Talk:L. D. Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

Vancouver Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

A good reference for this article is the book on this guy. The publisher's site, with quotes, reviews, etc, is http://www.arsenalpulp.com/select_book.php?book=174 - citation info is: Francis, Daniel (2004). LD - Mayor Louis Taylor and the Rise of Vancouver. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Arsenal Pulp Press. ISBN 1-55152-156-3. ; just the quotes on the linked page provide more than whats in the stub right now... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rationale for category linking

I used to delete category tags that i believed were not sufficiently relevant. But my criteria for what is relevant has changed as a result of experience.

One of the great capabilities of Wikipedia is the ability to categorize with an ever-expanding inclusiveness. This provides researchers with the ability to track down leads they otherwise might miss.

However, one of the important questions becomes: what is appropriate criteria for inclusion in a category?

If we consider the specific instance of the "IWW" category, one might conclude proper linking means anyone who joined or was involved with that organization. I'm going to argue that such a mindset misses a very significant opportunity to provide researchers with a particularly useful benefit. The IWW faced numerous adversaries, and (for optimum usefulness) these should be linked with the IWW category tag as well.

This doesn't mean that EVERY article linking to, or mentioning the IWW should be tagged with the IWW category tag. But it is worthwhile to so categorize every article which shows some level of interaction with the organization.

Example of usefulness:

There are currently 193 articles linked with the IWW category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:IWW

One individual is writing a book about Joe Hill. An IWW category link to Anton Nilson, which has tangential reference to Joe Hill, led the writer to User_talk:Bronks.

Through the facility of the IWW category tag, the book writer is in touch with a Wikipedian who reads Joe Hill secondary sources in Swedish. The recommeded source for this incidental Joe Hill comment in the Nilson article (the writer of the book tells me) happens to be the fellow who wrote a book about Joe Hill in Swedish, which that writer is hoping will provide source material for his own book. The writer has commented to me in email that this is a "small-world tidbit." It was, in fact, the IWW categorization tag that is making it a small world for IWW researchers.

But this is just one example. Since i finished categorizing a significant number of articles with the IWW tag, i have had feedback emailed to me from seven or eight individuals expressing appreciation. One fellow mentioned his intention to expand one of the categorized articles, and another offered an article that he felt should also be tagged. These experiences suggest that categorization can be a powerful capability, one we all should consider worthwhile in developing our articles on Wikipedia. Richard Myers 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was about to concede to the IWW tag and register my disagreement, when I decided to look it up. Looks like I was wrong about him reading the riot act, although I'm still certain I read somewhere that he did. The most authoritative sources however, say nothing of the sort (Taylor's biography and "Where the Fraser River Flows: The IWW in BC"). A city bylaw was read by the police, but not by the mayor.\

As for the all-inclusive category, it seems there needs to be some defined parameters for it to be useful. I understand your "tidbits" argument, but categories are only one research tool; for example, a google search of "IWW" would be a better way to get at those little details. For an example of a category that got out of control, check out Category:Rockefeller family. Bobanny 22:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with that. Thanks for the explanation. If similar details should happen to reappear in the article, i may feel compelled to argue for the category tag again. Richard Myers 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

fair enough. I uploaded a Wobbly image and added it to the IWW article as compensation. :0 Bobanny 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)