User talk:SilkTork/Archives/Archive 30

		The Rock music Barnstar
		I just had the pleasure of reading Chuck Berry, the article looks great and reads even better. You deserve this for your effort in getting it to Good Article status. J04n(talk page) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated! SilkTork *^YES! 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, okay let's split this into manageable sub-templates, as you were originally going to do anyway. Support will be from myself and the admin who suggested this to me Rodhullandemu. The reason I'm now for this, is because the current template will not accept any more links to it without over-stepping the template's side-boundaries, where as the entire template must be visible on one's computer monitor without doing any side-scrolling. If you still want to do this, of which now I think you were right, it definately needs it! Also, it's time a new standard is set. Check out the most recent edits done between me and an anon, and you will understand why. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm keen to help on this. And thanks for the nudge. Such is my grasshopper mind that I hop onto an article or issue, get involved, then get distracted and hop off somewhere else and so on, and often things I really want to get involved with get left behind in the compulsion of discovering something new to munch. I try to keep track of stuff with my To do list, and my watchpage, but the actual managing of those things can encourage distraction in itself! I look at my watchlist, and there are several things there that call my attention. Anyway, I'll take a look later today or tomorrow. I'm being pressed to sort out the organ harvesting of Falun Gong people first, and I'd like to make some progress on that in my limited Wiki time this morning - though I have also got some real life writing tasks that are pressing - a CV to finish for tomorrow, and a tricky article that needs progressing for a Monday deadline. SilkTork *^YES! 08:02,

10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellant work on this, as its quite good! Might you merge in the main template the DVD and documentary groups into one group called Videography, please, as not all titles are DVD releases, and future ones will be Blu-ray releases (if you choose, that is). Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You may want to ring in on the RfM survey at Tree shaping->Arborsculpture RfM at some point during the next seven days. Blackash have a chat 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That was an excellant job you done on Template:The Rolling Stones, great work! ... So, how about this now; are you thinking what I'm thinking! LOL! Best, --Discographer (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How long ago did I put that split suggestion in Columbia–Wrightsville Bridge? Anyway, I will probably not get to that. I've been staring at my latest work in progress for months and only been making spot edits here and there. If you think it's still worthwhile, you should leave the split template in there and perhaps someone else has more round-tuits. --J Clear (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only person I am aware of who is dealing with the Split requests is myself. If a discussion does not develop soon after tagging, then the tag remains on the article without any action being done until I get to it. You are the person who feels that some action needs to be taken, and if your assertions are correct then there is nothing to prevent you from going ahead and doing those actions; nobody has objected, and there is no need for admin action. However, I am unwilling to do those actions myself as I don't know the topic, so it would mean researching into the history of all the bridges concerned to ensure what I was doing is correct. If you don't feel that the situation is important enough for you to do it, and nobody else has felt like doing it in the 18 months since the article was tagged, then I am quite happy to leave things as they are, with a record on the talkpage of the request and response. SilkTork *^YES! 10:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Which building are you refering to here?. Anheuser-Busch is a company that operates "12 breweries in the United States and nearly 20 in other countries", so has 32 buildings around the world that could be termed as an Anheuser-Busch brewery. The main building, and the one that is listed as a National Historic Landmark is Anheuser-Busch_brewery#St._Louis_headquarters_and_brewery, which is in St Louis. It seems likely that somebody putting in a search for the "Anheuser-Busch brewery" might be looking specifically for the St Louis building, or at the least for information about the beer company that has its headquaters in St Louis. I can see that at times a brewery building in itself is of interest, such as the ones that are on the National Register of Historic Places. When that happens, a brewery company article can be placed in the appropriate brewery company cat and the appropriate National Register of Historic Places cat. I'm not clear on what advantage is gained by using the Breweries (buildings) cat, though would be quite happy to talk through some of the issues with you if you wish. SilkTork *^YES! 16:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to not want to have brewing related buildings listed in building and structure categories like every other building. I strongly believe that the listed building should have it's own article and not be a part of the company article. At least for the time being, the categories are on the redirect which helps some. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to help out here, though I am unclear what you have in mind. Do you want to have a category just for listed buildings that are or were breweries, or do you want to have a category for all buildings that were, are or contain a brewery? SilkTork *^YES! 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes every notable building should have an article. By extension, every notable brewery building should have an article and be in the correct building trees. Category:Breweries (buildings) in the United States should be a well populated category. It appears that someone has again emptied this out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am personally fond of and interested in old brewery buildings, and am a member of The Brewery History Society; I write articles on old breweries, and will go out of my way to visit old breweries and take photos of them (or what remains of them! most are turned into shopping centres or housing), so I would be keen to have some way to identify and categorise the more notable buildings. Unfortunately the majority of brewery companies do not have notable buildings, so I wonder if coming out of a general buildings super cat is the right route. The most notable brewery buildings usually belong to the older brewery companies, though often the notability is attached to the brewery company rather than the architectural features of the building - such as a famous person living in a certain house. The heritage listing process tends to identify quite well those buildings, brewery or otherwise, that are notable. Perhaps a sub cat could be created out of Category:Heritage registers, rather like Category:National Inventory Pubs? And the cat named so that it is clear what the category is about: Category:Listed brewery buildings perhaps? SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject, categories are for defining characteristics of articles. If a building is known for its brewing history, that would make it a defining element of the subject. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

If the article is about a brewery business, then it is not about the building, though it may mention a building. The article about Chuck Berry mentions that he lived in a "small three room brick cottage with a bath" in Whittier Street, which is now on the National Register of Historic Places, but that he lived in a notable building does not mean the Chuck Berry article gets categorised under Category:National Register of Historic Places in Missouri. Anheuser-Busch is not a building, it is a company. It owns several buildings - one of which is listed. What I am interested in doing here is finding the best way of categorising articles, and I don't see what Category:Breweries (buildings) is doing, as I am not clear on its function - it appears to simply note that a brewing company may be using a building as a brewery, which would be self-evident from the basic brewing cats. Vegaswikian is now saying that he feels that it would be useful for notable brewery buildings to be categorised. I'm interested in exploring that, and have given a suggestion above. SilkTork *^YES! 10:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that we appear to have different views on how best to categorise the Molson Brewery, Edmonton article. The article appears to be about a company that ran a brewery from 1913 until 2007, and is now closed. As such it is a defunct brewery company, and it seems appropriate to categorise it as a Defunct brewery company. As the building is in Edmonton it seems appropriate to categorise it as one of the Buildings and structures in Edmonton. I am unclear what advantage is gained by categorising it as Breweries (buildings) - when it is no longer a brewery, and the category itself is not clear? The article is about a building in Edmonton and a defunct brewery company, and as such is appropriately categorised. We have an existing category system for breweries that deals well with both existing and closed breweries - it starts at Category:Beer. There is also a very good cat structure for buildings which starts at Category:Buildings and structures. There is an existing junction within these cat structures where breweries as functional buildings meet from Category:Buildings and structures by type → Category:Industrial buildings → Category:Manufacturing plants → Category:Manufacturing plants in the United Kingdom → Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom - and then for closed companies: Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom; from Category:Beer → Category:Beer and breweries by region → Category:Beer and breweries in Europe → Category:Beer and breweries in the United Kingdom - and then for closed companies: Category:Defunct brewery companies of the United Kingdom. This seems to work well enough. However, it might be worth us having a discussion to see if you feel that this system could be improved. SilkTork *^YES! 11:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

My concern with categorizing this as a "company" is that this same brewery (building) was owned by several breweries (companies) over it's 90-odd year existence. For the majority of its lifespan it was owned by Montreal-based Molson, Canada's largest brewer, and produced major commercial beers. It certainly was not an independent company, and hadn't been for many decades. This article deals primarily with the history of the facility, in all phases of its life. It is not primarily about the former company or companies that owned it in the distant past. Therefore I think calling it a company is inappropriate. But you may disagree, and I'd be happy to hear your side of it. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you identify a problem with the wording of the Defunct brewery cat - it does say "brewery company". The main brewery cats ("Beer and breweries by region") do not specify companies, and are more flexible as a result. However, the nature of breweries (as with most companies) is that they do change hands (and names, and sometimes location) - but we still categorise them as a business entity rather than as a building. The Molson Brewery, Edmonton article, as written, is about a business entity. The actual brewery building - an asset of that business entity - is mentioned in article, though a "a fur trade fort called Molson House" which stands in front of the brewery building is also mentioned. I'm not clear how much items which are mentioned in articles should be categorised. SilkTork *^YES! 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other, let me start again. I think should have distinct categories called Category:Brewing companies (or Category:Beer companies or similar) and a seperate Category:Breweries (buildings). Then this confustion would go away. It would be simple to decide where an article goes. Molson is a company. The Molson brewery in Edmonton is a building. Anhauser-Busch is a company. The Anhauser-Busch brewery in St. Louis is a building. I get the impresssion Vegaswikian would also support this scheme. If you agree we should jointly propose it to WP:BEER, so that we can get on with writing more articles about the breweries we love. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking past each other. I think we talking to each other and are working together to find an appropriate way of categorising articles.

Which articles do you feel would go in Category:Breweries (buildings)? I'll list those breweries whose name starts with A, from the UK, Belgium and Germany, and those from the American states starting with A. Which ones do you feel would fit into Category:Breweries (buildings)?

Olde Towne Brewing Company, Alaskan Brewing Company, Midnight Sun Brewing Company, Silver Gulch Brewing & Bottling Company, Four Peaks Brewery, Rio Salado Brewing Company, Diamond Bear Brewing Company, Abbey Ales Brewery, Adnams Brewery, Andwells Brewery, Arkell's Brewery, Aston Manor Brewery, Augustiner Bräu, Ayinger Brewery, Achel Brewery, Brasserie d'Achouffe, Alken-Maes and Picobrouwerij Alvinne.

The Adnams brewery building - Sole Bay - is an attractive building, and it may be possible to cull together enough comments about the building itself to create a worthwhile section within the Adnams Brewery article. Though the building is not listed, and direct comments are few and far between.

The Arkell's Brewery building is Grade II listed, and this could be appropriately placed in Category:Listed brewery buildings.

The Augustiner Bräu building is listed, so could be appropriately placed in Category:Listed brewery buildings.

Ayinger Brewery have a new building with modern brewing equipment that would be worth mentioning in the article, but the building is not listed, or particularly notable.

I see two breweries having buildings significant enough to be categorised, and would support the creation of a cat for that purpose, with a name that clarified what the cat was for, such as Category:Listed brewery buildings (and would be interested to hear your views on that name, or alternative suggestions). My main problem with Category:Breweries (buildings) is that the name doesn't signify what articles should be placed in that cat. SilkTork *^YES! 09:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that any of those would go into Category:Breweries (buildings), because most of them lack reliable sources discussing the architecture or history of the buildings, as opposed to the companies which own them. However, with your proposal for Category:Listed brewery buildings, you are on to something good. That would be an acceptable intersection of Category:Listed buildings by function and Category:Breweries (buildings) in the United Kingdom. And hopefully, there would be very few articles about brewery buildings in the UK that aren't about listed buildings, since virtually any notable building in the UK is listed. Same for American breweries on the National Register of Historic Places and its state and local equivalents. However in Canada it is much different as we have fewer breweries and a much weaker system of heritage protection. But in general most buildings in which beer is brewed are not notable and will not have been written about by 3rd party sources (like a gov't heritage agency). However, ALL those breweries buildings which are part of a major heritage register are inherently notable and need an article and need to be categorized in a building category. For some this could mean just one article covering both the building and the company, but for many there will be a separate article for each. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

{{rfctag}}

What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 06:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

SilkTork, would you mind my removing the NPOV tag from the article now? It has been there for more than three months, there are no current discussions, nor has there ever been a cogent argument why the article should fail NPOV. As it is, it is just long-term defacement of a GA. --JN466 12:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware I have neglected attending to that issue. I will take a look at it. SilkTork *^YES! 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, at Template talk:Customer loyalty programs there is a bit of controversy concerning what you did.

76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads ups. I'm comfortable with people wishing to question something I've done because I do sometimes make mistakes, sometimes misread situations, sometimes take the wrong route, and sometimes I'm not in line with consensus. I don't think there is much controversy here, though, as {{Customer loyalty programs}} is a useful template and the Nectar one wasn't. When I happened upon it, I improved it. I'm a strong and bold editor, which can sometimes lead to people being disturbed, but I'm not an aggressive or stubborn editor. If I note that someone disagrees with an edit of mine, I'll open or enter a discussion to see if there's something I've missed, or to clarify my thinking, or to look to see if there's a different route to be taken. SilkTork *^YES! 22:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Though this is a somewhat late reply, thank you for the barnstar endorsement. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Steve!

I see you've been busy at the 'transplants' article, and that you changed the title - for the better, I might add. I've just gone in and done some copyediting. I've left detailed edit summaries where appropriate, but please do let me know if you have issues with any of my changes. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't think I would have any problems with your edits - I would think the edits would be constructive and helpful. I'll take a look later. I am working toward the Falun Gong allegations and the Kilgour-Matas report - it's taken a time as I needed to get the background right, and the context for the allegations, and to assess the impact those allegations made to the situation in China regarding organ transplantation. There was an initial sense that the attention that the allegations attracted may have had a big impact on China modifying their attitude and their legislation toward organ harvesting, organ donation and organ trading, though the background reading shows that there was already a fair degree of attention focused on China transplantation programme, and it is difficult to assess what impact it had.

The amount of material on Falun Gong in that article is too much for several reasons - including WP:UNDUE, and I fully support splitting out per WP:Summary style into a standalone article.

While doing background research for the article, it appears that China was not alone in international organ trading, and I felt it was appropriate to bring that awareness into the article to put things in context. Also, a number of the organisations cited for raising concerns about China's transplant programme were raising a general concern about organ trading, not always concerns specifically about China's organ trade.

We need to be fair, balanced and neutral in all our articles, even when dealing with immoral activity. What is frustrating about working on the article is that a lot of material was published before the internet was really established, so it is difficult to get hold of some of the news reports, publications and documentaries that I have seen mentioned. I'd like to see some of the websites which are mentioned as having advertised organs for sale in China - but my searching has turned up nothing so far. I think the Chinese authorities have removed them and all traces.

Regards as always. SilkTork *^YES! 09:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, many other poor countries have organ trade 'problems' - the article already mentions India. I read an article a few months back which focussed on a slum village in the Philippines where a sizeable proportion of adults have only one kidney, because these people sell them to get out of hardship... more anon. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which failed with 10 support, 26 oppose, and 13 neutral. Your comments were much appreciated.

--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask what your reason is in removing items like Category:Snooker from the category? Christopher Connor (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been sorting out the Pub Games cat. Articles on sports related to pub games should be in the Pub Games cat, but not entire cat systems. So Darts is appropriate, but not Category:Darts, and so on. SilkTork *^YES! 09:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 

I reverted your move for the Bombing of Dresden article, See Talk:Bombing of Dresden in World War II#Moving page from World War II to Second World War for an explanation. -- PBS (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied on talkpage: The move followed existing guidelines - WP:TIES. This is a topic about a European event, and so would normally follow European terminology (Second World War is the usage outside of America). The American air force were involved, and that adds an extra dimension, however, as it was mainly a British operation against a German city, and the terms "Second World War" are already used in the article, it is an appropriate move and I wouldn't have thought would be contentious. A possibility is simply renaming it Bombing of Dresden - which is what the German language and other language articles do. SilkTork *^YES! 09:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you think that "World War II" is exclusively American see for example this link. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Second World War is the standard usage outside America, though you will, of course, find examples of WWII outside America, same as you will find examples of American spellings outside America. It's not a question of exclusivity - it's a question of standard usage, and maintaining appropriate cultural identity - it would be wrong to disregard or blank over the history and development of the term itself, so we need to be aware of WP:Systemic bias and the demographic of Wikipedia's editors, who are mainly young Americans possibly unaware that the term Second World War has a resonance for people in Europe that the term World War II does not have. Incidently, the book that you have linked to is also available as The Oxford Companion to the Second World War. In the main European books will use the title Second World War, though if the book is to be marketed in America as well, the publishers will tend to use World War II. I assert again that Wikipedia's guidelines and ethos is that where there is a strong cultural tie to a terminology then that is what should be used. That other stuff exists or it may require a bit of work to do something, should never prevent us from Doing The Right Thing. SilkTork *^YES! 11:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in writing the section that WP:TIES links to, and argued long and hard with SV that articles about the treaties and institutions of the European Union should be in British English. But that was never meant to cover Europe in general, just the articles about the European Union because the European Union uses British English for all the same reasons that we have the policy in the first place. However if an American starts an article on a German river or Finish heavy metal band and uses American spelling there is no reason that those should be converted to British English, and that was never what was agreed. -- PBS (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also "Second World War" in German, French, Czech, Spanish, Italian etc, etc. This is not about British English, this is about the entire continent in which the war was mainly fought. And elswhere as well - China. It is generally accepted that World War II is an American term, and that the rest of the world uses Second World War. It would be inappropriate to try to push this into a British only terminology. As I say, the term has emotional significance and resonance with a good number of people who read Wikipedia, though it likely has less significance for the majority who write Wikipedia. There is sometimes a conflict between the creators of Wikipedia and the audience - and I suspect that this may be such a conflict. The way out of the problem is not to disregard the sensibilities of those who may have fought in or been impacted by the Second World War merely because the first person who edited an article is American - that is again disregarding the creeping influence of WP:Systemic bias. Where there are no national ties to a topic it makes sense to have a simple means to decide the way an article develops, and the first main editor is one such means; and I'm not arguing that the World War II article should be renamed, as it was a global event, and that is a central article, but where the article is about an event which took place in Europe then it does make sense to use the term that is most common in Europe, and is the term that other language Wikipedias also use.

There is also the rather elegant solution of simply calling it Bombing of Dresden, as there is actually no need to use "in WWII" at all. I do believe that the sources would be calling it "Bombing of Dresden" or "Destruction of Dresden" or "Fire-bombing of Dresden" or some such, though there may be more general sources which may be called "Bombing during WWII" or some such. But specific articles or books would not need to addend the period in which it occured, as that is understood - as with Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. SilkTork *^YES! 17:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)