User talk:TableManners/a02

Stop and Desist

We of WikiProject Louisville have decided that any museum in the Louisville metro area counts as a "Museum in Louisville". We thank you for a Museums in Kentucky template, but let us decide what counts, as we know more about it. There are still Kentucky museums listed in Louisville that are technically in due to being in Louisville area, and still have the category Museums in Louisville.--Bedford (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. The problem is that the category is included in the Museums in Kentucky category. And museums in Indiana are not in Kentucky. TableManners ^U·T·C 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem, then take it up with WikiProject Louisville. You are outnumbered here.--Bedford (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that something outside of Kentucky is inside Kentucky, either directly or indirectly, I think an Rfc can fix that. TableManners ^U·T·C 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Louisville is the following.

“

WikiProject Louisville is an open collaborative effort started on June 7, 2006 to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.

”

To help simplify things for easier searches related to Louisville, Kentucky the metropolitan area which includes parts of southern Indiana is included and known as just Louisville. This helps reduce the redundancy of categories that aren't needed.Jahnx (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This exisiting solution results in factual errors. Partially overlapping categories are preferred over factual errors. I'll go submit an Rfc. TableManners ^U·T·C 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly agree with calling stuff in Salem and Bedford and so on "in Louisville" but your approach to Bedford, your tone on his talk page with the mock warnings is uncalled for. There seems to be a consensus on Bedford's side, I suggest you start a thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Louisville where I'll probably support your side, and that might become consensus. But right now it's just an edit war, discussion to establish consensus seems bureaucratic but it's the only way to make progress here. --W.marsh 07:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we might do is let those in New Albany, Clarksville, and Jeffersonville, which would be neighborhoods of Louisville if it wasn't for the Ohio River, be in the category while those in Salm and brdstown (for consistency) be out of the category.--Bedford (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go apologize again to Bedford. Thanks. TableManners ^U·T·C 07:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted.--Bedford (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was interesting, Louisville-Jefferson County, KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area is a rough guide of the locations in which the Louisville area relates too. Maybe this can help resolve some of the issues. However please continue talk at the WP:Louisville talk page. Jahnx (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, have one of these...

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You did a great rewrite at Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School in response to its RfC. That deserves some recognition. Nice work! Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks. The email server part was less than trivial:) TableManners ^U·T·C 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullinger

Comment on my talk p.; glad to find such a careful & willing editor. DGG (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

grey squirrel

so what specific reasons did you have for removing those links?--Marhawkman (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two were on the evolution of the black squirrel.[1][2], one had content that could be described in the page as well as photos that did not load (inaccessible)[3], Another had content that coudl be desribed in the main article[4], and lastly, the most recently added read like the sophomoric drivel of a Thoreau wannabe.

“

If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.

”

If you disagree, feel free to revert. TableManners ^U·T·C 23:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was just asking out of curiosity. you seem to have had good reasons for it. I didn't actually look at the pages myself.--Marhawkman (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fingerboard AfD

Hi, this article has rewritten, please consider revisiting the AfD discussion to see if your comments have been addressed. Benjiboi 23:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NA game template

Hi TableManners: I noticed your new template at the bottom of the Mourning Dove article (looks good, by the way) and wanted to point out a small error. Common Snipe was split into two species a few years ago; the species now known as Common Snipe is normally found only in the Old World (though there are some records for places like Alaska). The New World species is now called Wilson's Snipe. You might want to update the template! : ) MeegsC | Talk 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. TableManners ^U·T·C 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very reasonable compromise, since the template now points to the appropriate article! Do most hunters in NA call the bird "Common Snipe" or just "Snipe"? (I know very little about hunting there.) MeegsC | Talk 11:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think DNRs refer to it both ways, so I changed it to Snipe (Common Snipe). TableManners ^U·T·C 08:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider adding Opossum and Alligator.^[5]

--A. B. ^(talk) 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]