User talk:Stijn Calle/2006

Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian politicians

Hello, I see that you are removing the Category:Belgian politicians from a number of articles. What is going on ? --LucVerhelst 07:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up the Category:Belgian politicians. A large numbers of articles were categorised both in this category, AND in the subcategories of their parties. Or not subcategorised, whilst they belong to a clear and identifiable political party. E.g. a member of SPa, should only be categorised in the subcategory Members of SPa, while this subcategory in itself is already categorised under Belgian politicians. Stijn Calle 07:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they be categorised in both categories ?

For most (international) readers, "membership of the VLD" has no meaning at all, making it useless.--LucVerhelst 07:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no

Yes, because all Members of VLD are all Belgian Politicians. No, because the category Belgian politicians is a typical overlapping category. Somebody who stumbels upon it, will logically assume that the subdirectories Members of ... indicate party membership. Thus, the categories are overlapping. In the case of overlapping categories, only one mention suffices. In the case of independent categories, an unlimited number of independent categories may be mentioned. That's my opinion, a solution to bring a bit of order in the category-chaos. Stijn Calle 07:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for the international reader, you are in fact creating chaos.

The category system is created to provide interlinking between articles, not to create order in the minds of editors.

I believe that you are now diminishing the value of Wikipedia.

Why can't categories overlap ? Why should we only provide one entrypoint for the reader, instead of multiple ? --LucVerhelst 08:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the categories can overlap. And of course the strength of WP lies in its interlinking etc. But a minimum or order is necessary, otherwise the international reader who is looking for information, and is not only a leasure reader, will be totaly confused, and understand nothing because of the chaos. But what degree of order is a minimum degree of order to find the right balance between chaos and overregulation. I think it is logically and defendably in this case. Stijn Calle 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How will an additional category confuse the reader ? --LucVerhelst 08:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I' am sorry if I am intermingling into your discussion. But maybe you might look into the general guidelines explained in Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, which says that duplicate categorization (into supercategroy and subcategory) is most of the time not wanted, but there are however some exceptions where this nevertheless might be preferable. I let it up to you tho interprete these rules. --Donar Reiskoffer 11:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that in this case, you can't really speak of supercategory and subcategory, not for the average reader. For say, an Argentinian, it's not clear on first sight that "Members of the VLD" is a subccategory of "Belgian politicians".

Anyway, I think that at least "Secondary categorization rule" and "User benefit rule" would apply. --LucVerhelst 12:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If 'clearity on first sight for anyone' is a criterium, you say in fact, no clearity at all. You can expect a minimum of common sense and potential for logic from the average person. Otherwise, no categorisation is possible. Stijn Calle 13:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really can't expect that the name of Belgian political parties to be part of the knowledge of the average American (or even German or Dutchman). Wikipedia is an international project. --LucVerhelst 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you expect the average inhabitant of the world to know the US American party names (because of the obvious cultural importance of the country) but not to know party names from other states, like france, germany? If the answer to the first question is yes, and to the second question is no, you do not have an international project, but a project that has an invisible but very clear US American set of cultural preconditions (the big vs the small). Stijn Calle 12:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be handy to have an overall category with all Belgian politicians. If a user only remembers part of the surname of a politician, then this category, Category:Belgian politicians will show quickly all alternatives, alphabetically. If you have to browse all party subcats, it will just take longer to find the right politician, since then you also have to know the politician's party affiliation. Intangible 14:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Intangible. (On this point. :-D ) --LucVerhelst 14:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I suggest to delete all party-subdirectories from the category:Belgian politicians. Stijn Calle 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? --LucVerhelst 12:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because every further subclassification will only 'confuse' the average user of WP, who is unable to deal with objective categorisation of unknown concepts. Stijn Calle 13:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that, then ? --LucVerhelst 13:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the logical and politely formulated conclusion of the discussion above. Ift I were to put it unpolitely or blunt I would have written: "The averige person in the world is too stupid to consult WP in any way that asks a tiny bit of logic from these people." Stijn Calle 13:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The categories "Members of *" indeed cannot inherit from the Category:Belgian politicians. They should inherit from Category:Political parties in Belgium or one of its sub-cats. Intangible 15:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Stijn : Yes, the world would be a better place if everyone would have your superior intelligence.--LucVerhelst 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have, and have never implied to have a superior intelligence; the comment is not appropriate and insulting; i was trying to make a legitimate point, although be it, not understood in this case by you, perhaps it is because i cannot clearly enough describe what i want to say, or the language, or the lack of time; insulting is easy option out, i did not start it, and i will certainly not continue it. Stijn Calle 16:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it, though, if you could ellaborate on the legitimate point you were trying to make, and that I didn't understand.

- ::::::::::My point was, that the average user of WP doesn't have, and can not be expected to have, a lot of knowledge about the Belgian political system. If someone is on the Louis Michel article, and wants to find other Belgian politicians, he/she is not likely to click on the Category:Members of MR, although that would be the logic thing to do. Only, it's only logic if you know the Belgian parties.

I'm just trying to put myself in the place of the reader, for whom these categories have been made.--LucVerhelst 17:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the "Members of *" categories are a very good idea, and should certainly be kept, next to the "Belgian politician" category. --LucVerhelst 15:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alpha Phi Omega honorary brothers

The Philippine Student Societies tag is correct. Alpha Phi Omega has separate National Organizations in the United States and the Philippines. Carlos P. Rómulo has been made an honorary brother of Both National Organizations. Also, the United States and Philippines Student societies categories are not in a category/subcategory relationship. Naraht 16:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category changes

Hi, I noticed that you have been updating and changing some of the Category tags on the various articles relating to Freemasonry. They all seem logical, and I do not have any objections to what you have done... but because these pages are often targets of vandalism, we are cautious about undiscussed changes. May I ask that you discuss these changes on the relevant talk pages or at the Category:Freemasonry page before making them? Or perhaps you could add any new category tags you think are appropriate, but leave the ones already in place alone until discussion has occured. Thanks Blueboar 14:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising, but bringing order into what still too much of a chaos. I will try not to forget diskussing topics before performing them. Stijn Calle 15:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that you were vandalizing. Sorry if I gave that impression. Please do continue editing... just discuss first. Thanks Blueboar 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Belgium

Hallo,

hierbij een uitnodiging voor dit WikiProject: neem eens een kijkje, lid worden kost geen geld en er wordt niet van je verwacht!

grtz, Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:Wappen-lovania.jpg, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 16:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cvlogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cvlogo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]