User talk:Pethan

Vincent van Gogh

Hi,
Nice to see you are tidying up the categories. I was tempted to make the same change myself a couple of days ago. However for our man Vincent, there is a problem because he is already in Category:Vincent van Gogh which is a subcategory of Category:Dutch painters. As such he should probably not be duplicated in either Category:Dutch painters or Category:Painters, but that doesn't quite look right. I don't have an answer, categories can be tricky, but I thought I would mention it. -- Solipsist 21:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment :) You are right about Vincent, I will remove the Category Pethan 16:15, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

I have been going over this again. There is no such category as "Painters by nationality". Still I would like to make it possible for visitors of the Category:Dutch people to see all kinds of people, also painters. Under the Category:Painters it would be silly to see Picasso and not see Rembrandt. The best solution at the moment could be to use the Category:Dutch painters with all of them and the Category:Painters with the internationally famous (although this seems arbitrary) What do you think? Pethan 19:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

There is some general guidance on Wikipedia:Categorization, that suggests that an article should go into the most specific category available and not be duplicated in any of the parent Categories. I guess part of the thinking here is that the views of items in Categories is likely to change and improve in the future. So that at the moment, although don't see any of the Category:Dutch painters in Category:Painters view, that might become a configurable option. -- Solipsist 17:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the meantime I have taken this one step further: I removed all Dutch painters from Category:Painters in the hope that the same will happen to the other nationalities.

Also I may have persuaded User:Spinster to put some the Dutch painters into Category:Flemish painters. Ultimately, I imagine we should subcategorise the Category:Italian painters and possibly some of the other nationalities if there are enough of them. -- Solipsist 17:52, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Giuseppe Grisoni that was a tricky one.... -- Solipsist 19:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are really fast :) What to do with Belgian painters, like Ensor? Pethan 20:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My guess is there are not enough of them at the moment, so probably best to lump the Belgians in with the French, Germans and British in Category:Painters unless you feel this would imply POV. -- Solipsist 21:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Picking up further discussion on categories at Category talk:Art -- Solipsist 20:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sorting

I don't think there's an absolute rule to follow. It should be sorted under what English considers to be the last name, based on actual usage.

In this case, physics refers to "Van der Waals force", which is a strong indication that in English, the last name is considered to be "Van der Waals". In this case, the entire last name is sorted "as is".

In the case of "Antony van Leeuwenhoek", people talk about Leeuwenhoek microscopes or Leeuwenhoek's disease. But for Van der Waals, he is never referred to (in English) as just "Waals".

To take an analogy with German, there are many surnames with "von" but in many cases these are omitted when naming something after the person. For instance, "Joseph von Fraunhofer", but "Fraunhofer refractor" or "Fraunhofer diffraction". Thus, this is sorted undef "F". On the other hand, "John Von Neumann" is always "Von Neumann" and never just "Neumann", and therefore sorted under "V" ("Von Neumann architecture", not "Neumann architecture").

Similarly, in French, there are some names with "de" where the "de" is optional and can be dropped, such as "Pierre de Fermat" (sorted under "F"), and others where it cannot, such as "Charles de Gaulle" (sorted under "D").

It's on a case by case basis, based on actual usage, especially things named after the person ("Fermat's theorem" vs. "De Gaulle airport").

To take a completely different example, in Arabic "al Qaeda" and "al Jazeera" would undoubtedly be sorted under Q and J, but an English-speaking person would look for them under "A".

It's not reasonable to expect a user of an encyclopedia to be aware of the rules of each foreign language and sort names the way that that language would do so. It has to be based on actual usage in English, for an English-language encyclopedia, however illogical or inconsistent it might be.

-- Curps 16:46, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Good call on the categories for Winston Churchill. Don't be surprised if User:Pigsonthewing reverts your edit though. I've been having the same problem on Bill Oddie, as you can see on the talk pages. You might like to add to the discussion there. -- ~~

Daudelin and Ferron

I was curious why you chose to put Charles Daudelin and Marcelle Ferron into the category Canadian painters. Daudelin was far more famous for his sculpture than his painting, and Ferron for her stained glass. - Montréalais 05:35, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The reason I didn't complete the categorisation of these artists is that my aim in the last week has been to complete the national subcategories of the Category:Painters. My silent hope is that Users from these countries will then go through 'their painters' and complete the categorisation (other artistic genres and artistic period) as I will certainly do for the Dutch painters Pethan 06:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Lowry family of engravers

I am glad to see you have been able to categorise Joseph Wilson Lowry. I have been trying to do the same for his father, Wilson Lowry, but cannot get the coding to work. Can you have a go, please and I will see how you did it!! Many thanks Apwoolrich 13:30, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good articles! Are there images to be found to accompany them? The categorising went well. Pethan 17:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Hi Pethan, Nice job on adding images. But take care, I'm not sure that Image:Memling Shrine.jpg passes the photograph which just reproduces a painting test. So the copyright on the photograph could stand.

Some of the other images also contain the frame which would be risk.

I can't find Wikipedias policy on this point, but there is some better phrased information here [1] (http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/about/copyright-issues.html) -- Solipsist 19:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Solipsist, for the compliment and the warnings. It would be such a pity if Image:Memling Shrine.jpg wouldn't be possible, because it's so beautiful. Should I remove it or just wait for the verdict? I will take care for those frames too. Pethan 19:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll ask for further clarification on Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/copyright -- Solipsist 20:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just found where I saw the original discussion on this -Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Old_Pictures.3D and Wikipedia:Copyright_issues#Photo_of_a_painting - which you may want to check. -- Solipsist 07:13, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Art Categorisation (again)

Discussion moved to User talk:Solipsist -- Solipsist 10:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

American Sculptors

Hi, Pethan: i noticed that you hooked Rene PaulChambellan up with a United States Sculptors link. or something like that. if you are interested in doing more, my user page has a list of others, mostly sculptors, that I've written up. I don't think of these people as "Americans" as such, but if this is a way of catigorizing that makes sense to you, go for it. Carptrash 16:23, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash: principally what I have done is categorising Sculptors in the same way as Painters and Architects, because it was a very long list (more than 130). Categorising by nation seems a logical step. What I would like to do most is find images, because with the arts a picture does say more than 1,000 words. The copyright problem stands in the way, I am afraid. I will surely take a look at your list Pethan 17:07, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dutch municipalities

Hi Pethan, actually there was no need to tell me about those templates: I have the majority of the Dutch municipalities on my watch list, and your edits were really conspicuous. Good work!

About my project idea: it's not an official proposal as yet, so there's no reason you should have known about it, or followed the format. I'll probably move it out of my private userspace in a couple of days. Before I started that page, I looked around on the Dutch wikipedia, but couldn't find anything; now I've found nl:Wikipedia:Gemeente sjabloon, which looks good, and I'll certainly use some ideas from that page. If you have some ideas yourself about this project, don't hesitate to let me know; either on my talk page or on the project proposal at User:Eugene van der Pijll/WikiProject Dutch municipalities. Eugene van der Pijll 20:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The redirection of villages to their municipalities wasn't actually my idea. I picked it up from User:Patrick. But it's a good idea anyway :-) Eugene van der Pijll 20:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Breda

Pethan, I've made a few changes to Breda which should clear up a few things. Henry V refers to Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor. Apart from being H.R.E., he also was the lord of Breda. Eugene van der Pijll 21:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good work! A few things keep bugging me. Henry: I think now that Henry of Brunesheim (1080-1125) was meant, that gives the reader more information than Henry V. Alix: shouldn't we use the more usual Adelheid? Philip: what is the informational value of her father? To make a somewhat radical departure from the original text I propose the following, but won't implement it until I have had comment from you:

"In the 11th century Breda was a direct fief of the Holy Roman Emperor, its earliest known lord being Henry of Brunesheim (1080 - 1125). In 1327 Breda was sold by Adelheid of Gaveren and her husband Gerhard of Rasseghem to John III, Duke of Brabant." And maybe Gerhard of Rasseghem can be dispensed with too? Pethan 07:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right, Henry means Henry of Brunesheim. I made a mistake interpreting the article, and assumed that the link to Henry V was correct. The date of death of Henry V is also 1125, which confused both the original author and me, I presume. Alix (or Alice) is the English version of the German/Dutch name Adelheid. I don't know how common this translation is nowadays, and I can live with both versions. Your new text is OK with me. Eugene van der Pijll 09:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Terneuzen

I liked Houten, and I changed Terneuzen in the same way. I've added 1 thing to the infobox: land surface area. That is useful in cases like Medemblik. Also population density is now calculated on basis of land area. If we're both happy with this format, it might be time for me to rewrite the project page and to make it "official". Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Pethan, take a look at (the source code of) Maarssen. I defined a template for the infobox (see Template:Infobox Dutch municipality). I think it is easier to create the infoboxes this way; it's prettier in the edit window; and it's certainly easier if we want to change the format a bit. Eugene van der Pijll 23:05, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Stede Broec problem has been solved. The template now looks for an image called "LocatieStede_Broec.png", with an underscore. This means you have to rename the map before you upload it to the English wikipedia. I couldn't find any other way to get it working, unfortunately.

It is not possible to calculate the density automatically, I'm afraid. Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The file name in the template is based on the name of the page, not on the name of the municipality. This is for technical reasons. So the image for Soest, Netherlands has to be named LocatieSoest,_Netherlands.png , and the image for Wijk bij Duurstede should be at LocatieWijk_bij_Duurstede.png . I've uploaded these images in the right places. Eugene van der Pijll 16:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dutch categories

In response to your comment

Hi Aecis

and I have noticed that you have been categorising Dutch cities. I applaud the effort,

but IMO this category should be under Category:Geography of the Netherlands.

It happens there already was the Category:Cities in the Netherlands there.

How should we solve this? Pethan 17:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the best option would be to move the articles in Cities of the Netherlands to Dutch cities, since Dutch cities contains more articles than Cities of the Netherlands, which would make moving the articles easier. Cities of the Netherlands could then be deleted. I think Dutch topography is different from Dutch geography, and therefore deserving of a category of its own. Aecis 17:21, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Part 2

You said:

I agree with moving the cities to your new category, but I really think that cities should be under the same

subcategory of Category:Netherlands where provinces, municipalities, rivers etc. are to be found.

So I would like to suggest to moving Category:Dutch cities to Category:Geography of the Netherlands.

Could you agree? Pethan 17:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My answer is short but simple: yes, I can agree with it :) Aecis 19:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikiproject Dutch municipalities

Hi Pethan, I just wanted to tell you the Wikiproject has gone official. Eugene van der Pijll 23:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the project page yourself, if you have any good ideas! You don't need my permission to change it, we're all equal here. I've changed the wording of the suggested introduction a bit. I don't know about linking to town, city, etc. but if you want to, that's fine. Eugene van der Pijll 19:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alfred van Cock

Alfred van Cock: can you verify? Mikkalai 17:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Italian Architects

I have just added two more to the above page Scamozzi and Longhena, however they have gone in alphabetically under their christian names, do you know how to fix it? - Sorry Giano 15:47, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Vincent van Gogh

I just saw that you had blanked this a couple months ago, without comment, and without replacing it with any structure to group together the main Vincent van Gogh article, the articles on his paintings, and his eponymous museum in Amsterdam. I can't say that the category was absolutely the best solution, but I still can't think of anything better. What was your reasoning? Postdlf 03:44, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What I remeber of it: it was a category with just two articles and not much hope of receiving more. And van Gogh was the only painter handled this way. Pethan 12:01, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's reason to expand the treatment to other painters, not to blank this one. And you didn't think that there would be more articles on van Gogh paintings? Postdlf 15:22, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Pethan's decision was a good one at the time. Many of the artistic categories were a complete hodge-podge in July/Aug. I remember thinking the van Gogh category looked out of place of over zealous. Since then Pethan and others have done a lot of work rationalising the artistic categories and spliting them into country based sub cats. It may be that there is a case for reinstating a van Gogh category now, along with similar cats for some other major artists, but even then I'm not sure the category should be Category:Vincent van Gogh but rather Category:Work of Vincent van Gogh or some other sort of parallel category. Either way I would recommend opening it up for more general discussion. -- Solipsist 16:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit&section=new)) (talk)}[[]] 14:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following images:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 22:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Also, don't forget Image:Accama Anna van Hannover.jpg --Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. I have mentioned the source and the pictures are hundreds of years old. What more do you want?Pethan 10:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize. If you look at the image copyright tags page, you'll see that art is based on the number of years that have passed since the artist's death. It is completely my fault, as I should have noted the author's name and (following the link on the page itself) realized that he died in 1756 and tagged it appropriately. Fortunately for me, Evil Monkey has already done so. Sorry again. --Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:36, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Pethan"