User talk:Themightyquill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Editor - rhodium star I.jpg This editor is a Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this
Rhodium Editor Star.

Speedy deletion nomination of Bibliography of Canadian history[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Bibliography of Canadian history requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MartinZ02 (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Amish and Mennonite Heritage Center[edit]

Thanks for the explanation about the cyclorama. Makes sense. I am a local, and the cyclorama is so central to the Heritage Center that we tend to equate the two. But you are correct, technically. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mikeatnip: Thanks for explaining your reversion, and for reminding me to explain my edits properly. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)


I run into so few 'content creators' these days, so I was happy to see what great contributions you've made to WP. I thought I should touch bases with you concerning my enthusiasm regarding the placement of multiple categories on the pages I create. I probably have a different point of view that most editors, possibly including you, in that my goal is to help readers find their way to the information they want to find. I personally don't see it as being redundant. So, even though you are technically correct in considering your editing to be the removing my categories to eliminate redundancy, it makes it less likely that a reader will find connected topics because a category is removed. There are no guidelines regarding the redundancy of categories. It shouldn't be a problem. It may be your preference, I understand. Categories are 'finding aids' to help readers connect topics. I would prefer that you not remove categories, but if you do, I understand. There are so many editors on WP going around checking up on the edits of others. You are a notable content creator and WP would be better if content creation continues instead of changing things that don't necessarily need to be 'fixed'.

Respectfully and With The Very Best of Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   22:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Barbara (WVS), I feel you may have missed WP:SUBCAT which specifically indicates that "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category... For example, the article "Paris" need only be placed in "Category:Cities in France", not in both "Category:Cities in France" and "Category:Populated places in France". Because the first category (cities) is in the second category (populated places), readers are already given the information that Paris is a populated place in France by it being a city in France." That's what I mean by redundant. This is the basic system of categorization for wikipedia, so it's not really a matter of personal preference. Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Aside from just quoting the rules at you, I should point out that categories only work as a finding aid if the narrowest category is applied. Surely, if we put Australia Marches with Britain directly into Category:World War II (instead of or along with Category:Australian World War II propaganda films) it might be more easily found. But if we put all of the articles related to WWII in Category:World War II, it would make the category so full as to be less useful as a finding aid. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are trying to improve the visibility of certain archives by listing them together with other archives, a list would be a more appropriate method. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. - Themightyquill (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I have to admit that I am not that familiar with the subcat guidelines but I can understand completely why editors correct my categorizations. But then again...I still think like a reader. You get more connections with as many categories as makes sense. Since my categories are not usually overly populated, I would expect some redundancy. I will stop 'whining' about it. I do like the should in the "...a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and subcategory...." Should doesn't mean must and I like being bold. I hope you can see my smile - it is pleasant to communicate with you.
The Best of Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): The rest of the guidelines offer examples of when this might not apply. None of these exceptions apply to the archives category/categories you have eddited. Again, it's not a matter of personal preference. I certainly don't object to your being bold, but that doesn't justify keeping an incorrectly added category. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)