User talk:Seattle Skier/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Alpine skiing World Cup 3 FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 1966 4 DYK 5 Tulutson Glacier changed to Crater Glacier 6 Oops 7 Parkitecture 8 cascade volcanoes 9 Oregon volcanoes 10 Mount Konocti 11 DYK nom on Regal Mountain 12 Cascade volcanoes 13 Cascadia 14 DYK

Welcome!

Hello, Seattle Skier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Tone 10:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alpine skiing World Cup

Thanks for your great work! I have done some corrections under "points system", maybe you will have a look. Mainly to correct my English ;-) Doma-w 17:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good enlargement!! Oh yes, I know, it is very difficult. I still missing the system for a few overall cups. But I have explained every single system in every year/every cup. Maybe you are interested to enlarge the "Statistics and Trivia" with the 1991/92 season, when Carole Merle has won the cup and only the special system in this only season gave Kronberger the win. See 1992 Alpine Skiing World Cup. Or you are interested to add, the in 72/73 and 73/74 the season was divided into three periods? Doma-w 10:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry, but this is a question I am unable to answer. I have no idea. When we have a look at the offical web-page from e.g. Marc Girardelli, we will see, that there is not a single discipline World Cup win in Combined listed. But on the page fis-ski.com there is a list for every year shown since 1980. But in 1979 there is no list and in this year there was definitely no special World Cup in Combined awarded. Also I do not know, what it mean: "officially" not awarded? May be the athletes did not get a crystal globe, but may be they are allowed to call themselves "Winner of the Combined World Cup"? LG Doma-w 00:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 1966

I think, it is necessary the add a note about the story Erik Schinegger and his intersexuality. Also I do not remember clearly, but didn't he gave his medal to Goitschel in 1996? Also I do not know, if there was an official decision or not? LG Doma-w 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I had been considering mentioning that issue; you should go ahead and add any info you have, especially if you have good published references for it. I am planning to write an introductory paragraph discussing those very unique and unusual World Championships in Portillo (held in August, new ski resort still under construction, etc.), especially because the World Cup was largely founded during those weeks. I will do this soon when I have some time. Seattle Skier 19:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the reason why I asked you! I have no special information, sorry. Doma-w 21:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 20 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Šárka Záhrobská, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I hope we will have more opportunities to meet over some articles :-)) Jan.Kamenicek 17:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Tulutson Glacier changed to Crater Glacier

Hi, just to let you know that I have changed Tulutson Glacier into a redirect page, but still feel free to correct the text copied from Tulutson Glacier to Crater Glacier. Thank You. Skyscraper Phoenix 02:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops

I apologize. I accidentally posted that on your page. I was too quick in checking who posted. Thank you for correcting me. --Theunicyclegirl 00:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Parkitecture

You may be interested to know that I proposed merging Parkitecture into National Park Service Rustic. Please let me know what you think at Talk:National Park Service Rustic. -- Patleahy 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

cascade volcanoes

When I found a volcano listed in both the 'Cascade Range' category and listed in the 'Cascade Volcanoes' category, I deleted the 'Cascade Range' category. Why: the 'Cascade Volcanoes' category is a subcategory of the 'Cascade Range' so the current structure was double level categorization. This is normal to delete such double level categorization, which WP does not like. I see nothing wrong with my edits, based on the category structure in place. Hmains 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong in saying I did not answer User:Skookum1. I did so on his talk page. He did not continue the conversion. Hmains 20:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am not engaged in vandalism; do not engage in name calling when you want a discussion about edits which I have as much right to make to you or anyone else in WP. Please give me some specifics about 'volcanism' that you are talking about. Thanks.

• I also do not see how you can make the objection you make based on the facts stated in the article on the 'Cascade Range'. It states the Range runs from California to and including Canada. Therefore, it seems that any volcano in the Cascade Range must be a 'Casade Volcano'. How can there be a 'Cascade Volcano' that is not in the 'Cascade Range', by defiition. I see no no article or other indication in WP of a non-100% overlap. 'Cascade Volcano' is not a type of volcano, is it? Thanks Hmains 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• I was writing my last note are you were writing yours. Sorry for any confusion thereby. If necessary, it seems that the 'Cascade Volcanoes' category should not be a sub-category of 'Cascade Range (something that existed before I did anything so someone did not pay attention to this). If so, where is the list of volcanoes that are 'Cascade volcanoes', not part of the Cascade range? It seems we may accurately need some new categories, like 'Cascade Range volcanoes' and 'Cascade Belt volcanoes' and figure out if there is any relation between these categories. Thanks Hmains 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• again our comments are crossing each other. Please assume good faith on my part as I am on yours--discussions are more fruitful that way. I will otherwise wait your reply. Thanks Hmains 20:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• thanks and I understand both your feelings and your facts. I believe the problem I had would face most anyone reading the categories as they are currently named and structured. To help the reader, can we create and correctly name and populate categories that would reflect the facts--no reason to wait for another day and instead of 'reverting', I can help advance. First, 1) set of 'cascade range volcanoes'; 2) set of 'cascade belt volcanoes'. If we had two categories named as such, would one category be a subset of the other or what? Also, is there anything in the volcano articles or lists or whatever that says which category or categories each particular volcano belongs to. Thanks Hmains 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, one thing as a time. As I said, I was just making use of the category structure as I found it. If it is wrong, it needs correction. If each volcano in the Cascade range needs to appear directly in the 'Cascade range' category that is fine with me, but I do not agree with the argument that putting them in a subcategory named 'Volcanoes of the Cascade Range' is inappropriately 'hiding' things. If that argument were to hold, it could be used against almost any and every subcategorization. But, as I said, it is fine with me to keep them in Cascade Range category directly. However, the 'Cascade Volcano' category should not be a subcategory of the 'Cascade Range' category if it is to contain volcanoes that are not in the 'Cascade Range'. This would violate the subsetting structure that categories represent. Further, if the 'Cascade Range' category is supposed to have all the volcanoes of the 'Cascade Volcanic Belt' in it, then a better category name would be something like 'Cascade Volcanic Belt volcanoes'. I know comments in the category can help, but not as much as accurate/complete names. Thanks Hmains 23:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2nd thing: "And why did you delete "Category:Geologic provinces of California" from the Cascade Range? That category needs to stay (since it provides an important link out to the other geol provinces), and others cats need to be added". It sure looks like this category is still there, right at the bottom, where it should be. 'Geologic provinces of California' is not a subset of 'Cascade range'; it is the other way around and so the current structure is correct. Thanks Hmains 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• 3rd thing: 'Volcanoes of California' etc. These could be considered subsets of 'Cascade Range', but then there is the temptation to say this is 'double level categorization' and proceed to delete them from the 'Cascade Range' category. If we do not want this, maybe we don't need these as subsets of 'Cascade Range'. Protection. Thanks Hmains 23:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oregon volcanoes

I replied to you on my talk page. Katr67 05:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mount Konocti

Please stick to writing about the Cascades. You obviously know nothing about Clear Lake and Konocti. Thanks. --Eric Barbour 09:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I have contributed much useful (and factually correct) content to the Mount Konocti article, so obviously I do know something about Clear Lake and Konocti. This comes mostly from reading knowledge, but I have also visited the area. I have replied to you in more detail on the Konocti talk page and also your talk page.--Seattle Skier 22:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, I will keep it civil, as long as you check references. If you need printed info, there are books for sale at the Lake County Museum, I can send you some on request. Agreed? --Eric Barbour 08:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom on Regal Mountain

Hello,

Thanks for creating article on Regal Mountain. Just for your information, I have nominated a DYK on this article, by having the following hook.

• ...that the Regal Mountain, an eroded stratovolcano in the Wrangell Mountains of eastern Alaska, is the third highest thirteener (a peak between 13,000 and 13,999 feet in elevation) in Alaska, USA?

Thanks, - KNM ^Talk 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Will it be possible for you to do bit more expansion on this article? It would help this article's entry getting displayed in Wikipedia main page, under DYK section. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascade volcanoes

Sorry, I thought the Fort Rock basin was part of the Cascade volcanoes and yes you can change it. Black Tusk 18:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascadia

By your reasoning, every article that starts with "American", "Canadian", "Patagonian", or any similar term should be disambiguated in the same manner. If someone wants to find an article on the Cascadian subduction zone, it is very unlikely that they will use "Cascadia" as a search term. If we include this, we will have to include any other term with "Cascadia" in it. My adminship should have no bearing on this issue--if you want to revert my change yourself, you are free to do so (I'll probably revert it back, though). Lexicon (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

In response to the "America" thing, you are aware that the United States of America is referred to as "America" by many people, and so your analogy is dissimilar? Anyway, I still do not think that many people are going to look for Cascadia subduction zone through Cascadia. Your example may indeed have happened, but that does not mean that it is a likely search. I also disagree that the most common term including Cascadia is Cascadia subduction zone. That, I would think, belongs to Cascadia (independence movement). Check out the page as it existed one month ago and tell me if you like the mess that including any term with "Cascadia" in it created. Lexicon (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 15 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Regal Mountain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)