User talk:Hikitsurisan
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I just wanted to say, brilliant job with the music page. It was quite sad before, and you've written a really helpful, accessible article -MBlume 01:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish I'd done that myself =)
I was looking at the French article on music, mainly to see if it was linked here, and the image was there. The image doesn't belong to any one wikipedia, it's in the commons, so I was able to just insert a tag and put it in this one -MBlume 21:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Pictures
The ther option you have:
- gallery... /gallery (as a html like tag). Images the are: Image:... | Description. This is used mainly whehn there are many imahes with little text.
-- Eptalon 05:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, image uploads are not allowed on this Wikipedia. You can upload free images to Wikimedia Commons and link to them just like you would here, but fair use images are not allowed. For more information, see Wikipedia:Image use policy. Billz 14:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar
You have done a great job with all of the music articles and you thoroughly deserve a Simple English Wikipedia Barnstar. This is the fifth one of the project, so congratulations. Thank you very much for all your hard work. Billz (Talk) 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Categories
There is a section at the top of my user page that has some of the information about the structure I am using to rework the categories. For the most part, Acordian players are pretty much out of luck. As you pointed out, there isnt likely going to be enough of them to get a category, let alone a country based category. Violinists is currently only at 6 total, so its not a large threat but it could get there eventually. Basically, once there are 3-5 similar articles (Violinist who are all English for example) then it is time to create a sub-category (English violinists) and connect it up (connects to cat:Violinists and Cat:English musicians).
Large categories like Composers realy did need to be cleaned up and with so many there were many with similar connections (same country) so subcats were do-able. There are still some composers left in there, mainly because there is only one or two from a country - not enough for a subcat yet. If there is enough pages with the some connection, and its a viable connection (cat:Blond composers may not be a good idea) then go for it. Something like Cat:Composers by period with subcats for the magor musical periods would be a workable idea so long as there are enough article to be placed in a period. And not all periods need be done at once. If there are only enough for 1 period, you could creat that period (Baroque composers) and link it to composers and then when you have 3 or more categories for periods, you could make them subcats for cat:composers by period.
All categories with a large number of entries with something similar realy do need to be split up to help clean. Wether it be people, animals, sciences or tools, subcats help make things easier to deal with in the long run. One thing to remember though. (Almost) never but an item in a category and a subcat of that category (Cat:English musicians and Cat:English composers). Alway put it in the lowest category. And if you know you are going to need a category soon, its not always a bad idea to leave a redlinked category on a page. If you know it will get the 3 articles it needs, Its often easier to tag it now than to hunt it down later (this is a big thing with birth and death cats)
Have fun, and if you have any cats questions, feel free to ask. -- Creol(talk) 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
A part of the um.. Joy of categories is that everything has to be done by hand (well, bots can do it to, but thats not the point.) In the current case, just tag the 2 categories that are mistakes with the QD template with a reason that they are not needed categories (deletion rule C1) .
Changing the name as far as I know is not possible. Category redirects may work, but that is probably not a good idea. The best way is to re-edit each page in the category to the correctly named page, create the category page with cat-links as needed (most likely the same as the old category page - just copy/paste it), then tag the old category page for deletion if it will not be used. If you are the person that created the cat page that is being marked for deletion, taking advantage of the deletion rules (G7 - creater blanked pages) will remove the duplicate-like entry from the cat they both link into. Removing the category link from the page and leaving it with just its description (if it has one) and the delete template can help prevent confusion. -- Creol(talk) 12:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] High and low
Actually, "you" was in that article 10 times. 6 times in examples, 4 times in explainations. All 10 times it was a fairly easy to just shift the context a little or go with a slightly different example to remove the you. (ie. His opinion of her rather than his opinion of you) Unless you are talking directly to someone, "You" should never be used. As an encyclopedia, there are very few cases when we should be writing as if we are talking to someone (talk pages, policy pages, maintenance templates, etc being those cases). There is almost always a way to work around using the word "you". -- Creol(talk) 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I tagged the article with the cleanup tag mainly do to the layout and lack of a strong defining openning statement. The first line of any article should tell the reader exactly what the subject is. The rest of the article is there to fill in the details. This article didnt have an opening statement. It also lacked format. The information was there, but just didnt flow well. I went through it, cleaned up the intro and reformated it extensively. Not the greatest thing in the world (most times I am just happy to spell everything correctly) but a much cleaner layout. -- Creol(talk) 16:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] finnish language
I meant, finnish 'รค' is pronounced as 'a' in english word 'cat' Template:Unsgined
[edit] Simplified Prison=
I simplified the article. Thanks for notifying me about it! :)-- Tdxiang 09:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CHopin
Hi, are you administrator, much easier to become on simple wiki? Anyways, chopin said only he knows details on his birth, was he born 1809., he claims March 1,but baptismal certificate clearly says 2 22, may be he was baptised on march 1 and that's where confusion comes from, baptised, born in Christ on that day?
- Reply added on discussion page of Chopin article.Hikitsurisan 12:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)