User talk:Neddyseagoon/September to October 07

Categories

Category:Ancient Greek sculptors

Right now, the Subcategories in Category:Ancient Greek sculptors are: - 4th century BC Greek sculptors - 5th century BC Greek sculptors - 6th century BC Greek sculptors - 7th century BC Greek sculptors - Hellenistic sculptors

But inside Hellenistic sculptors appears also the subcategory "4th century BC Greek sculptors"

Please, could you fix this?

I'm not sure about to put all xth centuries categories inside Hellenestic or outside.

Thanks,

--Margacst 10:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:TV series using Total War

Category:History of Britain

Hi, I note that almost exactly a year ago you added the following text to the Category:History of Britain: ' This category should only be used for articles whose remit somehow overlaps any of these categories '. Well, this is being revisited in the Categories for discussion where the category is being proposed for deletion, and I suspect the participants would benefit from your opinion. Thanks, Ephebi 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monastery categories

Hallo, I've just discovered the hierarchy under Category:Monasteries in England, and I'd like to propose that we do away with the intermediate Category:Monasteries in England by county or city and let Category:Monasteries in Yorkshire etc sit as direct subcategories of Category:Monasteries in England. That's the pattern people are used to seeing at so many other categories - under "x in England" you'll get a bunch of "x in y-shire" subcats and perhaps a collection which are either in counties which haven't got a category or are general items (as in Category:Churches in England, or Category:Mountains and hills of England). I think if there's a break in the geographical hierarchy it will confuse people: looking at Category:Monasteries in England it isn't obvious that there are a group of entries which aren't listed there because they are in categories two layers down. I considered just being bold and recategorising the categories, then decided to talk to you first as the creator of the categories. What do you think? PamD 22:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And have Category:Monasteries in England by order sit as a ...|*]] category within Category:Monasteries in England? Sounds good to me. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was going to go ahead and do this, but I see you've done so... and created lots of county categories and, from the look of it, moved the "A" monasteries into them already! I might have a look at the end of the alphabet sometime, if I get there before you've finished! PamD 15:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, any help would be gratefully received! It's a big job! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got a nice little template for the categories - how about including "Buildings and structures in..." too? I've just created Norfolk, for Wymondham, and deleted the monastery tag from Wycombe Abbey after sorting out the red link on that page which failed to lead to Godstow because they'd spelled it Godstowe... such is the way of wikiediting, one thing leading to another...! PamD 15:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican collaboration of the month

The current Anglicanism collaboration effort is St. Luke's Church (Smithfield, Virginia)

Voting for the next collaboration is going on now. (Vote here)

Wassupwestcoast 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs

Anglican article in Latin

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

noinclude

Greetings! Thanks for your help with my portal template. What does the noinclude mark-up tag do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secisek (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. It makes sure that the section between the start and end of the tag is only included on the Template's own page, rather than every single page that template is placed on. (And no, I hadn't heard about it until recently either! :-) )Neddyseagoon - talk 09:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haddocking

I'd been going to give you a barnstar for your wonderful work on St Mary in Castro, Dover. Till I discovered it was largely a copyvio (unless you wrote Dover Museum's website). So consider yourself hit round the face with a haddock. Please don't do this sort of thing: it's so much more hassle for other people to find and fix it, than for you to just do it right first time.

I could have sworn I put a {{Copyedit}} on it myself - my apologies. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Shouldn't that have been a Dover sole? :-) Neddyseagoon - talk

Ouch! Yeah but infringing copyright but putting a copy-edit tag isn't OK. Copyvio is justification for Speedy Deletion (see Wikipedia:Copyright problems and associated pages) as it has legal implications. That's why the proforma you get when starting a new article states: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted."

If you've added any other copyright material to WP (from other WPs is OK - WP is specifically copyright-free), you'd better go round now and delete or fix it. Or Else... :-( JackyR | Talk 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is the only place - had meant to edit it down myself but got called away - mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.... Neddyseagoon - talk 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Q for you as a Douverian: is it legit to refer to Castle Hill as the Eastern Heights? Several sources seem to do so, and it certainly puts it in context wrt the Western Heights. But do locals/maps use the term? Cheers JackyR | Talk 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Hill is the more widely used term in everyday parlance but yes, Eastern Heights is used occasionally, particularly (as you say) when speaking in connection with the Western Heights. Neddyseagoon - talk 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result! :-) JackyR | Talk 19:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for catching the typo in Bury St. Edmunds. Canterbury Cathedral almost completely covers the architecture, I'm unsure if the article should also cover the history of the monastic chapter which is what I envisiged the Christ Church Priory article covering. It's not a huge worry at the moment, I've got enough on my plate with the bishops, it'll be a bit before I get to the other stuff on my list! Thanks again, and feel free to catch my typos anytime! Ealdgyth | Talk 14:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prints and drawings in the British Museum

Neddy, I'm all for promoting WP coverage of prints, but I'm afraid I don't see the point of this. The BM has over a million prints and drawings, and will have a copy of the vast majority of prints with articles, as will the world's other major print rooms. Very few drawings will ever get their own articles. We should not categorise prints by collection unless they are unique, like I Modi, and then the main BM category will be fine, as it will be for drawings. It is not defining for Durer's Rhino that the BM has one or more copies. Johnbod 15:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]