User talk:Mais oui!/Archive 03
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. |
Subcats Etc
OK. Thanks for the feedback.
"If we put all articles in supercats too then the parent cat just gets totally clogged up. That is why we have subcategories: to make cats easier to navigate, and to cross reference.
cat English breweries is a subcategory of cat British breweries. The articles are already in there. Youi do not need to go round duplicating the cat.--Mais oui! 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)"
I think I followed that and your explanation using the United States. That was helpful.
I have looked closely at the Category Brewers and Breweries. It has the subcats British breweries and English breweries. No articles. Going into British breweries that has the subcats English breweries and Closed British Breweries. No articles. Going into English breweries that has a list of articles on active English breweries. No other articles. Going into Closed British Breweries that has a list of articles on closed British breweries. No other articles.
So I'm not exactly sure where the problem is. Could you point it out? It all looks clean and tidy to me.
I have to say that I fully expected to make mistakes in doing this. But I didn't expect to have to spend so much time looking carefully for mistakes I can't see! This Wikipedia is turning out to be harder than I thought. And if people get hostile when a newbie is still learning it makes matters even more awkward. Even more awkward when the hostility is not understood.
I have been looking at User-conduct RfC due to the amount of heated conversation I have been getting from you. And I also found this statement to be quite friendly and encouraging in my endeavour to organise the British Breweries and get out an excedllent set of articles:
"Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles, because the joy of editing is that perfection isn't required. And don't worry about messing up. All prior versions of articles are kept, so (putting aside a few specialized uses of sysop privileges) there is no way that you can accidentally damage Wikipedia or irretrievably destroy content. But remember—whatever you write here may be preserved for posterity."
SilkTork 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for latest message. I hope things will now proceed more smoothly. If I continue to make mistakes, please ask me what my intention is. You may be able to make useful suggestions.
SilkTork 23:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
John Hans Makeléer
Wow! how lucky to meet up with you. The article I had posted was deleted, luckily it was posted long enough that the other sites that use Wikipedia content had already copied it. Now it sits protected in my userspace along with other family members. I am supposed to be descended from him through my family in Sweden. I hope you might have some more information to add. I have been having trouble finding information on clan MacLean since so many of the family names were recycled, its difficult to find birth and death dates. As you can see at least three others mentioned in the biography were deleted and are dead links now.
Oops Maclean
Sorry, I just realized now, I was on your User page not your Discussion page. I thought User pages were supposed to be locked to others. Sure, you can restart it, or if your an editor you can undelete it, or you can vote for undeletion, that way the discussion pages will be restored. Im an inclusionist, so I think that "somewhat" notable people should be included. Paper encyclopedias have their limits because of costs of how many people they include. I would like to see more biographies of fringe notable people. I just had a another one deleted that I spent hours of research on. It was the president of Ballantine beer. Some guy never heard of the brand so he initiated a vote on it, and deleted it. If I had access I would have just pasted it into the company entry.
A user is trying to have the Template:Irish Republic infobox deleted. Your comments would be welcome.User:Jtdirl 21:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Request
Hi, I would appreciate your vote or comment on these two cfms:
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Executed_revolutionaries_to_Category:Revolutionaries
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_2#Category:Jewish_American_actors
Thanks, Arniep 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Flag of Hawaii
Maybe it doesn't need to be explicitly stated, but the Hawaii case is quite different to all the others. Whether or not a protectorate counts as a colony, the flag was not a normal British colonial ensign, but was recognised by the British and others as the flag of a kingdom. Yes, it resembles a British ensign (I didn't say it wasn't the Union Flag in the canton), but it wasn't one. JPD (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Irish British
Hi. I realise the category Irish British is inaccurate in that it may suggest a closer connection than I intended so I am going to rename the category as agreed in the cfd discussion. Arniep 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- BTW the new name will be purely factual and not labelling, People of Irish descent in Great Britain. I intend to remove certain people from the xxx American cats and move them into similar xxx descent categories, for example Robert De Niro is in the German American category but this is inaccurate as he does not identify as a "German American" so should be moved to a German descent category. Regards Arniep 17:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
piping on {{Scotland-bio-stub}}
Hi... I've just noticed that about three weeks ago you added piping to {{Scotland-bio-stub}} in the form [[Category:Scottish people stubs| Template]]. NEVER add piping to a template in this way! If you want to know why, have a look in the category, and you will see a couple of humdred articles, all filed alphabetically under " Template". I've fixed the template, and I'm going to ask mairi to run Mairibot over all the articles, since it'll need null-edits to get them all back in alphabetical order... Grutness...wha? 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see you've done the same to {{Wales-bio-stub}}... are there any others you've done this to, because they'll all need to be fixed... Grutness...wha? 07:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Mmmm... whoopsadaisy. No I don't think so, although I did change the photo on {{Wales-bio-stub}} from the utterly appalling Anthony Hopkins (at 30px it just looks like ANY silver-haired elderly man) to the, and-I-quote, "sex-symbol" Charlotte Church. I had been wondering why the heck the Category:Scottish people stubs was completely un-navigable, and would have asked our new Admin User:Alai if I had not got totally distracted creating Category:Andrew Carnegie. By the way, why is there no {{Wales-stub}}? Put the piping down to relative newbieness: I have only been here a few weeks, and there must be tons and tons and tone I still have to learn. Sorry.--Mais oui! 09:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- s'alright - easy mistake to make - sorry I was grumpy! As for Wales-stub (and NI-stub for that matter), the categories probably wouldn't be that big, but then again they might be worth proposing... BTW, some good news for you - {{Scotland-struct-stub}} is now up and running. Grutness...wha? 09:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Wales-bio-stub picture
I've removed the picture you put on the stub. It's a nice picture, but Wikipedia only has it as having a fair use license and fair use is not considered acceptable for templates (not just stub templates, all templates). It needs to be either a public domain or a freely usable picture. Caerwine 20:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Definition of a stub
You insist on labelling First ScotRail and the Skye Bridge as stubs. Neither fit any definition of a stub. Both are much longer than 3-10 sentences. I find it hard to believe that you think "that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial internet search or a few minutes in a reference library". Of course, neither are featured article quality yet, but hardly a stub. Look at this revision, when the article was first created, for what a stub would be like. Maccoinnich 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Union Bridge (Tweed)
What is the harm in mentioning Berwickshire providing the present day region is also given?
Perhaps you would like to a) give me a link to the definition of a stub, b) tell me what is missing from the article that makes you think it is a stub. -- RHaworth 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here is the definition of a stub: Wikipedia:Perfect_stub_article#Essential_information. I thought that a quick Google could have added some useful info to both articles, but if you disagree, fair enough.--Mais oui! 18:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to keep on but what essential information is missing from the Union Bridge article?
The fact that a Google search throws useful extra info. does not make an article a stub - every article is capable of expansion or improvement. -- RHaworth 04:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Irish-Scots
Hi, I have proposed a new rename of this category to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent instead of Category:People of Irish descent in Scotland as the latter may indicate that people born in Ireland can be included. Re: Jack McConnell I did find him on a list of Irish descended people, presumably the descent is through his grandmother or mother. Arniep 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Barnstar
!מזל טוב
from Izehar
- Shucks... --Mais oui! 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Port Ellen Whisky
Hi there! From my point of view the Port Ellen article describes the town itself. Since there is an article on Port Ellen Single Malt (a very fine malt, by the way), I still think that the categorization of the main article into Category:Whiskies is not necessary. Please reconsider your recent edit on that article. --Pmkpmk 08:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- Okey-dokey.--Mais oui! 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Copyright and wikipedia guidelines
What is the justification for this edit ? I am particulalry curious as to your justification under copyright law and the Wikipedia fair use guidleines both of which were mentioned in my edit summary that you reverted.--A Y Arktos 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Re: Great minds think alike
- Cheers. Well, as I said, I noticed and shamelessly stole it from Portal:NYC. They're decent statistics. They need to go somewhere... Maccoinnich 00:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Scottish Shipbuilding
Hi, I do like the Scottish portal which I discovered through you. One question though, or possibly more of a comment. The Scottish Shipbuilding Companies Category contains three companies and two burghs, i.e. Govan and Greenock. It suggests to me, that a rename of the category is needed, or possibly the creation of a subcat: Scottish shipbuilding areas and a link added between the two. Pyrotec 09:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it does look a little odd, but it is (hopefully) only temporary. Both the Govan and Greenock articles contain a section on the local shipyards. As the shipyards themselves have no individual article each (yet) then as a temporary measure it is very helpful to signpost readers and editors to ALL relevant articles.--Mais oui! 10:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
- I was in a hurry there. I forgot to say thanks for your appreciation of the portal signposting. And no, I do not think that a subcat of the Scottish Shipbuilding Companies Category is necessary.--Mais oui! 10:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Irish-Scots vote
Thanks for your vote to keep "Irish-Scots"!
Camillus
talk|contribs 10:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
National Anthems list
Just a minor nit - at List of national anthems you point a person who added GSTQ as the official English, Scottish and Welsh anthems to the note at the United Kingdom box (note 4) that says it's not official. That actually is referring to the fact that it's not the official anthem of the UK (as stated in the God Save the Queen article itself), believe it or not, it actually hasn't been declared as official by British Parliament for the whole of the UK, it's just been used as a matter of tradition. --Canuckguy 03:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Borough
Why have you removed my additions on -burgh from the 'borough' page? It is referenced as -burgh (pronounced -burg) in the American south-west, and as the Scots word (not name-element) 'burgh'. I added the Scots (and extreme northern English) name-element -burgh, with its (unobvious) pronunciation. ColinFine 10:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Because that article is about Borough, not Burgh. Both articles link to each other, and if you feel that the Burgh article lacks some information, please add it to that article; you had added the info to the wrong article.--Mais oui! 13:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
But (a) by that argument it should not list '-brough' or '-bury'. (b) Only (as far as I can tell) in the Burgh:disambiguation page is there mention of '-burgh' as a name-element. (c) American '-burgh' is mentioned but not Scottish/Northumbrian '-burgh'. (d) Burgh is linked from said American '-burgh', whose connection I think is tenuous.
The info is in the other article, but I don't understand why you think it inappropriate to add it to the 'borough' article where it is precisely parallel with some of the information in the article.
- What I do not understand is why you want to add information about the word Burgh to a different article. Surely information about burgh should be added to the Burgh article.--Mais oui! 22:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
The two articles should be merged. wangi 22:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- Tis done.--Mais oui! 07:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- No it isn't! I took 'tis done' to mean you had done it, or were just about to, but they seem to be as before. ColinFine 14:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Don't follow you.--Mais oui! 14:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Wangi said "The two articles should be merged", and you said "Tis done". What did you mean, if not 'I have merged/will merge them'? ColinFine 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Brython-Briton
Hi, can you please have a look at the Brython talk page and give a reference for your change to southern three-quarters of the island of Great Britain. Alun 03:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Do you have a source for this change to Briton Celtic inhabitant of most of Great Britain (excluding the Picts of central and northern Scotland). Not only should you provide a verifiable source, but this seems to be only one POV, in order to maintain neutrality it should also be stated that there is some thought that Pictish was a Brythonic language. This would make Picts brythons. The Picts article strongly implies that most linguists think that Pictish was a Brythonic language. Please try to maintain neutrality, if you give one POV you should also always give the converse, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not. Alun 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Here you go: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Briton --Mais oui! 13:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- The Wiktionary definition also says ethnological classification of indigenous person of Great Britain or person of British ancestry elsewhere in the world. I'm not sure what the policy on using Wiktionary: for verifiability is, but you can't use Wikipedia pages for verifiability, or Wikipedia would simply be self-verifying and anything would go. It's always best to put all POVs in to maintain neutrality. I've put links to several definitions in the references section of the article. Alun 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Eh... Alun, I hate to point this out, but why is it OK for you to cite a Wikipedia article (Picts) to support your argument, but it is not OK for me to cite a Wiktionary article to support mine? Come on now.
Even if the Picts were Brythonic speakers, and I have yet to see any evidence (Wikipedia's Picts article is not exactly first-rate), the word "Brythons" has not been applied to them before. Why is Wikipedia trying to apply the term Brython to the Picts? This is not the correct forum for original research.--Mais oui! 07:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- The books I have to hand do not support the claim (though I haven't got Ball & Fife referenced in the Picts article). Andrew Dalby, Dictionary of Languages (Bloomsbury 1998) says (s.v. Celtic Languages) "Pictish, the language of the Scottish highlands in ancient times, may have been a fourth subdivision of Celtic, but this is uncertain". ColinFine 10:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Some clarifications and citations added to the article. ...dave souza 12:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Andrew Moray
Please refrain from simply reverting changes without explanation or discussion. PatGallacher 15:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
British ethnic group
Hi, I think linking to a British ethnic group article that doesn't exist might cause some duplication in the future. What is really needed is a proper British people article similar to the English people or Welsh people articles. This would constitue an ethnic group article. I think there is a need for such an article. Alun 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, but it was hardly very useful having a British people blue link on the Briton article that simply led you straight back to the Briton article. By making it a red link it advertised the fact that the article is requested (not by me may I say). But I totally agree that the correct, Wikipedia-standard naming-convention for these articles is "foo people" (although British ethnic group should probably be one of the Redirects).
- After having said all that, I personally have big doubts as to whether there is such a thing as a "British ethnicity" (it is a bit like trying to claim that there is an "Australian ethnicity", in a political entity composed of many ethnic strands), but clearly some other Wikipedians think that such a thing does exists, so it will be fascinating for the sceptics among us to see what kind of article the proponents come up with. It may well result in an Afd discussion, but we'll see.--Mais oui! 07:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Irish Catholic Rebels
I invite you to have a look at this article and then vote for a Speedy Delete on the article's section of the "Articles for Deletion". Camillustalk|contribs 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
County disambiguation
Do you think it would make sense to make a Renfrewshire (traditional) as well? Morwen - Talk 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, good idea. The "problem" areas are:
- Aberdeenshire (modern area bigger)
- Renfrewshire (modern area much smaller)
The modern council areas should definitely be the default, obviously with a standard dab notice at the top.
and to a lesser extent:
- West Lothian
- Midlothian
- East Lothian
- Stirling (council area) as opposed to Stirling (excarebated by the need for a new Category for the City of Stirling)
- Falkirk (council area) as opposed to Falkirk
- City of Edinburgh as opposed to Edinburgh
- City of Glasgow as opposed to Glasgow
- City of Aberdeen as opposed to Aberdeen
- City of Dundee as opposed to Dundee
Actually, the more I look at this topic, the more I realise what disarray there is in the Wikipedia pages on the many and varied historic and modern subdivisions of Scotland.
While we are on this topic, I have only just noticed that the maps on the articles on the 30 mainland councils exclude Orkney and Shetland, but the maps at Orkney and Shetland show the whole country. I find this somewhat dis-satisfactory. Do you know how I go about putting in 30 maps showing the whole of Scotland at those articles?--Mais oui! 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Yep. It's really quite messy. We also have odd things like the map of the Inveress lieutenancy area at Inverness. I've suggested elswhere a rule of thumb for deciding whether to split articles about modern counties and old counties - which is that if there is discontinuity of institutions, and substantially different borders, then split.
-
- Another problem is that there is no article that covers the topic of the statutory Aberdeenshire county. Aberdeenshire (council area) is clearly about the 1996 beast, whereas Aberdeenshire (traditional) by its name can't cover the boundary changes.
-
- One point of research that I intend to make at some point, is that I believe that the term administrative counties of Scotland is actually Wikipedia's neologism and should probably be eliminated. From what I can make out from visionofbritain.org.uk, and from reading sources that allude to it, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 didn't distinguish between the 'counties' and 'administrative counties' as was done for England and Wales and Ireland. Morwen - Talk 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, now that you come to mention it I had never encountered the term "Administrative county" before I started reading Wikipedia, and I am a bit of a Scottish local government geek. Not that that necessarily means much, for I am sure that my ignorance is boundless. Good luck with researches.
-
-
-
- If it is a Wikipedia neologism it ought to go. Probably best to Merge the two articles (if you exclude the big maps, they actually have almost no content: simply a list) just put down the 1889 re-drwaing (Administrative counties of Scotland) as a subsidiary section of the Traditional counties of Scotland article.--Mais oui! 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yep. I wanted to Check My Facts on this before I do anything, and do a bit more research about how the borders were redrawn and when. It appears there was a boundary commission from 1889 to mid 1890s that did most of the exclave tidying-up. I discovered also that Nairn and Moray shared a county council! I do know for certain that the LGA (Scotland) 1975 does abolish 'counties', unqualified, so the "they didn't formally abolish the real counties, only administrative counties" that is used for England doesn't apply to Scotland. However, if you want to merge, be my guest. I'd put merged article at just Counties of Scotland. Morwen - Talk 16:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Oh, and regarding maps - this is (partly) my fault. The locator maps at the moment aren't antialised at all, this means anyone can just download the Orkney one, and floodfill the appropriate areas the right council. However, the addition of Orkney & Shetland to the maps makes them much bigger - which was why I omitted them in the first place. Probably a better solution would have been putting them in a box. Morwen - Talk 16:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- Ta.--Mais oui! 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Ok, how does this look? (you may need to refresh) Image:ScotlandAberdeenshire.png Morwen - Talk 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Check out Talk:Administrative counties of Scotland... Morwen - Talk 10:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sample merger
I've had a go at doing at merger at User:Morwen/counties of Scotland. Does that look good to you? Morwen - Talk 22:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can I get back to you tomorrow about that Morwen? I'm away to my bed shortly. Looked good from the micro-glance I gave it.--Mais oui! 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Ta. Need it. I'm yawning my head off.--Mais oui! 22:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
-
Orphaned categories
Hi there. I've been going through uncategorized categories, and I notice that you've sometimes removed unwanted, empty subcategories by simply blanking them, for example here. Can I ask you to instead to mark such categories for deletion? You can put them on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, or if they're empty and unused you can just mark them for speedy deletion using {{db}}. Thanks! -- SCZenz 04:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry about that: pure laziness on my part. Slap on wrist duly accepted.--Mais oui! 10:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Scottish footballers of the year
Hi there - just a note pointing out that Category:Scottish Footballers of the Year should not be a subcategory of Category:Scottish footballers - since one does not have to be Scottish to win the award (e.g. Laudrup, Larsson, Hartson). Similarly, replacing the Scottish footballers category with the Footballer of the Year category in individual articles is a bad idea - Scottish players who have won the award should be put in both categories, not just one. Qwghlm 20:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Right, that's it sorted, I hope: removed from cat:Scottish footballers, then restored cat:Scottish footballers to the ones that you hadn't already caught. I see that User:Camillus McElhinney has been busy filling up the rest of the new cat, so I'm glad I can move on to other things (football ain't really my thing).--Mais oui! 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Category:Islands of Scotland
Why you think that it's necessary to have islands in this category which are already in the subcatgories, e.g. Outer Hebrides?--JBellis 20:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Cinema of Scotland/England
As per your request I read the categories in question and voted. Nach0king 01:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Re:British politician stubs
Looks like Morwen has created the templates and categories - now it's simply a case of sorting the stubs. Several of the templates need different icons though (they all show Westminster at the moment, which isn't really appropriate). Grutness...wha? 10:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. I see them: Category:British politician stubs. Sterling work.--Mais oui! 10:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Orphaned categories continued...
Same for "Category:Civil parishes" . Speedy or whatever, just not empty... -- Fplay 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are a bit late. If you look about 4 items up, you will see that another user has already alerted me to that issue... about that category!--Mais oui! 07:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Owner...
What I mean is "creator". When I want to speedy a blanked-out category, the speedy tends to happen more speedily if the creator of the category also did the blanking. -- Fplay 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Now my speedies are a little too speedy! I am blowing through all of Special:Uncategorizedcategories so it is a bit of a blur. I think it was "Category:Music schools in Europe", but it has already been deleted, so the history is not visible. I think the record of my {{db}} also disappears from Special:Contributions/Fplay . Oh well. -- Fplay 08:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
CfD: Wikipedians by politics
hi, i hope u don't mind me contacting u like this. maybe i'm misinterpreting the situation, or maybe i'm just a bit stupid, but i don't think the argument to remove is coming across clearly. i'd genuinely like to understand why you want them removed. if you have time, could you add more detail? Veej 14:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Merci
Thanks for your comments to keep the Category:Catalonian Mexicans. Would you mind taking a look at this? 2005 December 18#Category:Andalusian Mexicans and Category:Aragonese Mexicans. It's basically the same nomination, same roundup ([1] and [2]) but with nastier remarks, now that the original CfD failed. --Vizcarra 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Irish people for peer review?
The additions and editions made on this page even within recent weeks - especily photos - has vastly improved it, to the better I think. Would you support it being submitted for a peer review, and help tidy it up/add some more? Fergananim 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Nick Baker (disputed conviction)
Just wondering...is it Wikipedia policy to convert a person's nationality from British to a more specific country? In Baker's case you changed his nationality to the more specific "English". It's a small point, but Baker is usually described as a "British citizen" who can therefroe take advantage of the support of the British government. I wonder if there isn't some underlying Scotish nationalism in your post :) Sorry forgot sig last time. Sparkzilla 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I was re-assigning several people abandoned in the supercat Category:British people to appropriate subcats. All supercats are (or should be) periodically researched, and articles assigned to all relevant subcats. I suppose that this article should really also have been assigned to Category:British criminals too, but as there is enough contention in the editing of the article already, I decided not to grasp that particular hot coal.
- As regards your question: "... is it Wikipedia policy to convert a person's nationality from British to a more specific country" I am not aware of any "policy" as such, certainly no "official" one (Wikipedia actually has very few official policies). But it is certainly standard practice in biographical articles to state nationality in the opening sentence, or at least in the first paragraph. And as far as categorisation goes, it is always highly advisable to allocate all articles to all appropriate subcats: they should not be left in supercats if suitable subcats exist.
- Please note that all English people cats are very clearly subcats of all the corresponding British people subcats: they are still categorised as British (even, somewhat illogically, the ones born pre-1707).--Mais oui! 12:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your reply. As I said I was just wondering. Your edit made me think of the times when the BBC says an English sports winner is "English", and when a Scot wins, they call the person "British" ;)Sparkzilla 15:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- De rien.--Mais oui! 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
-
keep me posted with the Scotland portal
