User talk:Sadads/Archive July -August 2010

American christian novels

Note, I've just changed Category:American christian novels to Category:American Christian novels to capitalize the word Christian. Since you seem to be editing with HotCat I want to ask, can you HotCat use the capitalized spelling? —Soap— 22:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its no problem. Hotcat just populates the options from available cached categories, so its whatever already exists. I was just not keeping track of the proper nouns, its a human error this time, not a automated one, Sadads (talk) 11:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels in Delhi

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at KuwarOnline's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your Question

Hey, I do work for the magazine. What would this work entail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBrad31 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Please forgive me. I am new to Wikipedia (about four days editing) and still don't know how to keep the thread going by replying on my talk page. How do I do that? It'd be great to work with you there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBrad31 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SI opportunity in Boston

Hello Sadads, I look forward to hearing more about it. Of course you can share my email and phone # - they are published on my userpage. I'd love to help you turn your work connecting SI and DC Wikipedians into a general resource for other groups in the DC area as well -- there's an ongoing LOC project that needs some attention too which came up during our spring Museums and the Web event. –SJ + 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMH Visits

Sadads: You asked if I regularly do CMH research. Indeed I do. I work not not far from the CMH, so visiting is rather easy. VilePig —Preceding unsigned comment added by VilePig (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American novel cats

Hey there--I've started with the Zs and am working my way backwards. I'm actually finding it easier to disperse by genre, since a lot of articles already have the genre mentioned. With regards to ethnicity, I've had a couple of issues with authors from one ethnic group writing about folks from another--I don't know if a novel about a Polish woman by an Irish author really counts as "Irish American", etc. Any thoughts? When the story is clearly about ethnic experience, I'm fine tagging it, but I'm not sure what to do when they don't match up. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is to add the ones that are clear, and if their is already a category such as Category:Jewish literature already present then add it. Also, if somewhere in the realworld context, the article discusses it's impact upon that ethnic community, then add it to the category. Also, I take a quick look at the Author page using WP:Pop-ups and if the author identifies as "Irish American" or writes "Irish American literature", then I add the ethnic cat anyway, because that is usually how Literary scholars delimitate.

I was experiencing the same ease with the genre categorization. I was hopping you might know a better way to fill up the ethnic cats, if you don't want to work with the genre stuff. But thank you for the help either way. That category is just massive and unwieldy, Sadads (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the books I've seen so far haven't had much connection to ethnicity anyway. The other problem with ethnicity is that there isn't always an existing category.... Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been making almost all of the cats we are defusing into in the last several weeks. If the ethnicity would make sense in American culture, you might as well make it. For example, we should probably make Category:Polish American novels and Category:German American novels if we find a few articles that would fit in those cats. Sadads (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm having a little trouble understanding why you are removing the "American novels" category of The American Diary of a Japanese Girl. I've reverted this twice. Why would it not be an American novel?--Icuc2 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American novels is overfull and I am dispersing the novels to the by genre and by ethnic background categories, so that the category is actually useful (when I started there were over 3200 articles in the category, now the articles are into genres and ethnic groupings that you would find in academic settings.) Asian American novels is already a subcat of American novels by ethnic background, and is more applicable if you were looking up similar novels.Sadads (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I can see the point, but I'm still troubled by the implications. It could be understood as implying that "ethnic" American writers are not really American writers. Are you also going to put all the works by white American writers into a separate category? Then there wouldn't be any American novels left. As far as I know, everyone is a member of one ethnic group or another. I think it's a great idea to develop the ethnic categories for those who are interested in them. But I don't see how anyone can determine what the size should be of a category like American novels. It's just going to be a very large category, isn't it? If there was some discussion about this somewhere, I wonder if you could point me to it.--Icuc2 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more me being bold, I didn't start a discussion because I believed it would be uncontroversial based on my experience in the Literary community and my experience with overpopulated, and hence useless, categories. My reasoning: When you take a class on American literature, you generally only brush on the Jewish American or Hispanic American lit, hence subcategories which clearly imply that the contents are "American novels."(see hierarchy below) Many authors don't identify themselves with their ethnic community, therefore are not going to be in the subcats. I am sure there are plenty of German American and Jewish American authors who don't right German American or Jewish American literature. But when the thematic content and the author belong to the community based on what they are writing it certainly supersedes the American novels category into the subculture of German American or Jewish American novels. If you want to start a discussion, I am certainly open to that. I would suggest it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. I am watching the page, so if you lay out your case, I will lay out my response. Sadads (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see the point about large categories being somewhat useless in a practical sense, but maybe Wikipedia will come up with some technical solution for this. There are currently 6,843 listings under the category "1947 births" but I can't see any point in subdividing them, can you? As far as the idea of breaking up the ethnic groups being uncontroversial, well, only if you think ethnic cleansing is uncontroversial! As someone who has taught American literature at the university level for many years, I can say that ethnic minority writers are now generally included in "Standard" American literature courses to a far greater extent than they were, say, two decades ago. It seems strange to me to think of someone looking at the American literature category and not finding any of these writers, because they've been moved off into an ethnic category. In short, I'm strongly opposed to deleting the American novels category for any works by ethnic American writers. I hope you will consider reverting these deletions. I'm all in favor of creating and populating ethnic literature categories where appropriate: I think these will be really helpful for people as an alternative to the overpopulated American novels list. It's not all that easy to divide works into ethnic or national categories unambiguously, which is another reason to have overlapping categories rather than try to find some exact division that will somehow account for everything. Your focus on the identification of the writer with the ethnic group would work, I think, for many works, but certainly there are writers who don't or didn't identify with their supposed ethnic group that are nevertheless usually considered as part of that group. Incidentally, I'm putting this on your talk page since the novel project page doesn't seem to propose anything about ethnic categories, though there are national categories (which are also sometimes problematic). It would probably be a good idea to have some recommendations about ethnic categories there, since they do exist on Wikipedia, and there should be some guidelines. I do expect it will be controversial, though. In any case, I'll watch the page, so if you'd like to start the topic there I'd be happy to pick up this discussion over there.--Icuc2 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a footnote to the preceding: Wikipedia:Categorization has a note under "Non-diffusing subcategories" that "Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often non-diffusing subcategories," having noted that "there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory."--Icuc2 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories applies as better advice in this case, because the novels fall into distinct and important contribution to distinct subcultures. In my opinion these ought to be diffusing categories because of the massive distinction made on them by scholars.Sadads (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality#Special_subcategories simply states conditions under which ethnic / gendered subcategories can exist at all; it doesn't suggest they are appropriate for diffusion of general categories. Diffusing into an ethnic category seems to me very different from diffusing into a genre category, because one could reasonably build the category of novels out of the sum of novel genres, where one could not do so with ethnicities. Ethnic subdivisions are alternative groupings useful for certain, limited purposes. Therefore they should exist in addition to the main category (or categories, if the main category has been subdivided). That, I take it, is the point being made in Wikipedia:Categorization.--Icuc2 (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your opinion about novels that are already grouped by their author--if there's already a "novels by X" category listed under American Novels, should we remove the "American novel" tag? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Sadads. You have new messages at Dtgriffith's talk page.
Message added 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of units and formations

Hi Sadats. We've crossed paths several times before, but I've just seen your conflict of interest statement after reading the discussion on units and formations. Please, there's acres of incredible data in CMH, so please create things for formations that have significant worth. Put simply - things like infantry, artillery, and armor regiments/brigades/divisions, like all the NG and AR regiments that are not mentioned. Not, please, transportation battalions!! As you will have seen, there are questions on their level of notability, while there are whole divisions of the Army National Guard whose service could be filled out much more with CMH resources. Please do consider this request. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I worked alongside IFES in Georgia. Do you have a personal connection to them? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this comment. I must have missed the "you have a message" commment. Sorry about that.

I worked for them way back when as an intern. Spent alot of extra time waiting for things to do editing Wikipedia related to them (didn't want to be slacking off too much at work). For them I knew COI was definitely a problem, so I made sure that every single statement I made about them was referenced.Now that I think about it very silly, but good, editing. With CMH I have hardly touched anything directly related to them, learned policy a little better. Sadads (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry if I've come across as aggressive. I'm in awe of the materials and expertise at CMH, so I just wanted to pass along a hope that you could exploit those really fully. Happy to discuss.. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the experience, at the beginning of June I kindof started stumbling around the Military History stuff, had done a little in naval history and war fiction, but not a lot. I appreciate that, you haven't been quite as protective over the content as some of the people in this discussion who I have been working with since mid last year. (not on this of course but Novels in general.)

The problem with CMH is that most of the staff isn't quite ready for digitization, so serious collaboration with them seems to be a bit down the road. The good thing: they want to hold onto me for the foreseeable future doing stuff with Wikipedia and with their web development in general. Some of the people that have enough foresight to really look forward to a time when the upper management cares about a lot less then Web-traffic (which seems to be the driving concern of theirs, hence the concentration in editing). I am also strongly considering the Center for History and New Media for a PHD program, so I should be local with connections/work at CMH for several more years to come (and the digital media development is changing hands to more aggressive management who are really excited with what I am doing at WP:GLAM/SI) so I wouldn't be surprised if we have actual collaborations in their Museums collection and library in the future (several years down the road). Sadads (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw your note on NDI. But my main focus was the CMH materials. Answered just above to keep the discussion in one place. What are you up to at Oxford? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to oxford for a study abroad program through JMU hopefully I get a chance to work with WP:GLAM/BM like I have been doing with WP:GLAM/SI. Sadads (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff; I hope you enjoy it. Now regarding CMH I was not talking about the staff as much as all the amazing range of monographs which they have written and are only sporadically accessible on the web. What I suppose I was hoping for was that some of that already produced material might be able to be intelligently integrated into existing articles. For example, we have the U.S. Army infantry divisions in World War II. Most of those entries simply consist of the copied data from their online history entries. But CMH must have extensive, published monographs on them that were done later - or as part of the Green Books. Or, for example, a deeper expansion of the 1st Logistical Command's (now 1st Sustainment Command (Theater)) efforts in Vietnam. Again, massive amounts of already published monographs which sit on CMH shelves and are not reflected here. This was what I was thinking about. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things I talked to them about, is getting Google Books to release full view of their publications online. I mean, its already public domain, and google already has awesome scans so why not give it full view? Also, they are digitizing the collection of records and older books right now, so their is a good possibility that much of that will become public in the next couple of years. I promise it will be accessible eventually. Will look in to your recommendations, and will bug the guy about getting more NG lineage information up. Sadads (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm still not making myself exactly clear. No, I mean someone at CMH could decide a topic (such as any of these units and formations I've mentioned), survey the resources available, and expand or edit articles from the non-digitised resources. The key comparative advantage you have is access to a wide array of non-digitised resources, which you can add from and cite very well. Yes, it will be good to have more resources digitised, but someone is still going to have to write the articles up.. why not pick the U.S. Army topic that's closest to your heart and start? Buckshot06 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at CMH, I am working primarily for CMH, therefore I make edits beneficial to CMH. Editing with offline content, using offline resources unpublished by CMH is less within "my official" duty. Though, tomorrow, I will take a good long look at Category:United States Military stubs and expand some of them, I just finished another project, so I may have a little more flexability in time. Sadads (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I would have thought it was more within the military-historical mission of CMH to see good histories of American military units online. Sure, if they would not think it's quite the right use of your time, of course I understand. Please, do what you can.. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was my hope at first too, I even offered to give a couple awareness workshops or something for Center historians, but, as I said, the digitization initiative is in a transition phase, so I don't know how soon we can actually expect that kind of cooperation to come out of the center. Sadads (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(od) Consider Category:United States Army stubs. Also, if I was to name possibly the unit that is most important while being least properly discussed, consider taking a look at 5th Special Forces Group. Both it's history in Vietnam and it's role as the CENTCOM assigned SF group now really mean that it would really be worth replacing some of the text already there with well referenced data from CMH. Best, Buckshot06 (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Smithsonian on the other hand, they want to do everything and anything. They really want to help. Sadads (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Category:American western novels

You created:

Category:American western novels

In this instance, the word "Western" is a proper noun. Saying, "there are no natural forests in western Texas" or "I have only lived in western Africa" is correct.

But, when talking about a specific era that comes to mean a period of art and culture, it should always be capitalized:

the Jazz Age
the Bronze Age
the Gilded Age
the Victorian Era, the Edwardian Era, the Elizabethan Era,

And of course books, music, films, people, etc., from the Western genre. "He only wrote Renaissance pieces."

Hope this helps,....> Best O Fortuna (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, didn't realize that. Been creating lots of genre related stuff for Category:American novels, so I have been using alot of semi-standaradized practices including removing capitalization, if you want to take a look and make sure I am doing them right, see Category:American novels by genre, Sadads (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Category:American novels by genre only one of the other categories "could" define both a specific TIME in history (for Western generally from 1850-1950'ish) and a specific GEOGRAPHICAL PLACE (roughly west of the 95 latitude parallel in the U.S.).

The only other one that maybe confusing is Goth or Gothic era. The Gothic era was works (books/music/dress/culture., etc written in or about a member of a Germanic people that overran the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era, of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a style of architecture developed in northern France and spreading through western Europe from the middle of the 12th century to the early 16th century.

vs.

often not capitalized: of or relating to a style of fiction characterized by the use of desolate or remote settings and macabre, mysterious, or violent incidents.

So, there should probably be two "goth" categories. One that is defined by both PLACE and TIME, and one this is not. "That author's works were all set in the Gothic era." "That author wrote about people being murdered in a gothic fashion."

Hope this helps (Definite Place + Definite Time) >> Best O Fortuna (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that in fiction, both of these terms took on genre specific traits, such as Cormac MacCarthy's Border Trilogy which neither fits the geographic or time period descriptor, yet is unambigously and "American western", Sadads (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I was typing I was thinking about No Country For Old Men. It does fit GEOGRAPHICAL PLACE (Western Texas), but of course the time is 1980. I would classify Horseman, Pass By by Larry McMurtry (the film Hud) as a Western (set in 1954 West Texas), but I would not classify No Country For Old Men as one (Tommy Lee Jones called NCFOM more of a "horror film"). I think it has to do with "values" as much as anything. I think that NCFOM transcends two eras. And I think that is exactly what McCarthy (no first "a" in there) is trying to say. That Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and Ellis (the wheelchair bound retired deputy) are in a Western setting, but all of the other characters are not, that is exactly McCarthy's point, the Western is dead, the values of the Western are dead, and now there is drugs, and AK-47s, and tracking devices, and fancy pickups, etc., and that doesn't fit anymore. In a Western Chigurh would not have killed Carla Jean. He does not have "Western" values. And that is why Bell retires, because the rules and values have changed. The whole metaphor of when Bell explains how they used to kill cattle vs. how technology changed that, is exactly what McCarthy is telling the reader here. Of course, this is were you run into debate (s). In a book like Edna Ferber's Giant you are in West Texas, but the book is an Epic, not a Western.

capitalized : of, relating to, or characteristic of a region conventionally designated West: as a : steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions <Western culture> : of or relating to the American West <Western clothes> > Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting perspective, you learn something every day. Sadads (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you go back and read that book again (or even watch the film again), only read the parts that seem to make no sense what-so-ever to the plot (the killer who kills without passion, the cattle story, the dream story, the story about how Uncle Mac died) these "ramblings" of Sheriff Bell are the points that McCarthy is trying to make. What happened when Uncle Mac died? They shot Uncle Mac, but Aunt Ella was there on the porch tending to him, but they did not kill her. The Indians knew that by shooting Mac, Ella would be forced to leave (a Western). But, now, Chigurh goes out of his way to hunt down Carla Jean when she is miles away, he already has the money, she poses no threat to anyone at all, Chigurh is not living by Western/Greco-Roman codes and traditions. The Indians did it because of survival, the knew that if they killed the White man, the White woman would leave. If they did nothing, their survival would be threatened (of course they had no idea at all how many damn White people there were and were coming). But Chigurh kills when his survival is not threatened. So, the codes have changed, and Bell knows he must go. The newspapers said that killer killed for passion, because if the explained it truthfully people would not know how to cope with that, they couldn't deal with it. A Western doesn't have to many psychopaths. Billy The Kid comes close, but even author and film makers have tried to justify his insanity by saying that he was revenging the murder of John Tunstall, when he was probably just flat out crazy. But, people can deal with the revenge motive a lot easier than the alternative. "You can say it's my job to fight it but I don't know what it is anymore. More than that, I don't want to know. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He would have to say, okay, I'll be part of this world." >> Best O Fortuna (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this pops up in a orange bar separate from other notifications!

The section immediately above the section on American novels is the one on units and formations. Best wishes from Wellington, and hope you're getting better weather in the NE United States than we are here!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the 26th Continental Regiment article!

Dhpage (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________[reply]

Your welcome... didn't do much. Thanks! Sadads (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 4th Aviation Regiment (United States)

The article 4th Aviation Regiment (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unit does not appear notable due to a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States)

The article 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unit does not appear notable due to a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anotherclown (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of {{hangon}} template

Please do not use {{hangon}} on pages which are proposed for deletion using only {{dated prod}}. {{hangon}} is only used for contesting speedy deletions.

For contesting the proposed deletion you can remove the {{dated prod}} and give reason for doing so in the edit summary, after which anyone who wants the article to be deleted will have to make a articles for deletion request. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellas. No dramas I understand your intent here Sadads, which is to dispute the PROD (as you are entitled to do). As Kimchi said above all you need to do here is remove the tag and give a reason in the edit summary. Given this I have removed the tag myself from 4th Aviation Regiment (United States) and I am prepared to give you a chance to expand as I believe that this unit *may* be notable if there is coverage in other sources. Re: 28th Combat Support Hospital (United States) I have replaced the PROD tag with an AFD as I still don't believe it is notable under the guidlines. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ‎[reply]

FYI the link for the AfD is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/28th Combat Support Hospital (United States). Anotherclown (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of rollback

I added the American Old West template to the Battle of Gettysburg, and you used rollback to remove it. Rollback is to be used only for blatant vandalism. What I was doing was not "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." In fact, I was trying to help Wikipedia, not hurt it. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have clicked on undo or revert, my bad, Sadads (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, everybody makes mistakes. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 16:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've been reverting the addition of the tag on a bunch of pages, and I would just like to remind you that WikiProjects are free to define their own scope, and it is up to them to decide how wide the project's scope is going to be. People outside of a project, while very welcome to start a discussion on the project's page to clarify the scope of the project, and establish consensus for the project's scope, should generally not be removing tags. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your scope: it was 2 articles that didn't seem to apply to the scope you had defined. Sadads (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Assistance Advisory Group Liberia from the 1950s

Question for you. As you'll see from the history record of Armed Forces of Liberia, U.S. Army personnel have been there since the 1920s onwards. I understand the records at the U.S. Embassy Monrovia currently do not stretch very far back (little before 2003). Would you mind querying your people at CMH to determine which office, bureau, or command of the U.S. Army would be holding records from a MAAG in Liberia after the Second World War? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Officially Army Records Management should have that information. May not be complete for the past 20 years or so, but before then the system was in pretty good shape and you should be able to get anything that isn't classified through the Freedom of Information act. Most of the GWOT records are now collected by CMH and copied over the Army Records Management. I will see if their is any other good place to go looking, Sadads (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can also tell you which units were stationed there during that period, we have a collection of publications with all duty stations. You also might want to see what the National Archives has (see http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/334.html), they are the final and official repository of that kindof stuff. Sadads (talk) 12:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help Sadads. Would you feel happy to make a quick call to Army Records Management and ask about the MAAG records for that period, 1945-1990? You're in the same time zone and have some sort of official status; I'm going to be fighting my way through an incomprehensible set of e-mail addresses. In any case, I'll look forward to your pointer on the publication showing all duty stations. I'll also go to the National Archives. Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the units by duty station, I need specific time periods you want this information. We have a list for every 2 months since the end of World War II, and I can't find any digital reference to it and they look like bound originals, so I don't think you will find them published anywhere.. For example, in Feb 1952, no units were stationed there, in June 1961, there is record of the "US Military Mission to Liberia (9815)" stationed in Monrovia and in March 1974 "US Military Mission to Liberia (JAWO9PAAOO)" stationed in Monrovia. I suspect that the Mission was it's own unit, and therefore won't have any additional information, unless you are looking for when extra units were stationed there, or if the unit changed locations. I will find out if we have any other manuscripts or records I could acquire.

I made an inquiry to ARM and we will see what kind of reply I get, if I don't get anything in the next couple days I will ask around for people who have contacts over there. Sadads (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sadads. The USMM is the only unit that was there. It would have been in Monrovia the entire time, though with visits to the counties. I would expect that it would have been in place in 1952 since the Area Handbook says they arrived in 1951, but they will be there until 1990 and possibly later. That is the only unit I'm wanting the records for. The reference number obviously changed format sometime during the process. Thanks again for all your assistance; we'll just have to wait to hear from ARM. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, found some sources using The Army History and Heritage Center's database. I think in one of the databases the same source that I talked about above is present. Sadads (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd opinion

Please review my re-write of Military art; and please add this article along with War artist to your watchlist.

If you please, I invite your comments at Talk:Military art#Problematic edits and at Talk:War artist#Taxonomy argument. --Tenmei (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake on stub templates

You're adding a novel stub tag to several articles that are not about novels - specifically, a bunch related to short stories (individual tales, collections, etc). Be wary. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think of that, changing to Template:Lit-stub, that will covering everything in the scope, will require a little more sorting though. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a better choice, frankly. I think that is usually used for literature-related terms. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure out a way to screen by looking for categories in Category:Novels, I think this will work better. Sadads (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I made as many corrections as I could find on short stories. There aren't too many. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to automatically sort them again, based on what categories they are already in. My hope is that I will be able to identify novel stubs which have been poorly categorized and add more cats. Also, by adding the stub tags, I get people to look at articles that have been on their watchlist for a long time, but not travelled. I hope it works. Thanks for the help, Sadads (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems is that we don't have a category setup for short-story cycles and composite novels, so it's not clear what to do when we come across those. Should we ask others about setting those up? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea, I think what might be important for now is stub sorting and identifying already big categories and splitting those up and applying for more stub templates as we identify good ways to split. Anything that is ambiguous can fall under Template:Lit-stub, Sadads (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Across the River and into the Trees

How is this article a stub? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was assessed as a stub, see Talk:Across the River and into the Trees, reassess? Sadads (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reassess. But have a look at the article, and decide if the stub tag is wise or not. This is not the only one. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be the only person manually assessing all 16,000 stubs, I change them when I encounter them, but the stub tagging is going to be semi-automatic right now. The idea thought is to add the stub tags and get reactions from other users who have it on their watch list or as they encounter them. I am also going to sort many of them later, so if no-one catches it by the time I get to the article, I will certainly reassess.Sadads (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fault for not changing the talkpage when I removed the stub tag. Will fix the rest of the articles I've worked on. It seems though, that a script or a bot should be able to update the talkpage when the stub tag is removed. For some reason, it seems I've seen something like this with other projects. Btw - I have your page watched, so no need for a tb. Also, still mulling over the issue of the categorization. Will post about that when my thoughts are more clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats is alright, as you can see by how many responses I have got so far, this prodding is actually going pretty well. On the categorization thing, if you look at the comments below by Rich Farmborogh, I have a means of solving the problem with so many articles not falling under the hierarchy of Category:American novels, I will repopulate the category with those for right now then rediffuse. I think DGG's comment on the way the categories are set up, I think addresses why you opinion is ideal, but in the current system on Wikipedia, how my opinion has become the "default". He is pretty knowledgeable on this, he is a professional librarian.Sadads (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned previously, I think it's important to achieve consensus. I realize DGG is a librarian, but by pointing that out, you ignore or minimize the experience of others who might not want to be so forthright here. Hence following policy is paramount. It's not a question of your opinion or my opinion, it's a question of consensus. Only one comment has been made to the RfC. However, as I've also said repeatedly, the discussion is moot, because the work is being done. In my view adding to the discussion is pointless, and I think that's a shame. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree, we will need to reach a consensus. And I agree, if the consensus is to repopulate American novels, I will gladly do that with AWB. For right now though I am going to use the category as a working space. From what I gather from AWB, there will be a population of 8880 articles when I repopulate (I have only diffused ~1500-1800). This will be a very different population then there was previously. Sadads (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I truly haven't a clue what you're doing, I think I'll just step away, fix edits to the articles I tend as I see fit, and maybe keep my opinion to myself. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tower Treasure

How is this article a stub? It looks plenty long and complete. Perhaps the assessment on the talk page is out of date? VA6DK (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will asses, thanks. Sadads (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venus in the Cloister

Not a stub [1] surely, at 15k bytes with a dozen references. Oh, and the odd spelling of "Venerial" is in the title of the work cited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I reassessed. This automatically adding stub thing, is really getting alot of good reassessment. See comments above if you have questions what I am doing. Sadads (talk) 06:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Realism cat

Hi again. Last week I made a start at going through all the books that linked to magic realism in order to add them to that category--but there were a lot of pages and I think you might have a faster time of it with AWB. If you can get them to the main cat, I can disperse them into the nationality cats. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can definitely put that on my list of tasks. It shouldn't take long. Am I adding Category:Magic realism or Category:Magic realism novels? Novels I could do more efficiently. Sadads (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say do novels, but some of those links might be to story collections, films, etc. And I don't know enough about AWB to know how much you have to oversee the edits. Can you sort the novels from the non-novels without much trouble? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the novel is in a category that ends with "novels" (which is every genre, year and country category), I can find those pretty easily, probably easier then adding the anything in the genre "Magical realism" that would take a little bit more monitoring on my part.Sadads (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy--then if you can link them into the M.R. Novels cat, I can sort them out later! Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added a few that seemed to have major Magic Realism elements in them even thought their genre is not explicitely mentioned as Magic realism. I will let you make the judgement call on that, Sadads (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Attraction

Hi. I don't know if you had a script do the adding, but this article is not really a stub, is it? Thanks. Nymf _hideliho! 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reassessed, Thank you for notifying me. This stub tagging is being helpful, and hopefully bring more vitatility to the assessment of Novels articles. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regular expression question

If, in AWB in my Advanced find and replace, I want to find out in the "if" if an article with Infobox book contained the phrase variable and input "country = United States" how would I write that in regex? Regex is blowing my mind right now, don't really understand how it works. Sadads (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

\bcountry\s*=\s*\[\[United +States\]\] would probably cover what you want, maybe \|\s*country\s*=\s*\[\[United +States\]\] which avoids stuff like "second county =" but will need to be tested to check behaviour when split across lines. Rich Farmbrough, 14:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you very much, we are currently trying to populate the subcategories of American novels, and the best way I can figure to find actual populate it would to find all the novels which have country as United States and add them to the main category then sort them out from there. That is huge help, I think I can read that and should be able to duplicate the same idea in the future.Sadads (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub location

The stub is the correct tag for The White Plague; the problem is the location - it goes on the top or the article, not the bottom in the award section.--MartinezMD (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Also, not sure for this particular article, how much more expanding do you think it needs? You should probably discuss that in it's talk page first.--MartinezMD (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags go at the bottom, see WP:Stub sorting. I am just adding stub tags for articles already assessed by WP:Novels, we can reassess if you have a problem with the stub class.Sadads (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thought they followed the same format as other notices.--MartinezMD (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Nugget

Hi Sadads. Most of your stub-tagging of PG Wodehouse novels is spot on, but the tag is inappropriate on this page; the Plot Summary alone runs to 10 paragraphs. I've double-checked it with AWB and removed the stub. regards Jimmy Pitt talk 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reassessed, thanks, Sadads (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub assessments

Hi. I undid your stub tag on The Red Room (Strindberg). If an article has sources, as this one does, it isn't a stub, it's start class. Kind regards, DionysosProteus (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry DionysosProteus but I do not agree. Just because the article has a couple sources doesn't make it a start class. For example many of the Medal of Honor recipients are currently tagged as stubs and they all have sources. The stub assessment has more to do with the length of the articles content than wether it has sources. --Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, Bless Me, Ultima is one of the longest stubs I've ever seen. I removed the tag. best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More about stubs

Hi Sadads,

before assessing an article as a stub, please be aware what a stub is:

A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion. Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing.

That's part of what WP:Stub says about it. The Humbling certainly is no stub. Neither are quite a few others that you have tagged.

Regards,

Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is based off the assessment by WP:Novels. I am only tagging per that, as I mentioned in my edit summary, contacting me or reassessment are the best options. Sadads (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an effort to get both the assessments and the stub category up to date, Sadads (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So where does WP:Novels state anything about what is to be classified as a stub? Stubs are really short articles without much of a content. Calling a 10 KB article a stub certainly does not clarify anything. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically in Category:Stub-Class novel articles, Sadads (talk) 12:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to leave roughly the same note as User:Gunnar Hendrich above with respect to The League of Frightened Men; I can't see how Category:Stub-Class novel articles has any definition that would allow this tag in the context of the article I see. "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs, even if they lack wikification or copy editing" -- which this article does not. Perhaps you should enlist the Novels group to get the definitions more precise, or achieve a larger consensus, before getting "both the assessments and the stub category up to date". Accounting4Taste:talk 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the Novels assessment on the talk page [2] not the article itself. Some of the assessments are out of date. Strictly speaking, everything in Category:Stub-Class novel articles should be Stub-class articles, unless, of course, the assessment is out of date.Sadads (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note (and the kind words). Personally, I'd suggest the article in question is at least a "C", but differences in opinion are what make elections and horse races interesting. I think the crux of this is your correct observation that the assessments are out of date; would it be more appropriate for you to be reassessing them based on the criteria rather than adding a tag which is probably incorrect? I'm sure the Crime Fiction group would be pleased to assist if the possibility of out-of-date tags were brought to its attention; most Rex Stout novels such as this receive fairly constant improvement from a dedicated group of interested parties. and assessing a set of tags would probably not be an issue. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just (User talk:WFinch) brought this to the attention of a dedicated Rex Stout fan who will probably organize a re-assessment of these specific novels. Many of your recent tags are on my watchlist; I agree with most of them, but I think the Stout novels' tags just need to be updated. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same complaint about your tagging of The Last Man. Quality assessment on talk pages are very likely to be out of date. Please don't use them to automatically add tags to articles without first checking the actual article content. – Smyth\^talk 11:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup DC11

Thanks for letting me know about the meetup, but I don't drive (no license, never learned, Autism), so I can't attend. Hope you all have alot of fun. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry I cant make it either. I already made plans that night. --Kumioko (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same; sorry. Airplaneman ✈ 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

same; I will have just gotten out of a conference relating to archives so... my mind will be mushy. Thanks for the invite, tho. I owe you an email about a separate but related subject.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can make it, just added my name to the list. Hope I'm not too last-minute! ffm is now L Faraone 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACMH Related question

I hope you don't mind me asking this here but I noticed that the dates changed on some of the ACMH MOH recipent pages and I was wondering if you knew what changed or if you could find out? I would like to ensure that the information reflected in the articles hasn't changed. Thanks --Kumioko (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recently went through all the pages on the CMH website and identified which ones had problematic formatting. The updates were changes made by our Website developer to fix those. Sadads (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thanks I just wanted to make sure that the info itself didnt change. thanks again. --Kumioko (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday August 11?

According to my calendar, the 11th is Wednesday. If this thing is really tomorrow, the 10th, I'm otherwise occupied. If you meant Wednesday, the 11th, I probably won't see your response in time to attend, so in either cae I can't attend. -- BRG (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Squadron notability

Saw your note on my talk page about notability. Personally I think some guidelines would be a good idea. The Air Force squadrons I've been writing about recently are all combat units and the pages have more than just the bare-bones lineage information about them. In many cases I won't include the support units (as you posted an example of) as most times I can't find much information about them, and actually, a supply squadron or aircraft maintenance squadron simply isn't notable... no matter that they all are important to a mission of a combat organization and most people who are in the military serve in them. I would also include on the non-notable list most training units, unless they were converted into a combat unit that actually engaged in combat operations. Bwmoll3 (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind on the unit size, I was thinking of the Flights. But you might want to check the corollary in note 4 about not using only historical division information. I have been doing a lot of CMH related stuff, and I noticed that you also do the Air Force equivalent for article creation and I don't think that is going to pass once they really start enforcing it with a lot of AFD's and Prod's related based on the corollary. I thought I would give you a heads up, Sadads (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey, thank you, and apologies for the remark in the edit summary at Fire Watch (story), which wasn't intended to be directed at you, but came out that way. I appreciate your watching the article, and clearly it is only through having more eyes that articles get better. I just created the stub one day and I guess I haven't got around to cleaning it up into good shape yet; it was only through your noticing it that categories got added! Thanks, Shreevatsa (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. My philosophy for tags is that they should be added when your current project doesn't give you time to actually research for the article. I do a lot of maintenance stuff, so I add a lot of tags because it doesn't take too much extra time, and the least I can do is make comments, but I also remove a lot of tags or make them more specific so that it is easier for others with specialized interest to come in and fix problems. I move pretty quick so some of the things I do may seem callous, but I hope they are useful for someone at some point. Sadads (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, do you do stuff with WP:Novels? You should.Sadads (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just edit whimsically on whatever interests me at the moment; I don't have enough patience to stick to the same kind of thing for long. :-) Great work, though. You're right, everything helps... and of course, nothing wrong with irritating others into improving an article, even! Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for dropping by the Family and MWR Command page. Much appreciated. Also, you get extra points for being connected to JMU. I'm an '08 grad. Twitter: @evandyson --Dysonej (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still more stub problems

I wish to disagree with the assessment of two articles on U. S. military officers as "stubs". I've worked from time to time on both John Wilson Danenhower and Edwin B. Winans (U.S. Army general)'s pages and believe each article to be about as complete as it ever will be. Each person is of fairly minor importance and while each one deserves an article, neither needs anything lengthy. Your bot, or whatever is making these changes, seems to be making unneeded, and erroneous, categorizations. I plan to revert both changes some time soon unless you can give me some specific reasons for not doing so. DutchmanInDisguise (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in my opinion, I would call both of those stubs. If you would like, you could put it up for reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment. Sadads (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All good faith editing but in this case I agree with Dutchman - "Sizable articles are usually not considered stubs" and have removed the tags. Springnuts (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles should be assessed correctly to begin with, please reassess per the project standards, Sadads (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boston (novel)

Boston (novel) is not a stub. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch I reassessed it for WP:Novels. The article is coming along, I would suggest expanding a section on themes and critical reception and cut down on plot if you want it to get a higher assessment. Sadads (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]