User talk:Mukkakukaku/Spr-2008

Moving school articles

I noticed one of the Booker T. Washington articles pop up on my watchlist when you moved it to conform with naming conventions. Do you want to do the other ones? :-) Booker T. Washington High School and Booker T. Washington Middle School. Well, the ones that aren't redlinks, that is. Carcharoth (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of them are already fixed; I just went and got the other two. :) --Mukk 21:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For no particular reason

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Renaming schools

As the creator and editor of several hundred school articles, it disturbs me that articles are being renamed under a "policy" that was discussed by a tiny handful of people without any effort to reach out beyond a narrow set of editors. in many cases, this policy is being applied in a ludicrous fashion, changing names of long-established articles. Please stop renaming until these issues can be properly addressed. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for a start the article King Edward's School, Witley was moved without any discussion or notification whatsoever - if Mukkakukaku had bothered to discuss the move, he would have found that 'King Edward's School, Witley' is actually the full name of the school, it is not just King Edward's School in Witley. BOLD is a fine policy, but there is no reason to just go blindly charging in. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is more a case of attempting continuity rather than BOLD, I believe. That being said, I apologize for stepping on anyone's toes, but I found myself getting confused with the incontinuity of it all, and when I found the naming conventions, it seemed like a good thing to tidy up. Why have a convention if not use it? (For that matter, if the convention is not to be applied, it should not be considered a 'convention'.)

In the case of the King Edward's School, Whitley, other than showing a great argument in favor of the use of parentheses to delineate location, I apologize. Being from the United States and having completed a large portion of my education there, I really have no basis for understanding UK schools. I did realize this yesterday, and focused my efforts on the U.S. schools, which have current and undisputed naming convention. Very sorry, Vanderdecken. --Mukk 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I was confused by this, because I saw you reference a rejected proposal when renaming an article. [1] I"m not sure that using a rejected proposal is a good reason for renaming an article, since the rejection indicates that the idea goes against consensus. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools) was rejected, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. schools) is not (and basically says the same thing as the US section of the rejected policy.) --Mukk 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have now stopped renaming English schools but just for reference I thought I would let you know that I have now reverted the English schools you renamed back to their original names. There was no consensus and no discussion for these moves, and the naming conventions has not been agreed for English schools. (Some editors favour commas and others favour parentheses and no agreement has yet been reached.) Furthermore, some place names are incorporated in the school's name as you have already discovered. Can I suggest that before making any page moves you discuss the matter first on the article talk pages and only move the pages if there is an agreement. 14:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way when it comes to non-US schools. I have little to no experience with schools outside of the US, Spain, and Poland, so who am I to have a strong opinion either way? As to your other point, the problem with discussing is that half the time nobody is watching the talk page to start with. Most of the "problem" pages are low-importance, start- or stub-class articles with two or three real editors and a handful of vandals. In these cases, I find it much easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Feel free to disagree. ;) --Mukk 03:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Lake Bangweulu

Hi. Quick question for you: I noticed that you tagged Lake Bangweulu with a Zambia=yes. I'm just trying to find out how other projects are taggging articles, so basically what I want to know is, are you tagging this article for WikiProject Zambia using the Africa template because Zambia has so few members or is there another reason? I think its a really good idea to start merging all the related project tags (such that Hawaii would be tagged within United States, etc.) as it not only saves space on the talk page, but provides more of a "descendent" project context. What are your ideas about why the Africa project chose to go this route? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I've found that for certain articles that have many countries involved -- such as Kakwa -- having just one template with several "sub-templates" is a lot neater. As for the Africa Project, I've found that while there are sub-projects for all of the different countries, a number, like Zambia, are pretty much empty. By tagging it with an AfricaProject as well as a Zambia=yes, not only is the page brought to the attention of the Africa WikiProject as a whole, but also the Zambia WikiProject. I think that there are a number of WikiProjects that can follow this route -- such as the Education, Schools, and Universities WikiProjects, as well as the United States WP as you pointed out.

The one downside of having only one tag is the question of the importance attribute. If WP Zimbabwe rates an article importance=High but WP Zambia only assigns it importance=Low, which one should be used in the template? --Mukk 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Emery Molyneux: Translation of non-English terms

Thanks very much for this. I checked the source, and it does say aunque rather than aurque, so I've corrected the error and updated the translation as suggested by you. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

You have been paged because a user has reported a high level of vandalism and you are listed as a contact

This is an automatically generated message. If problems occur, please contact User:nathanww

Law & Order project proposal

You had previously expressed interest in working with a group focused on the articles related to the Law & Order franchise. I thought you would be interested in knowing that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Law & Order task force has now been created for that purpose. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)