User talk:Meegs/Archive 1

This is my talk archive. If you need to contact me, please leave a message on my active talk page.

User talk:Meegs	2005 Nov →	2006 Feb →	2006 Apr →	2006 May →	2006 Jun →	2006 Aug →	2006 Oct →	2007 Jan →	2007 Apr →	2009 Jun →

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Someone must have been lazy, as you have not been welcomed yet. Thank you for your contributions. Since you have been here for a while, we can pretty much assume you are not a troll, vandal, or clueless newbie. I hope you continue to like the place and don't get all grumpy and leave over nothing. Here are a few good links for newcomers, even though you aren't one:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you still enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian, and won't get mad over something stupid and leave! By the way, please be sure to continue to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome, and sorry for your not being welcomed in the past! Alphax ^τεχ 13:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article for December 25th

I noticed you have listed yourself in Category:Atheist Wikipedians. That said, you will probably be interested in my suggested featured article for December 25th: Omnipotence paradox. The other suggestion being supported by others for that date is Christmas, although Raul654 has historically been against featuring articles on the same day as their anniversary/holiday. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-28 08:26

• I was an atheist for awhile, but I gave it up. No holidays!

(Shamelessly stolen from Henny Youngman). Wahkeenah 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Seattle Seahawks

I had never heard of "Seabags" before, either, but I've seen several references to it in Google. However, I don't get the impression that it's complimentary. Wahkeenah 00:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked it up too, but I'm not sure it's a Berman original. I'm going to ask about it on the talk page -Meegs 00:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dry Bones

I re-wrote Dry Bones but you voted it on Afd as if it were still what it was before I re-wrote it. What do you think about the new version?? (See the link above for what it is.) Georgia guy 23:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to express that I agreed with you that the original page about the band deserved deletion without commenting on your new page about the game. The band was certainly nn. Nevertheless, I don't think you should have erased the whole page while it was undergoing review for deletion. -Meegs 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

He left it a mere skeleton of its former self. Wahkeenah 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Tim Biakabutuka

As for proposed edit: That'll work.  :) — Dale Arnett 04:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Michael Kiske

Meegs,

I wrote the additional section to Michael Kiske's article. I do know that I was quite a little bit excessive and subjective but I was only trying to better the article. I think we both agree that Michael Kiske does have an amazing voice, he does have classical singing lessons, otherwise he wouldn't have such a voice. I am a singer myself and I can effectively classify quality of voices and I can affirm that Kiske's is among rock's finest. I would really appreciate if we could work together to better the article by including some of Mr. Kiske's skills and therefore transform the article into something more than a stub.

Sincerely

The Crow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.135.185.107 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2005 December 6

Hello Crow. I'm glad that you want to work on the page. Let's move any further discussion to Talk:Michael_Kiske. Also, I highly suggest that you consider registering and logging in (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?).

In short, though, I removed the comments that appeared to be unfounded, or that were simply your own opinion. Take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. It's sometimes really hard to write about an artist that you're a big fan of. Remember, we're not here to promote Kiske, just to provide information about him. The truth is, he's not considered (by more than a few) to be "one of the finest rock vocalist of all time, even better than Queen vocalist Freddy Mercury." In fact, he's struggled very hard for the last 10 years to get his albums released outside of East Asia. Even if a subjective viewpoint like that were widely held, it's usually not helpful to include in an article without attributing it to someone. Speaking of Freddy Mercury, take a look at his article – it's very well done. Let's talk about specifics of how to expand the article on Talk:Michael_Kiske. -Meegs 07:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Fearsome Foursome

Thanks for the comments on the Fearsome Foursome page. I noticed the same things. I think the term itself is probably in need of some disambiguation. The Lions team was the one that I think most people consider the most prominent football version, but Chargers fans take umbrage with that. If someone wants to make a Fearsome Foursome comics page, that would be great and I can check out the disambiguation. Thanks again for the comments, very helpful. Bill shannon 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

but I love the Banana Slugs!

No, you're right, I'm probably going to stop soon. I figure I've got some big schools left in the South (Ole Miss, for example), but not much after that. I thought about combining Conference USA, but that conference is a total mess. So maybe Brett Favre and Jerry Rice and Steve McNair and Daunte Culpepper don't get in the category. I think the rule needs to be, a school's accomplishments must be greater than one player to get its own category. But I'm fully aware that that kind of rule doesn't hold water for long on this site, so I'm guessing Jackson State and Southern Miss and Alcorn State and Central Florida will eventually make the cut. Maybe we preempt it with a crazy category like "Football players from small southern colleges". Or not.--Mike Selinker 01:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not just CUSA that's a mess, all of the conferences are. We don't want to have to put alums of the same school into different categories because their school changed conferences. -Meegs 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, no one's joining the Ivy League any time soon, but the Big Ten has 11 freakin' teams.--Mike Selinker 20:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii

Your category name is missing its "s" at the end of "player". Just thought you'd like to know.--Mike Selinker 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not for seven items, you don't. Here's what you do: Make a new category called "Hawaii Warriors football players". Put the players in it. Then replace your header in the bad category and put in two of these: { then db|Category created with a typo, and replaced by new category, then two of these: }. (I'd type it out, but then your talk page would be deleted!) This will list it under speedy deletions, and it will be gone with 24 hours, give or take. No debate needed.--Mike Selinker 02:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that the players you're entering don't have the unnecessary Category:National Football League players tag. Has that decision been reached, and if so should I be taking those out as well? I'd be happy to, if it leads to the depopulation of that category. You're also making sure they have their position category too, I see. (Also, I've put some categories in to renaming so that they all follow the (school)(nickname)(football players) format. So you might want to put the SDSU players under that format, or just list it under the Category:Categories for deletion entry of "College football teams. Just a thought.--Mike Selinker 06:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I have been removing the general tag - I noticed FutureNJGov was going nuts with it, so I started-in too. No one has expressed dissent + I saw the the request for rename to "... by team", which I assume will be made a member of Category:National Football League players. We should probably make an official announcement. As for SD state, I opted not to use Category:San Diego State Azetec Warriors football players because it would have been the longest title in the category, a full 7 characters longer than current champ Category:Minnesota Golden Gophers football players. I considered shortening to "SDSU" or "SD State", but those aren't well-known like UCLA is. I'll change & speedy it, or we can nominate it if you want. ×Meegs 15:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They're clearly the Aztecs. I don't think even the most rabid alumnus would insist on Aztec Warriors. If you feel like making the announcement of clearing the NFL players tag on the NFL Project page, that'd be swell.--Mike Selinker 16:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sending all the angry alums your way. Could you handle the rename however you see fit? I summarized the plan on the the NFL project talk page. I'll look at putting something on the main page after the rename goes through and simplifies the whole situation. One more thing... should we make a Category:College football players by team within (or to replace) Category:College football players? ×Meegs 19:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm on it. As for the "by team" designation, I don't really understand the reasoning behind this. Please explain.--Mike Selinker 17:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not a huge fan of the by team suffix, but it might make sense to match Category:National Football League players by team, Category:Major league baseball players by team, Category:NHL players by team. I guess the difference is that those other leagues have other, non-team, categories of players (like the poorly maintained pro bowler categories that needs to go in Category:National Football League players), while with college we only have the team listings. The inclusion of by team also makes obvious that individual players don't belong there. As it is, I'm tempted to dump these poor guys in Category:College football players. I won't, though. ×Meegs 18:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The by-team category would be the only content in the college football players category, then? Seems odd to me, but I don't have any real objection; it's a five-minute change if we do that. Still, I don't really see a reason to do it until we have some other content for that category. Now, the guys you have under small colleges suggests a solution: We should just list those guys on that page until enough of them build up to prompt a category creation of some kind. So as people go through and delete players from the NFL category, they add them to that list. Link that idea?--Mike Selinker 02:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As long as it's a list and not a category (which would pollute the articles) and as long as it's not an official article (maybe in the user or project space), then yeah, go ahead and start one up and copy my list. Most of the schools there will never get a category our current criteria though, so the effort might be wasted. If you want an idea of how many nfl players a given school is pumping out, look here. And while you're there, check out the massive Hawaii list. ×Meegs 03:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are 117 I-A schools right now. We're already half way there, why don't we make categories for the players of all of them (and forget making one for the football program for now). Then maybe, we could make a single category for each of the lower divisions. ×Meegs 03:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a fine plan. But if we're going to do that, then the easiest thing to do is to do it as we depopulate the NFL category. Starting from the small schools list which I just put into Category:College football players, we can just go guy by guy until all the categories are created. (After all, we run the risk of not having anyone in a category after this is said and done if we create them all now.)--Mike Selinker 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And single categories for non I-A divisions, or ones for each of their schools too? Under current wiki software, there's a huge incentive to keep category membership under 200. ×Meegs 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell yes. I'm sure Lycoming and Hartwick played some fine football games, but I don't think we're gonna find a lot of guys who were in them.--Mike Selinker 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, got the word from Meegs. Didn't think I was "going nuts" with the cats, but after howcheng suggested that we make it the same as the NBA and other sport cats, I thought we should change it. Anyway, I agree with the list of the small college football players. However, I think we should organize it by school, and add the players to the individual team section. Check here to see my prototype... naturally, it will be much longer once the whole thing is completed. Anthony 22:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. It's sort of overkill if the threshold for creating a new category is as low as 3 players (which is where I'm leaning), but it has to be done. On another topic, what should be the category name for non-flagship state campuses (UCLA and UTEP are easy, but what about La Lafayette? {La, LA, Louisiana} {at, -, –, ε} Lafayette {Ragin', ε} Cajuns football players)? ×Meegs 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you deserve one

I, Aranda56, award you this barnstar for your hard work cleaning up NFL football bios.

kyle brady

thank you for finishing up the infobox on Kyle Brady. i didn't quite understand how it worked, but you made it look good. thank you.--BBLove 10:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

You're right, and I'll leave in those fields in the future. (I'm still getting my bearings on how these optional fields work, and I'm still impressed by that trick of yours.) While I'm here, I've been thinking -- maybe two more fields? One to link to the NFL.com player page for active players (make it optional, like the existing stats field is optional), and another to give the overall draft order (that seems to be the only other field that other boxes have that this one doesn't.) Also, maybe a tiny next to "Team(s)", just for a splash of color? --Arcadian 23:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we squeeze the overall draft selection on the same line (e.g. maybe in parentheses without explanation)? As for a link to NFL.com link, we might be able to add it in the same section with PFR. There's a template around - I can't seem to find it - that's designed for use in the "External links" section that takes-in an espn.com ID and creates a nice citation and web link. I've only seen it once, but it seemed great. If you come across it, let me know. It might be better to make one of those for nfl.com (or just spread the espn one) since they only cover current players, I'm not sure how permanent the nfl.com setup is. As for the icons, I'm interested to see what they would look like. Are you talking about a single NFL icon, or one per team? The latter would be very tricky. No one has responded to the complaint of having too little color - if you have any feelings on that either way, please post a response. Do you think we should fork the template so that we can experiment with it without threatening the pages it's deployed on? ×Meegs 00:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I made an untempletized version of the box on User:Meegs/NFL Player Sandbox. We can play around with aesthetics there. ×Meegs 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only made one change for now -- I've added a "caption" field, so that we can use the template on pages with images that have captions. An example of it is at Ryan Leaf. The only drawback is that we have to use BR codes, like we do for probowls. Are you okay with this? (Alternatively, we could try to go back to the same fixed-with version we had before, but I know there were some issues with that as well.)--Arcadian 12:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very good thing to have available. I changed to font size so that it's consistent with image thumbnail captions, and doesn't take away the ability to use italics within the caption for emphasis or publication titles. Change it back if you like. Also, I'm curious, why do you think a caption is necessary in the case of Ryan Leaf? Do you think it strengthens the fair use claim by providing the full issue information for the magazine? ×Meegs 20:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You're giving me too much credit for thinking ahead. :) I just added the caption field because the previous version had a picture with a caption. By the way, I'm on board with the reasons for not including the NFL icon. I found the ESPN template you mentioned above, in case we want to integrate that: {{espn nfl|id=5902|name=William Green}} yields "William Green at ESPN.com". --Arcadian 21:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Biffeche

Hi, I've done a complete rewrite with references and am requesting people who voted to have a look at the new version. Thanks. Dlyons493 Talk 16:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

venom's black metal

Alright, yeah, that link looks pretty reliable. I was just going based on the allmusic guide, which is sometimes kinda stupid. Also, thanks for that link, i'll probably need it if i ever get around to fixing up the venom page. --Eel 21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Texans, Texans, and more Texans

Well, on the basis of the AFL/AFL conflict alone, I think the Arena Football League should be forcibly disbanded. But that's not the feedback you're looking for. Not even the Washington Nationals give us any guidance, as Walter Johnson is just under the Senators. You could spell it out as "Dallas Texans players in the American Football League," but really, we're looking at a small group of players here. I think the best solution is the years. By the way, you might hit this problem with the Baltimore Colts as well. See Baltimore Colts (1947-1950). That team was in the NFL.--Mike Selinker 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NFL logo

I and other admins have been enforcing this policy listed on Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use criteria:

Fair use images should only be used in the article namespace. They should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes) or on user pages. They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion. This is because it is the policy of the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an unfree image only if no free alternative exists and only if it significantly improves the article it is included on. All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• The big problem is that the logo was on a template ... and on many talk pages, the template is the only thing on there–which legally goes outside the boundaries of fair use. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Thanks. ×Meegs 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Baseball on Wikicities

Hi Meegs, Googie Man here - I wanted to ask you something as a fellow baseball fan and Wikipedian. Jimbo and Angela have made a new webstie called Wikicities. This link in particular will take you to the baseball Wikicity. As you'll see it's similar to Wikipedia, but my hope is this will allow baseball fans to do more and different things, like reporting on games, in depth statistics, create mulitple pages for pictures, and whatever else baseball fans care to create. You've done such great work on Wikipedia I was hoping you could help me get this baseball Wikicity off the ground. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Googie Man^(Talk), 20:38, 3 January 2006.

databasefootball

I recently found another useful database. Here's an example of a link: http://www.databasefootball.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=BANKSCHI01. It seems to be much better than ProFootballReference for providing statistics for defensive players. How would you feel if we added another line to the template to accomodate it (optional, of course, so the row would disappear if the row was omitted)? --Arcadian 21:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I like that site a lot. They don't seem to let you download the database, but other than that, it's quite a bit nicer than PFR. It's not very popular though; do you think we'd clobber it with traffic? I also wonder how long they've been around and how stable the links would be. It's probably ok. What if we give it a row identical to PFR's? I don't know of any simple way to elegantly display one, the other, both, or neither link. If they both say Statistics in the left column, it'd look a little strange when both links are present:

Statistics Pro football reference

Statistics Database football

but I think most of the time one or the other will suffice. There's also the option of letting the user pass the whole link or a list of several links (with <BR>s) as a parameter to the template to appear next to Statistics. That would allow people to mix-in ESPN and NFL.com, or whatever they want, though we'd then lose the ability to enforce proper formatting, and the whole thing would be a lot harder to use. I'll have to think about that one a little more, but I'll go for Database football now if you want. ×Meegs 18:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What if we made the rows for them span the columns (sort of like for the Hall of fame line), so the line would just say "Statistics: Pro football reference", etc? That way, it wouldn't look terrible if people included multiple data sources. In fact, we could do this for NFL and ESPN as well. That way we don't have to dictate what source people want to use. Then if the DatabaseFootball source turns out to be unreliable, we can just eliminate that line from the template and we don't have to re-edit every player page.--Arcadian 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If I understand, you're still talking about having a separate field for each statistics site (PFR, ESPN, etc.) so that the user only has to pass a short identifier like BankCh01. Spanning the two columns doesn't help with problem of having to put the Statisics identifier before each one. Of course, we could use a different phrase for every site in your way, like maybe the actual titles of the pages that are linked to. That would be a small step closer to a proper citation, at least.

Pro Football Reference: Doug Flutie statistics

databaseFootball: Doug Flutie Past Stats

ESPN.com: Doug Flutie player card

Sports Illustrated: Doug Flutie player page

We could form all of those titles provided we made a mandatory parameter that requires the player's name (or we could just omit that part of the page titles). Formatting it so that it looks good might be tough too. Whether we make the column-spanning rows center- or left-aligned, they're not going to look good where the Statistics line is now (with 2-column rows above and below it). We might be able to simply move the links section to the bottom of the box. ×Meegs 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Those could all work. To get the ball rolling I went ahead and added the fields to the template (example of use at Tony Wragge), but if you disagree feel free to revert. As to where they should go and how they should be presented -- you've got a good eye for design, and I trust your judgement. --Arcadian 19:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Good Work. I'm having trouble with the layout, but I'm still trying some things (User:Meegs/NFL_Player_Sandbox). Given that we're not a link farm, I'm trying to optimize for zero, one, or two links. ×Meegs 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I just noticed -- if you look at the codes for Tony Wragge, the ESPN code and Sports Illustrated code are the same. Considering that they're rivals and therefore unlikely to cross liscence, there must be some standard external numbering system that they both consent to. Interesting. --Arcadian 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too. It's probably because they both buy their stats from the same service. Better to keep them as separate fields, though, so that we can wipe them out individually in case one of them changes their system. ×Meegs 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Indian Mound Park

I created this article (Indian Mound Park) this morning. Just a couple of lines. Because some references pointed to no where. I do not know a lot about it. I picked up a few lines on the web. I am just curious to know how you could find so fast there was a new article needing clean up ? ... just curious .. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OC (talk • contribs) 12:59, 2006 January 9 (UTC)

I found it because someone (User:Localzuk) put it in Category:Articles that need to be wikified because it did not have any links going to other articles. They also indicated that some of the claims in the article needed citation, and that's what I've been working on. I guess what you really want to know is, how did Localzuk find your article? Probably, they found it because they were monitoring Special:Recentchanges – there's a link to it in the left column under the spherical Wikipedia logo. There's a large group of volunteers called the RC patrol that spend a lot of time looking for vandalism, but they'll also categorize good contributions (like yours) that need something, like "wikification", so that others can find them and help-out. If you have any more info about Indian Mound Park, please continue to add to the article. I sure haven't had much luck finding anything about it. ×Meegs 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your very complete answer and for your welcome message in my page. I am learning. Have a nice day --OC 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

capitalization

By the way, in English, people's names (and all proper names) are capitalized, without exception. Re: [1] Keep up the good work. ×Meegs 00:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm an indifferent capitalist on typing, and it may be PoV ... but when I don't give capitals, it usually means I don't regard the noun as a proper name, or the designee as a proper person. I can be mean like that --Svartalf 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no POV judgement to be made, all proper nouns (and words derived from proper nouns) are capitalized. Peoples' names are always proper nouns, so John, John Milius, Milius-like, etc., are all capitalized. It doesn't matter in what sense you are referring to them, or whether they are important or not. Here is a really nice page with examples for each category of word that requires capitalization. There are also some English-specific links at the bottom of Capitalization. ×Meegs 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Replied

Hi, I've replied to you at my talk page, feel free to remove this message once you've seen it. --Qirex 07:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've replied to you on my talk page again Cheers, Qirex 07:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Here's a flower for you for being helpful and nice and even offering to help me fix up my own mistakes :) Qirex 08:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NFL Draft Formatting

Great job on the formatting, Meegs. It looks great and they all match now. Just wanted to drop a note. Not bad for a Patriot fan... Bill shannon 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bill. My support falls to the Steelers for the rest of the season. ×Meegs 03:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the honor of being the one to kill off that category, I appreciate it. So what other categorization work needs to be done? I'll try to do what I can, but since law school's started up again I don't have as much Wikitime as I used to (though I wish I did). Anthony 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have asked ;) ×Meegs 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

just a slight inaccuracy

I think linking me to a page called "Workaholic" misses the point. I'm obviously doing this because I'm trying to AVOID work.

I sure do like penguins, though.--Mike Selinker 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Rock category redundant?

Sorry I', must have missed something here - how is the progressive rock album category redundant. If you are recategorising everything under the groups albums then that implies all the albums by the group are Progressive, it also may implies that no albums by any one else may be categorised this way. As I say I might have missed something I don't understand that you are doing. PLease get back to me :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Every single article in Category:Gentle Giant albums was also in Category:Progressive rock albums, so I simply including the former category in the later one. Note that each of the albums is still in Category:Progressive rock albums, they're just another layer deeper in the category. As categories (like Category:Progressive rock albums) grow large, their effectiveness diminishes, so it's worth subcategorizing like this whenever possible. I would not have been able to made the change if the band's albums had been listed in a variety of genre categories. ×Meegs 17:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok so let's just be clear this is only done if ALL a musciain of group's output is progressive rock, other wise they are entered individually. Also other artists that may only have a small portion of even one album of there output as progressive would be put in here? If so that seems ok. Just a bit of a pain is an artist has and progressive output of 20 or 30 albums and then puts out a rockabilly standard cover album! what a lot of work to regig things. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I generally try and steer clear of the genre minefield. I'm only for subcategorization like this if all or next-to-all of the albums are in a single genre, but some others might have lower standards. For me, it's mostly a practical issue: If we dumped-out all of the subcategories into Category:Progressive rock albums, we'd have hundreds of albums there (including 75 from Category:Frank Zappa albums) and no one would use the category for discovering new articles. I'd probably be willing to have that single rockabilly album grandfathered into the wrong category (it alone could also be put in the correct genre category too), but it would definitely bother me too. Having the band's category included in the the genre category also gives the impression that they are a major contributor to the genre (at least in terms of volume), and makes them easy to find. ×Meegs 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see all of Heep's been Prog Rock. I mean, sure the first few were but classing Firefly_(album) as Prog Rock seems weird. It's more Poppy. Duckpatch 13:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You can add that album to a different genre's category or change the stub type if you like. Removing Category:Uriah Heep albums‬ from Category:Progressive rock albums is a serious step that would muddy the genre categories, though; I'd suggest you wait until you're a little more familiar with Wikipedia before advocating that. ×Meegs 13:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Uriah Heep

I love seeing you add more and more to the Heep section so keep it up. If you want me to do the rest then edit my work just give me the word :). You wouldn't happen to have any bootlegs on you? ;) Just wondering why we have to use Demons_&_Wizards_(Uriah_Heep_album)? Duckpatch 12:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the band Demons & Wizards — who I've never heard of, but have a sizable following — had that name previously. Since neither the band or the album overwhelms the other's notability, it'd probably be best to make Demons and Wizards into a disambiguation page. I don't really care enough to do it, though; no matter what, the album's article is still going to be called Demons & Wizards (Uriah Heep album). ×Meegs 13:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah I'll leave for now but I was wondering if we should do this like they have done for Jethro_Tull page? Gives the choise of the inventor and the band. Duckpatch 13:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Carlos Nemer

Congratulations for your excelent work in wikipedia. Prof. Carlos Nemer is very popular around here (Rio de Janeiro--Brazil), sometimes he can be a little hard but some other times he is loved by everybody. Recently he lectured at Princeton University. Maybe the university lists are not very updated but I am sure Prof. Carlos Nemer will allways be remembered by his students, in fact I was very happy when I saw his name in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right, early on I did try to improve the article and save it from deletion. After the article's claims were called into doubt, though, I didn't vote to keep it. I'm not supporting this version either unless someone can produce some proof that the person really exists. ×Meegs 09:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Meegs ! Please understand that we are in the middle of a big summer around here (Rio de Janeiro) and everybody is on vacation... Meanwhile some references for prof. Carlos Nemer´s work (more will come with time) can be found in this address: http://www.eng.uerj.br/deptos/profs.php?id=dein —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of the participants in this AfD are supporting deletion because the new article, Carlos E. Nemer, does not meet WP's guidelines for notability (people). The original article that was deleted in December, Carlos E Nemer, claimed that he had written many books on many different subjects. If that's true, I suggest you add their titles (with references so that they can be verified) to the new article immediately. I also suggest you create an account (see Wikipedia:Why create an account?) and participate directly in the AfD discussion; I know it can be intimidating, but the people there will listen and change their position if you can make an objective case for the subject's notability. ×Meegs 18:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well-written articles about university professors come through AfD pretty frequently. If you are not able to establish his notabilty though his books or some other way, do not be offended when the page is deleted. It's not a personal judgement on the subject or the author of the article. ×Meegs 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It´s not a matter of him being offended (I don´t know if he (prof.Carlos Nemer) knows he has a wikipedia article). The question is the person exists, he is a notable in his country in his way (some references for prof. Carlos Nemer´s work (more will come with time) can be found in this address: http://www.eng.uerj.br/deptos/profs.php?id=dein) the question is: is Wikipedia really Universal ? Can you acept notable people that "are not in the Enciclopedia Britanica" ? How large is your original project and how degraded it is by now ? Why do you need so many details from a professor that works only for non profitable organizations (federal and state universities in Brazil are totaly free) with bad and not up-dated computer-servers ? I think it is time to open your minds and start to give some chance to outstanding people even if they do not for some how meet your standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.179.227.158 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Right or wrong, these are the guidelines for including biographical articles in Wikipedia, at least for right now. Seriously, follow the advice from my previous post. ×Meegs 13:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

E pur si muove! Carlos Vieira

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Hi there! I just wanted to point out that you forgot to leave a signature after your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam in South Africa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.. I'm sure you know that lack of a signature can lead to your argument being discounted by the closing admin, and just wanted to drop a note in case you wanted to go back and fix that. -Rebelguys2 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks. ×Meegs 09:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Renée Bordereau

Hi, Thanks for your kind comment on this article's Afd. Dlyons493 Talk 19:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

coachin' 'em up

Here's the thing about colleges, that isn't the same for the NFL: Quite often, there's only one coach who has an article. So we'll be creating a lot of categories with only one member. But sure, we could do that. We'd be emptying Category:College football coaches of individuals, then?--Mike Selinker 19:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my method probably would be to make the category upon finding the first member. I'm on the fence, maybe even leaning slightly against it, but as I said, I don't like plopping the assistant linebackers coach from 1977 into Category:USC Trojans football either. Here's a tangential issue: Let's say someone coached at East-Central Montana A&M Junior College before landing the job at Notre Dame; should they stay in Category:College football coaches even through they're in Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football coaches? ×Meegs 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

See, I'm an inclusionist. I figure if someone's looking for info about Notre Dame, they might want to know that Willie W. Willieson was assistant linebacker coach for the Irish. So in my mind, he gets into that category. On the other subject, we could create a "Football coaches from small colleges" article for those looking for ECMA&MJC. Is it worth it? Probably not. I think everyone in the College football coaches category now will be going into at least one major program category, and that's good enough for me.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, while we're doing this, we should make sure to check out whether these coaches played college ball anywhere, and give them appropriate categories for that.--Mike Selinker 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, most of them did — and most of them have been missed by our previous efforts. I've always added the full complement of player cats to coaches, I'm just disappointed that I didn't take the opportunity to do the opposite. So what are you saying, should we make cats for the coaches of the 170 "big time" schools as we find the first member, or stockpile them on a list (and in the program's cat) until there are 2 or 3? I agree with you and don't want to make a list like we did for players, especially since coaches often got their start at smaller schools than NFL players. That's question one. Question two, that I asked before: can we remove let's say an Idaho and Notre Dame coach from Category:College football coaches when he's put into Category:Notre Dame Fighting Irish football coaches? ×Meegs 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Also what about coaches that never coached at one of the "big 170" (like if Willie went from ECMA&M to the NFL, which does happen, or to fame outside of football). Do we need to keep Category:College football coaches open for them? We banned individuals from Category:College football players, but there we have the list. ×Meegs 20:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of questions. I think if we're going to do this, we should be consistent. So I suggest that a coach should get categories for all schools for which we've done football categories, and then should be removed from the main category. If a coach still doesn't move out of that category after that process, we should either do a football category for his school or create a side article or category for it. But he shouldn't stay in College football coaches. Still, this might end up being a totally theoretical debate. Keep a note for side cases and we'll deal with them at the end.--Mike Selinker 20:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not theoretical, because I just noticed we have an article on John Gagliardi. That guy deserves a category.--Mike Selinker 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And there are others too. It bothers me, removing someone that coached at Vermont and Michigan and ND from the general coaches category just because they're in the ND-specific coaches category, but I could go along with it in practice if we have 170 potential school categories. If we do that, there will probably only be about 5 or 10 or 20 coaches that still need to be in Category:College football coaches — and I wouldn't mind leaving them there. They might attract a few others periodically, but that's not too bad. So, in examples, the proposal is

• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame, UTEP} goes under ND and UTEP only
• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame} goes under ND only
• A coach for {Vermont, Notre Dame, Jets} goes under ND and Jets only
• A coach for {Vermont, Jets} goes under Jets and Category:College football coaches
• A coach for {Vermont} goes under Category:College football coaches

And none of the "big 170" football categories, nor NFL team categories, should have any coaches in them (unless they also held some other important post). ×Meegs 21:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Solid. Let's do it.--Mike Selinker 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's done. As predicted, we have 4 stragglers. Leave 'em alone? Make new categories? Also, are we clearing out Category:National Football League coaches? And further also, what do you want to do about the AFL coaches? People like Weeb Ewbank may need separate categories, but I'm not sure where you want those to feed into.--Mike Selinker 23:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave you alone!. Seriously, wow, you did that quickly. I say leave those four stragglers where they are. I've been crawling up and down the succession boxes of NFL head coaches for the last few days, putting them in all of the NFL and college cats at the same time, but haven't covered nearly the ground you have. And yeah, there's no doubt that we should clear out Category:National Football League coaches the same way.

Weeb Ewbank goes in Category:Baltimore Colts coaches and Category:New York Jets coaches. The AAFC/NFL Colts should get a cat when we come across their coaches, though. He didn't coach the NY Titans, but I'm receptive to making a category for them and the Jets (AFL), if anyone wants. Older names, unlike recent short-lived ones like Tennessee Oilers, might be pretty sparse for coaches though. ×Meegs 00:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do what you'd like with the AFL guys; I'm no expert on that era, and you guys seem to have it under control. The NFL coaches should be easily cleared out now that all the categories are established.--Mike Selinker 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know the first thing about the AFL either. I'm not really even that big a football fan, much less a historian. I posted to the project talk page, so hopefully Anthony will weigh-in on the matter. ×Meegs 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

punt returners

I hate that category. But it's there, and I'm not going to argue that it should go away. I do think that the special teams category is nonsense, but I can't argue that there are some people whose job it is to return punts.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)