't see much point in an article on a limited edition of the board game (it's not notable!), I wondered why you did this. Would it be OK if I changed it back to a "Delete" or would a stub be more appropriate (in which case I'll relink it from the main article)? A redirect doesn't seem appropriate as nothing else linked there. I'm fairly new to this chat stuff, so please let me know if I've got it wrong - Thanks! Stephenb 19:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would discourage you from changing it back to a delete. I disagree that it's not notable; I think that it warrants a one-line mention in the main article (something along the line of In 2005, in recognition of the 70th anniversary of the game, Parker Brothers released a "Monopoly Here and Now Limited Edition" with a modern design featuring new game pieces (such as a cheeseburger) and new property spaces (such as Heathrow Airport).. Once merged, the original article can be replaced with a redirect. Kelly Martin 19:39, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind that. I just checked the main article and it appears that all relevant content is already in the article. I've replaced the Monopoly here and now limited edition 2005 page with a redirect. Kelly Martin 19:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

'Thanks. Seems pointless keeping the redirect, but I bow to your experience :-) Stephenb 19:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

I see the redirect as totally harmless. Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and redirects cost so little. Kelly Martin 20:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Good catch :)

Hey! I've been to the UK and as far as I remember there were only two roads... course I spent a lot of time in the pubs, but I think I remember enough.... j/k. Good catch on this edit; I got a good laugh. Take care. - grubber 15:18, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

RE: Great minds think alike?

I agree, publisher is better suited the other changes sound good too, how about adding the cover price too?

AdamLondon 20:38, 2 August 2005 (BST) (Talk)

Looks good Stephen, thanks for updating the pages I'd already added the info box to. No idea how you managed that.--Adam 20:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support concern Scottish Baronies, I just don't get the gentleman point for deletion I wrote it some 5 months ago and now these. Thanks Again. --The Baron of Fulwood 15:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Category Edits

This is the proper use of categories. Check out the example on the convention page: Wikipedia:Categorization#When_to_use_categories. Notice that the suggested category for Michael Jackson is not Category:Michael Jackson, but rather Category:Pop singers. It's fine that there's a Category:Gillingham F.C. page, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a link to Category:English football clubs on the main Gillingham F.C. page. A user should not have to click on the Gillingham cat. in order to get to a link to the English football clubs cat. It is unnecessary to have a link to the the English football clubs cat. on the Gillingham cat. if you're looking to pare down the number of categories. - Pal 09:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

But if an article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, then why isn't it suggested that Microsoft Office should only be in a cat. called Category:Microsoft Office since that category exists? Likewise, it isn't suggested that the Michael Jackson article should only appear in Category:Michael Jackson.

Here's why I think it's logical for an article on an English football club to link to the Category:English football clubs. If a user is on the Liverpool F.C. page and they want to see articles about other similar teams, how are they to know that to get to this broader page they must first click through the seemingly less inclusive Category:Liverpool F.C. page? That seems illogical. - Pal 15:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point in bringing in the Michael Jackson and Microsoft Office examples was to illustrate that if the an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory takes precidence, then every single article on Wikipedia should only be in its own category (in which case they'd never be in more than one category).

Also, the rule you mention was arbitrarily inserted into the Wikipedia:Categorization page by a user in June. Prior to that there was an exception that allowed categories to be in both categories and subcategories. If you observe the discussion page you'll see that there's still no consensus on the subject. Personally, I'd argue that this rule seems to contradict the spirit of the Categories should be on major topics that are likely to be useful to someone reading the article guideline. - Pal 22:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're never going to agree on this, I figured I'd suggest that if you're very serious about this change, that you first run the changes by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football page. This project was set up to standardize and improve football articles, and what you're suggesting (which is in fact a guideline, not a rule) would require a change to every single football club page for every team from every country. - Pal 13:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBE

Hi Stephen. You recently created 'Category:Companions of the British Empire', when actually, CBE stands for Commander of the British Empire. I've corrected the pages of those who were in the category by changing them to Category:Commanders of the British Empire. Happy editing! Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin

What sources besides Wikipedia are you referring to? --217.185.31.184 17:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see User talk:217.185.31.184 --217.185.31.184 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo vandal

I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours. Hopefully, he won't just go on to a different computer.--Scïmïłar ^parley 17:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

I wish we didn't let anonymous IP's touch Wikipedia. Oh well. Oh, a suggestion- the talk link on your signature goes to User talk:Name, not User talk:Stephenb. You might want to fix that ;). Regards, Scïmïłar ^parley 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testing my own sig: Stephenb (User talk:Stephenb|Talk)]] 17:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]