Archive 1 of User talk:Jpbowen

I don't suppose you're the Jeremy Bowen, are you? Deb 10:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hang on, you must be Jonathan Bowen.

ndash?

What's up with that? An mdash is the normal character for separating parts of a sentence—sort of a compromise between a periphrastic comma and a semicolon. An ndash is normally used for a compound word, or maybe for subtraction. It's not worth reverting in the Dylan article, but it's odd to make an edit just to put in slightly wrong punctuation (see Dash; Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restored – this is a UK vs. US style issue. :) Jonathan Bowen 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated

Your edit to Museum of the History of Science, Oxford and the creation of the Jim Bennett article are much appreciated, fellow Oxonian. Alf ^melmac 19:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, thanks for the positive feedback! Jonathan Bowen 19:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent contributions

Professor Bowen,

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Since it's apparent that you've become a frequent and enthusiastic contributor, I felt it prudent to address your recent edits to the References section of Flora (plants). First, thanks for expanding the bibliography. Far too few articles adequately cite sources and standard texts. However, I also noticed that you altered the existing bibliographic citation in a way that deviates from standard citation formats; the citation in question previously adhered to the MLA citation style. For details on the anatomy of an MLA-style citation, please see the MLA Style Bibliographic Citation Guide. Wikipedia also sports a large number of APA style citation templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations.

Finally, even though the article contains a section listing nonfiction books dealing with regional flora, the Nonfiction books category does not apply since flora is an ecological concept, not a nonfiction book.

On a lighter note, thank you for expanding the article on Alexander "Sandy" Nairne (I'm largely responsible for the present state of the Modern Art Oxford article). First-hand topical accounts that manage to be objective while eschewing anecdotalism are a decided boon. – Ringbang 02:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I have changed this to use the MLA style as you suggest – but do change if it is still wrong! There seem to be a wide variety of styles on Wikipedia and I guess you will never get total consistency.

Re "Flora (plants)" as a "non-fiction" book, a "Flora" can refer to a book (about plant flora), as well as its more usual (related) meaning, and it should be a work of non-fiction! Of course, it could be best to have two separate entries for the two meanings. If anyone has time to separate the two in an interlinked manner, that would be great.

I have added to the categories for Modern Art Oxford, hopefully in a helpful way.

—Jonathan Bowen 12:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Colleges

Hello! You've been adding links and categories to Oxford College articles. In the ones that I've seen so far, the link was already there (in the infobox), and the category was incorrect (Pembroke isn't an old member of itself, for example, and the Category page already had a link to the article). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added this as an unalphabetized category link since most Oxbridge college pages include a list of alumni in them. Of course, if you prefer to change to an explicit link somewhere in the college page itself (e.g., the alumni section), feel free. Jonathan Bowen 14:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility when referring to categories is to write it like [[:Category:Whatever category you want]]. The colon before the C makes it link to the category, but does not add the article in which it's written to the category listing itself. Ideal to use, for example, as Category:Visitor attractions in Oxfordshire on the Oxford article itself, which I just had to add, as it wasn't already there. It does get picked up using "What links here", as that includes this page now, please edit it if you don't want that.

Yes, I have done this as well sometimes.

Good choice on Old Ashmolean Building in the article today, should have done that myself, it's how every other name 'known as' is supposed to be, wood for trees there! Alf ^melmac 19:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the ":Category" trick is useful and I use it sometimes. And yes, "#Redirect"s are very useful for multiple names. — Jonathan Bowen 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

J.R.R. Tolkien Further Reading

Hello! I noticed you added a second reference for Carpenter's biography of Tolkien. How is this one different from the one already on the page? Thanks. --Malecasta 01:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is the UK version of the biography. I don't know how different it is since I don't have the US version, but it has a different ISBN (and "publisher"). I guess the two entries could be merged, but I think it is worth including both ISBNs at least for completeness. — Jonathan Bowen 08:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I think the UK version is probably the only entry needed. A second ISBN to the US version might be enough. --Malecasta 08:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two and added a more recent paperback version too, since this is the "definitive" biography on Tolkien (in my view!). — Jonathan Bowen 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humphrey Gainsborough

Glad to see you have written this. You might care to know that a lecture was read to the Newcomen Society last Wednesday about him. Also Rev. Dr. R. L. Hills's new biograpahy of Watt, pub by Landmark Publishing has some info. Kind regards Apwoolrich 07:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feeback. Re the lecture, I attended it! I think Humphrey Gainsborough deserves a higher historical profile. A paper should be appearing in the Newcomen Society's journal. — Jonathan Bowen 08:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the rivals to Watt need a higher profile - Hownblower etc. Its one of the frustrations of studying technical history that contempory researchers rely too much on the attitudes of the C19 Watt partisans. The story of how James Watt Junior was able to re-write history is remarkable. Kind regards Apwoolrich 19:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean "Hornblower" above. :) Yes, I might try to correct that too if I have time sometime. I understand this phenomemon is referred to as Wattism if anyone wants to write an article on that! — Jonathan Bowen 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know about this, and have a friend who is writing a book about it, and other aspects of Victorian hero worship of engineers. Apwoolrich 20:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have just been reading your web-page profile. I don't suppose any chance you might be connected with John Bowen of Bridgwater, fl 1770-1850, In turn engineer to the Hon East India Co, Wine Merchant, Architect, Son in law of the architectural writer Peter Nicholson, scourge of Poor Law abuse in Bridgwater - the Great Bridgwater workhouse scandal, etc, etc. And he is not in the ODNB despite my best efforts to get him there! Kind regards. Apwoolrich 19:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowingly, but you never know! Another article to do I guess! — Jonathan Bowen 19:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fellows

Thanks for your contributions categorizing Oxford University, especially Fellows of colleges. — Jonathan Bowen 20:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind remarks: I was in two minds about adding Fellows as a category, as of course there are far fewer of them then students - and with the more recent colleges, doubtful whether there will be more than half a dozen notables - so I am grateful for the positive reaction. Best, HeartofaDog 22:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Godot

I see that you are the editor who added to the Peter Hall page the information that he directed the English language premiere of "Waiting for Godot".

I'm no expert, but I thought it was an English language play: i.e. that the "English language premiere" was the same as "the premiere".

Just giving you the opportunity to consider this and change it if you think it's necessary. No need to reply to this (unless you'd like me to do some research myself, which I'm happy to do). AndyJones 22:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For information, Waiting for Godot was originally written in French, Samuel Beckett's second language, as En attendant Godot. He did the English translation himself in 1955. It was first performed in French at the Théâtre de Babylone in Paris in 1953. Hope this helps! — Jonathan Bowen 22:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't known, but that definitely settles it. (I notice the answer was right there for me on the Waiting for Godot page!) Thanks. AndyJones 11:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I see that you've been doing a few minor changes to The Diary of Anne Frank. Thanks for the help! :) I didn't have enough courage to do it myself, because I didn't watch the film and I was afraid of leaving out a major event or leaving in too many details. I just forgot the grammar! :P

Anyway, thanks again! Dayana 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean The Diary of Anne Frank (film). You are welcome in any case. It could probably do with another read through if anyone has the time. — Jonathan Bowen 00:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Planetarium categories

Hello Prof. Bowen, I am wondering what criteria you are using to determine that certain categories are 'too high' for Clark Planetarium. Please elucidate, thanks. (note that Clark Planetarium was originally a small blurb as part of a series of articles about Utah and was thus categorized 'Utah') Jonathan888 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments about categorization on my user page, thanks. Please, in the future add comments to me to my talk page rather than to my user page so that I recieve a message that there is correspondence for me. Jonathan888 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for editing the wrong page. In general, articles should be categorized under the most precise category unless there are very important. I added Category:Museums in Utah since this did not exist, most US States have a similar category, and I am sure Utah deserves one too. It would be great if you are knowledgable on museums in Utah and could add further entries. I may do so myself if I have the time. Many thanks for your contribution anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actor model

Hi, I saw your name popup in the history page of articles related to the actor model. Are you somewhat familiar with the actor model and Carl Hewitt? Regards, --R.Koot 14:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only through Wikipedia! It is not very well-known or used in European formal methods circles. — Jonathan Bowen 18:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discreet components

Please use the page move function of the metawiki software when moving pages such as the move of Discreet components to Discrete components. A copy and paste move such as you performed causes the edit history to be lost, and recovery of this information requires an administrator to perform a history merge. Please consult meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more detailed instructions on how to move an improperly named page. Regards, --Allen3 ^talk 19:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. In this case "Discreet" is definitely wrong, so is it still best to redirect from the incorrect version? I updated the one link that did exist. — Jonathan Bowen 21:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend leaving the redirect in place. It is not an unreasonable to assume the misspelling may occur in the future as we have proof that it has been used at least once before. --Allen3 ^talk 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do! Thanks again. — Jonathan Bowen 22:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arts genres by country or nationality

I noticed your new category. It seems unnecessary and confusing to add the occupation categories to this new category. For example, If you have Category:Architecture by nationality it has the subcategory American architecture which has the subcategory American architects. So you don't need to have Category:Architects by nationality in the new category. They can all be found in the subcategories. Architects are not genres of art, Architecture is. Another possibility is to create Category:Art occupations by nationality.

Also, perhaps the new category should be renamed Category:Art genres by nationality or language -- Samuel Wantman 20:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did have second thoughts on the name after I got into it. Perhaps a case for renaming to a more general name or splitting. I am still working on this anyway. Of course, others would be welcome to split this up if they feel it appropriate too. Thanks for your feedback. — Jonathan Bowen 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Category:Arts by categories would be a good general title? I quite like being able to find all these things in one place, although others may disagree. Best to sleep on it I think! — Jonathan Bowen 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Life-critical system

Hello, good work on Life-critical system, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. From what websites, books, or other places did you learn the information that you added to Life-critical system? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? You can simply add links, or see WP:CITET if you wish to review some of the different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 03:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"link"

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Standard_headings_and_ordering it is always "External links", for the reasons given at Wikipedia talk:Boilerplate text#External_links_or_link. There is some debate over this. The major merit of always using the plural regardless is that that way one never has to change the section title back and forth. ☺ Uncle G 12:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tip, I will follow the standard style for the future! — Jonathan Bowen 12:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom case against CarlHewitt

Hello. I think I should let you know out of courtesy that I used one of your edits as evidence in the arbitration case against Carl Hewitt; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Evidence and search for your name for details. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and good luck with the case! — Jonathan Bowen 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirect

Greetings. You recently created a page with the title Marine Support Unit, the entire text of which is #REDIRECT [[Marine Support Unit]], so that it points to itself. I assume you meant to link this to some other article~~, but I have been unable to figure out which one. It would be greatly appreciated if you could correct this link~~. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; found it! --Russ Blau (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the circular redirect and thank you for finding and correcting it. — Jonathan Bowen 14:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oxford template

Hi, I see you've added yourself to the Oxon graduates category. I have begun to create templates for each individual college so that users can put them on their user pages - see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Education/United Kingdom/University of Oxford for details. If you would like another college made fast, just let me know! File:Anglo-indian.jpg Deano (Talk) 19:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added my college to my user page. — Jonathan Bowen 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent systems

Jonathan, I thought I should let you know that I have merged the content of the Concurrent systems article into Concurrency (computer science), and created a redirect from Concurrent systems to Concurrency (computer science). There seemed to be very little content in the concurrent systems article, and what content did exist overlapped with that in the concurrency article. Furthermore, any growth in the concurrent systems article seemed (to me) only likely to generate more overlap with the concurrency article. If you feel that I am in error, and that there is significant non-overlapping content that could be placed into Concurrent systems, please feel free to revert my changes. --Allan McInnes 20:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan, thanks for letting me know — it looks fine to me! --Jonathan Bowen 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pipers

It is not clear why these guys are notable in their own right.Obina 15:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myfanwy Piper was a librettist with Benjamin Britten, Malcolm Williamson, etc. Edward Piper has pictures in the Tate Gallery. Sebastian Piper is more local, but I will see what I can do re citations, etc.

Proposed Concurrency Wikiproject

Jonathan,

I have put together a preliminary proposal for a Concurrency wikiproject, to focus on improving the quality and organization of articles related to concurrency. The intent of the project is to provide a way for those us making regular edits to concurrency-related articles to coordinate our efforts. I'm not sure if you'd be interested in participating in such a project, but I wanted to make you aware of the proposal, and invite you to join the discussion about what the project should be about (and whether it should exist at all). --Allan McInnes 07:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know and good luck! Jonathan Bowen 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've now folded this effort into WikiProject Computer science, in an effort to get a larger number of people involved. I'm still trying to do a bunch of work on concurrency-related topics within that project though. --Allan McInnes (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Union Street, Cambourne

Union Street, Cambourne has been proposed for deletion. Please see the article for details. NickelShoe 20:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! I moved this material from the Union Street, London entry when it had been added. Perhaps I should have just deleted it — I shall aim to be more ruthless in the future! Jonathan Bowen 22:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of television

Hello. I stumbled across this article via Random Article; you seem to have put the most work in it but the article itself states that a more complete treatment of the topic can be found as Television. So at first glance it seems like an unnecessary article. I have gone ahead at marked it for possible deletion using the prod template, but will not object if you have plans for this article and remove the prod template. Cheers, Martinp 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The television article is too long, so I have moved the history section to the history of television article and have put the summary there with a suitable link. I hope this solves the problem and reduces the television entry to a more managable size. I think it is important to have the history of television article in any case since it is the main article for the history of television category. — Jonathan Bowen 09:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great and makes sense. Martinp 12:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you agree. :) — Jonathan Bowen 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Maidenhead

I noticed your excellent work in creating this new category, and I just wondered whether you think it might be appropriate to include William Henry Grenfell, Lord Desborough, who was High Steward of Maidenhead, and after whom many local things (a school, a park, a hall, etc) are named. CarolGray 11:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added the Maidenhead category for Lord Desborough and have also created a Taplow Court entry. — Jonathan Bowen 01:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting - I've never heard of Stické before! CarolGray 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither — that's the great thing about researching for Wikipedia! Thanks for your feedback. — Jonathan Bowen 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 01:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for Wikipedia lists of ethnic groups

Please may I draw your attention to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guidelines_for_Wikipedia_lists_of_ethnic_groups

Your contributions would be very welcome. -- Brownlee 11:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi - I've just added the { { unreferenced } } tag to the Jonathan Bowen article, and I thought I'd let you know out of courtesy. If you would like to add references (I'm guessing you are the editor best qualified to do that!), WP:CITE is a good starting point to learn how to. All the best SP-KP 17:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entries in the "External links" section are ths best (online) references. Most biographical entries don't have explicit references, just external links. What do you suggest? Thank you for your interest anyway! Jonathan Bowen 22:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. External Links are more for providing suggestions for "further reading", rather than references - so in this case maybe a heading change for that section, plus appropriate inline references. Cheers SP-KP 09:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved some of the external links that are more to do with publications, biography, etc. Hope this is OK. Jonathan Bowen 10:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. If you can add the inline references, that should complete the job. SP-KP 12:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some inline external links as references. Hope this is enough! Jonathan Bowen 14:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Archives

Hello. While I understand your reasons for moving National Archives (UK) to The National Archives it has now been moved again to The National Archives (England) to distinguish it from other National Archives, e.g. those of Scotland. In fact I much preferred the better-named Public Record Office and Historical Manuscripts Commission but think that National Archives (UK) is the best of a bad job, as it is (and claims on its own official website to be) the repository of the archives of the UK government. Regards --Historian 05:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the information. Jonathan Bowen 17:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information.

Good day,

You recently edited the Richard Bornat article, but the content you added requires that you cite a credible source for that information. One way of achieving this is to provide a valid link to the source of information. --Folajimi 18:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is hot (verbal) news, but I will add a link/reference as soon there is online or other written information - very soon I hope! Jonathan Bowen 19:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That deserves a "bloody marvellous, my good fellow", please continue. --Alf ^melmac 17:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the encouraging feedback, although you don't say what it is for! Jonathan Bowen 17:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the Oriel College article edits, the Oriel Square page and the Oriel Square real tennis court page. I hadn't noticed you'd been squirelling away at them until you edited the college page! Thanks again. --Alf ^melmac 18:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Category:Streets and squares of Oxford and indeed Category:Oxford in general. If you spot anything else that should be linked in and/or updated, let me know. I may add a category for Oriel if and when there are enough articles. Thanks for your feedback. Jonathan Bowen 19:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bowen

Hi, I just thought I'd let you know that I've nominated the Jonathan Bowen for deletion. I hope you don't mind - you suggest on the article talk page that you now realise that it is a bit of a vanity project. See you on another Oxon article soon! Nomist 11:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a substantial change in the style of presentation, hopefully in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Let me know if you disagree! — Jonathan Bowen 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII stereogram

I read the talk page on ASCII stereogram and someone said that the page was a copyvio (and even provided a link), so I put the copyvio tag on the article. I soon realized my mistake when I saw that it was you, the original author, who put it on Wikipedia! I thought it was pretty funny. :-) EdGl 23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Edit: It's a very interesting article; I like it. 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not to worry, thanks for letting me know, and glad you like the article! I have added a short confirmation note to the talk page for the article on ASCII stereograms. Jonathan Bowen 23:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bear

This article has been tagged for speedy deletion per the criteria at WP:CSD. Specifically, while the subject of the article may be notable, the article as written fails to assert notability. If you wish to save the article from deletion, please visit the page and follow the instructions within the notice box, then make the required changes as quickly as possible. Happy editing! RadioKirk talk to me 19:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more historical information and external links. It is probably the oldest pub in Oxford, established in 1242, and originally a coaching inn, As such, I think it is well worth keeping! Jonathan Bowen 20:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's better, certainly, but I also need to refer you to WP:CITE (assertions need citations from reliable sources) and WP:WEASEL ("purported to be" and similar generalities are commonly called "weasel words"). Good job thus far, looking forward to an even better article! RadioKirk talk to me 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only made some minor updates, but good luck with the poject. Jonathan Bowen 08:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mesdag Museum

You have improved my Escher Museum-article. Thanks! Can you check this article: Museum Mesdag? Heelmijnlevenlang 18:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied up this and other museums in The Hague. Jonathan Bowen 08:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category deletion

Hi there. I have nominated a category that you created, Category:Oxford books, for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Please note that I am not totally against the idea of recording such links, but the category system is probably not the best way to do this. A list of books written in Oxford, or associated with Oxford, might be a better way to do this. Carcharoth 11:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I have added a comment here. Jonathan Bowen 12:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]