User talk:David Kernow

; Archives
	October 2005 – 19 January 2006; 2006 2 February – 3 April; 4 – 25 April; ;

Executions

David,

I was looking at the Category:People executed by guillotine during the Franch Revolution. How would you feel about creating, under Execution Methods, a Subcategory: 'Executions by beheading' (or 'decapitation'. This could include others beheaded by guillotine and those beheaded by other than the guillotine. The Category:People executed by guillotine during the Franch Revolution could then be a Subcategory of 'Executions by beheading'. Thoughts?

Be healthy,

Michael David 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds an eminently sensible idea. However, I wouldn't create it as a subcategory of Execution methods but, looking at Category:Capital punishment, as a subcategory of Category:Executed people. I haven't examined Category:Capital punishment and its subcategories too closely, but there may already be some confusion as to which parent category/ies people vs methods, responsible parties, etc subcategories belong. I'll start taking a closer look anon.

It just occurred to me that we may run into a issue regarding whether a person was 'murdered' or 'executed' by beheading. For example was Eugene Armstrong murdered or executed? Doesn't it matter who's describing it?

Michael David 12:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and not only as regards beheading. I'd say significant numbers of people worldwide would describe the carrying-out of state-sanctioned death sentences as state-sponsored murder. I guess the (unspoken?) consensus on Wikipedia is that if someone is killed as the result of a legally recognisable process in a state that is also generally recognised, that killing may be regarded as an execution. Otherwise...

Regards, David Kernow 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David,

Please do explore the possibilities of where to place the Subcategory: Deaths by beheading, and let me know which way seems the most efficient. You seem to be much more experienced at this than I - I’m still on a learning curve. I'll be happy to follow up and edit the Category into the appropriate Articles.

I agree the term 'executed' should be used only if the sentence is handed down by a legitimate court. Using this standard then, Eugene Armstrong's beheading was murder. I don't have a problem with that!

By the way, I chipped some more away at the monster Category:Cancer deaths. I created a sub, Category:Deaths from cervical cancer. Unfortunately, it’s becoming more and more the cause of death for many women.

Be healthy, Michael David 17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Categories

David,

Thanks for cleaning up some of my most recent edits. I have been changing the order of the Categories in an Article, placing them in alphabetical order for easy reference. It also occurred to me that the least important Categories are the Birth & Death years; that's why I have been placing them at the end of the list. Any problems with this?

Michael David 12:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any clearing up has been coincidental; as I guess you've noticed, I've been trying to sort out Category:Capital punishment and subcategories. As regards category order, I order alphanumerically, which is what appears to be the Wikipedia consensus. Hence the birth/death categories appear first (unless there are templates/stubs active in the article).

Regards, David Kernow 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gas Chamber >Lethal Gas

Hello again,

Regarding changing the Executions Category title from 'gas chanber' to 'lethal gas', I just assumed because it was called the 'gas chamber' that would be the appropriate title for it. If you felt it would confuse the holocaust victims - they were murdered not executed. Thoughts?

Michael David 16:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've reverted the change, inserted a note at the top of Category:Executions by gas chamber and am now considering a Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps for people such as Olga Benário Prestes. However, (a) Wikipedia is currently very slow here; and (b) I'm wondering why such a category doesn't already exist, or whether I've missed it. I see from what appears to be the closest candidate, Category talk:Victims of Nazi justice that some disquiet over its name has been voiced recently, something I would share. Until Wikipedia responds more quickly again, though, I won't try searching for a previous renaming debate at WP:CfD. Assuming Category:Victims of Nazi concentration camps is retained, perhaps a more general parent category is desirable, as not all victims of the Holocaust were killed in concentration camps... Alternatively, perhaps Category:Individual victims of the Nazi Holocaust is a solution...?

Thanks for your alert, David Kernow 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Category:Nazi concentration camp victims Michael David 19:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes – thanks! David 19:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Name order query

Hi Corey,

As you're the first entry in the Japanese Wikipedians category, you have the immense privilege and honor of helping me with what I'm sure is an easy query to handle. Currently the article on Muto Akira begins "Akira Muto (1883 – 23 December 1948) was a...". Which of "Muto" and "Akira" is his first name and family name? Thanks, David Kernow 15:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, I'm pretty sure Akira is his first name, and Muto his last. In Japanese, the last name comes before the first. So in a westernized form, it's Akira Muto, but in Japanese it's Muto Akira. Cowmeister88 20:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks – I've moved Muto Akira to Akira Muto and will accept any and all flak should other folk convince me that this is a mistake. Best wishes, David Kernow 21:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halaal article move

David, thanks for chiming in on the move vote. I suspect that the article was previously located at Halal, since there's an existing talk page for it. (As a result, I couldn't simply move the article myself.) Is there an easy way to find out if there was a previous vote? I'd be interested in seeing what rationale there may have been to support the move. Thanks! quadratic 10:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I guess you realise, it's possible a previous vote was lost if/when someone moved the article from "Halal" to "Halaal" (or back again) and manually cut'n'pasted it rather than using the Requested moves procedure... It might be possible to find out whether or not this happened by (say) posting your query at Wikipedia talk:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, where a passing admin more knowledgeable than us might help. (Not sure how often that area is visited, however.) Curiosity aside, I'd just plug on with the present vote. Regards, David Kernow 10:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, it's been several days now and there have been five supporting votes without a single vote in opposition. What's the next step to make the move actually happen? quadratic 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins monitoring the Requested moves page (most often User:Nightstallion) act on the outcome of surveys after around five days to a week, so Halaal will probably be moved anon. Looking at the Requested moves page, it's fourth in line. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Thanks again for your help. I'd not gone through the move process before. quadratic 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No signature

Sorry about the oversight. Hasdrubal 05:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No prob; I even {{unsigned}} myself from time to time! Best wishes, David Kernow 12:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

French nobility (and using languages etc other than English)

Hi Septentrionalis,

"I should prefer Gabriel, Count Montgomery, leaving the first line as it is."

I was thinking of proposing that all articles on French nobility follow what seems to be a norm outside Wikipedia that French is used for French nobles' names, but on second thoughts I fear the amount of time and energy required to placate various factions doesn't match my interest in the subject. I do feel, however, that it might be misleading to suggest to folk that histories of French nobility etc generally use English translations. If I'd gone so far as to be interested in material on French nobles, I guess I'd be surprised not to see and become acquainted with the relevant French terms. A minority view?

Regards, David Kernow 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is (it seems to me) a fairly consistent predominance of Duke of Anjou, and so forth, for the high nobility, at least in works for a general readership. Scholars tend to be less anglophone than the generality. How far this should be extended is a question, but I tend to go with WP:UE whne there is doubt. Whether Montgomery should fall under this rule is (to my mind) a question of how he is actually discussed in English; which is one reason I made a talk-page note. Septentrionalis 00:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to be a little uncharitable, I'd might suggest this view proposes a "That's the way it is, so that's the best/most appropriate/whatever way for it to be" view... I'd say that since a translation and/or further information about an unfamiliar is (or can be) but a click away with a resource such as Wikipedia, there's less rather than more reason to (keep) drop(ping) to an anglophone-based lowest common denominator as regards issues such as foreign words, diacritics, etc etc. But I'm not on a crusade and have no plans to launch one, at least not for the time being! Best wishes and thanks for your thoughts, David 00:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for continuing once more; I think you misunderstand my position. Let me rant just a little. I don't think anglophony is the lowest common denominator; I think it's the appropriate policy for an English encyclopedia. Consider the interlanguage links for London, United States, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington - hardly any of them use the English name. That's the right policy, and en.wikipedia should follow it. Septentrionalis 01:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; "anglophone-based lowest common denominator" was a poor description. (So much for my being an English-speaking person!) Rather, I don't see why something "in English" need be restricted to English, especially when it addresses topics regarding other countries or languages; and especially when enlightenment as regards unfamiliar words, characters, diacritics, etc need only be a click away...? Regards, David 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't restrict things to English; there are those who do, and they are a pain, like all the other nationalisms. I think the (quite frequent) situation of having the article name in English and the first line bold in the other language works quite well. (The other language WPs usually don't do this much; the Russian article on Wellington is being generous in giving the English in parentheses.) Septentrionalis 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly to be preferred, I'd say, to having no mention at all of the original names/titles. Ah well, c'est la... oops; that's life! Yours, David 01:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Palin

Your move of Robert Palin to Robert Thomas Palin was contrary to accepted practice and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), which state that "names in the format <First name> <Last name> are usually the least problematic as page name for an article on a single person.". Generally moves away from the most simple and obvious title are undertaken only if the original title needs to be disambiguated. It is widely accepted that the article title need not match the emboldened words in the lead; see for example George W. Bush, Winston Churchill, Elvis Presley, etcetera ad nauseum. I have moved it back. Snottygobble 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh. Sorry about that; thanks for the pointer and reversion. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Duplicates

David,

I just finished editing the Article on Walter Capps, a US Representative from California. The Article is titled 'Walter Capps'. I then discovered this same person has another Article titled 'Walter H. Capps'. What's the procedure for dealing with this?

Michael David still learning.

Hello again Michael,

"I just finished editing the Article on Walter Capps, a US Representative from California. The Article is titled 'Walter Capps'. I then discovered this same person has another Article titled 'Walter H. Capps'. What's the procedure for dealing with this?"

My understanding (re Wikipedia in general, not just re articles) is that in lieu of any other considerations, keep/merge/work with whatever was around before you arrived on the scene. This is what I think is usually (meant to) happen(s) say as regards American vs British spelling or the like. Thanks to the "in lieu of" proviso, though, I haven't seen this approach arise much beyond parochial matters such as spelling. So, in the case of your Walter Capps article, the simplistic argument might be "merge it with the already-existing Walter H. Capps article" except that there are at least two considerations I'd say favor working the situation the other way round:

(a) The original Walter H. Capps article is a very stubby stub; there's much more to your Walter Capps version;

(b) Something I learned only last night – see the message just before yours on my talk page – that the favored naming format for articles about people is <Firstname> <Lastname>, i.e. as with your Walter Capps article.

So I'd say keep your version and mark the Walter H. Capps one for speedy deletion with a reason such as "Superseded by Walter Capps" (i.e. put {{db|Superseded by [[Walter Capps]]}} at the very top of the Walter H. Capps article); comment-out its assigned categories; and add it to your watchlist to see what happens. If you try this and receive flak as a result, please redirect any and all of it to me.

Best wishes, David 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

voting

Hi Philip,

"...should be altered to remove the word "voting"..."

Neither for nor against, but am wondering how many other folk coming by this might also wonder why "voting" is problematic...? Regards, David Kernow 03:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the long discussions in the archive of Wikipedia talk:Consensus --Philip Baird Shearer 07:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer; I see there's a whole host of issues contained therein. Perhaps some folk feel that "voting" is tainted thanks to its use by politics in the wider world. For me, though, here in the context of Wikipedia, saying that I support one idea (without necessarily rejecting all others) and saying that I vote for that idea (again, without that making me unable to vote for any others) amounts to the same action. Regards, David Kernow 12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cfr templates

Hi. I have no objections to anyone making improvements to the templates. They could probably use some work. However, I felt that the changes you made weren't particularly helpful. Centering text tends to reduce readability, which is important in a template that people are likely to scan instead of carefully read.

Thanks for your response. Curiously, I find centering particularly significant text aids my scanning, but I realise this is but one experience.

In any case, the center tag is deprecated, and its use should be avoided.

Apologies; I was under the impression that <center> was a standard HTML element. I take the "Deprecated in favor of <div> with centering defined using CSS" at the above link to mean use (the more long-winded) <div style=text-align:center> ... </div>; is that correct?

That would work, providing you remember to quote it properly.

You also inserted an additional comment into the template, and I can't discern what purpose it could serve. - EurekaLott 02:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I realise I didn't understand that the original comment only makes sense when the template has been subst:d somewhere. How about rewording the comment along the lines of "Please do not remove or change this CfD/CfR message until the survey and discussion at WP:CfD is closed", i.e. using something less vague than "the issue is settled"...?

Best wishes, David Kernow 03:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Something to that effect would probably be a good idea. - EurekaLott 03:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have replaced opening comment on the main Cf templates with the above and will await (any) reaction. Thanks also for confirming the <div > syntax. Yours, David 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newcastle upon Tyne media

You voted just before I posted my explanation of what happened here. It is only empty because all the articles were moved a couple of days ago. That was renaming without a vote, which is improper. "X media" is preferable, and should be read as short for "Media based in X". Most of the media available in Newcastle or almost any other city is from outside. Could you please reconsider your vote? CalJW 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; have just amended it. Best wishes, David Kernow 02:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory

Hello Liu Bei,

I note that your reversion of my work on the above has caused:

The reintroduction of more than one wikilink per entry, contrary to a well-established Manual of Style convention;
The loss of a new entry;
The reintroduction of more than one entry without any wikilink to the item being disambiguated (e.g. the Joseph Conrad novel, the definitions of victories);
The removal of subject headings intended to aid those seeking disambiguation;
The reintroduction of material more suited to the Wikitionary (definitions of types of victory) and Wikiquote (quotes about or involving the concept of victory).

Perhaps we might work together to resolve the current loss of the above? Thanks, David Kernow 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on [Talk:Victory] regarding substantial revision to this disambiguation page. Liu Bei 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(From Talk:Victory:) "...Just because no one's gotten around to making a page for the Joseph Conrad novel victory doesn't mean we should strike all knowledge of it from everywhere else"

I think you might've missed how I handled this entry; I don't recall deleting it, but upgrading it to a redlink...

"The definitions/uses of victory (pyrrhic victory and quote from Apocalypse now) is exactly the kind of broad-web I enjoy in Wikipedia and suits its primary purpose -- to inform."

Have posted my reponse back at Talk:Victory as others may be able to confirm and/or enlighten. Thanks for your reply, David 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People killed by the Third Reich

Thanks for spotting the above; as you've probably guessed, I'm currently working my way through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts (formerly "Victims of Nazi justice") removing any (hopefully all) articles that may be categorised under Category:People killed by the Third Reich. (Cf ...#Recategorisation?)

Does Category:People killed by the Third Reich seem a reasonable name / parent category?

Thanks again, David Kernow 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. The name is perfect, IMO, as it is both comprehensive and neutral. In the future, perhaps a Category:Executed Sturmabteilung members could be added and included in there as a subcat, so all possible meanings of the term "killed" are covered, and the relation between political repression in Nazi Germany and contrasting political groups may be established. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Dahn 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I'll keep your page on my watchlist as a reminder to let you know when I've finished trawling through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts. I don't know how many articles there are or might be about murdered SA members, but beyond Röhm and maybe one or two others, I wouldn't've thought it was that many...? Regards, David 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories ...

Hi, and thanks for your continuing support. I had a couple of questions and I didn't know who I should ask.

Do you know how I can tell how long a category has been empty? I can tell from the history when it was blanked, but really that's not the same thing, since category membership is really a property of the individual articles, and not of the categories themselves.
On a related note, is there any way to tell what a category used' to contain? I'd like to restore Category:Persian deities.
Do you know who I would ask about refreshing the uncategorized categories list? I think its mostly done and I'm beginning to lose track of which ones I've done already.

Thanks in advance for your help -- Eric also known as ProveIt ^(talk) 16:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric,

...

Thanks for your message and for thinking I could help with the above – unfortunately, the brief answer to all is "I don't know..." but I'd be confident that one of the admins who frequent WP:CfD (Syrthiss, TexasAndroid, William Allen Simpson, etc) would have some idea and maybe the tools for the job. I'm going to keep your page on my watchlist as I too would like to find out more about these questions.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to support your work as it's great housekeeping and indicates what hasn't worked out to folk like me who follow the CfD page. Thanks! Best wishes, David Kernow 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]