User talk:Jpbowen/Archive 4
Jonathan Bowen
A {{
Museophile
A {{
Changes to disambiguation pages
Hi. I see you're narrowing the categories on dab pages and also add links to words. Please be aware that
- OK, thanks for the information, I will bear it in mind in future. — Jonathan Bowen 21:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The boundaries of the WikiProject Systems
Hi, Jonathan. I hope you enjoyed your stay in Dubai. I just had a nice time with friend in the States in Detroit and Atlanta. When I came back I found that the WikiProject Systems was deleted form the articles Polar coordinate system and Solar System. A view weeks ago I had put some messages on the talk pages there, see [1] and [2]. Because nobody responded there, I have put WikiProject template back. I keep wondering however, if this was a wise thing to do... Or if these articles should be beyond the boundaries of the WikiProject Systems. I wonder if you could give me your opinion about this? And maybe some feed back on my message? Thanks - Mdd 18:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hello, Marcel, I am back (although busy editing a now). The comment given with the change was "not an engineered system" for both of these. WikiProject Systems covers all sorts of system, whether engineered or not (in my view). Certainly the Solar system is a physical system in our context. I believe that Polar coordinate system can be considered as a conceptual (mathematical) system, although perhaps this is more arguable. I think we can define the boundaries within reason. We are not just concerned with engineered systems in any case. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 20:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)]
Thanks for this feedback, I also noticed the "not an engineered system"-argument on both articles brought forward by user:Potatoswatter, who is at the Wikipedia on 16 November 2006. Since there is no further response, I guess he's on his own with his argument. I agree with you, that... (I place this statement apart):
- ... the WikiProject Systems covers all sorts of systems, whether engineered or not.
I'll get back on this. You also wondered about the categorisation of both articles. At this moment (sorry that this takes some time to explain):
- Solar systems is in Category:Solar System
And the Polar coordinate system article is in the Category:Coordinate systems with you on 23 april put in Category:Conceptual systems.
Now a thing is that I brought the article
In between the Category:Solar System, Category:Planetary systems and Category:Astronomical dynamical systems are not in the WikiProject Systems. Even so is the other article in between, the article Coordinate system, not in the WikiProject Systems. The reason their not is, because I started tagging Systems articles from the Category:Systems down.
Now I can come to the point. I guess I started tagging systems articles about three categories down from the Category:Systems... and with this action I selected about some 400 articles. If we want to cover all the systems articles in Wikipedia, we probably have a lot more things to do.... The question remains where to put the boundaries. Maybe you can give me some sort feedback on your ideas about this. - Mdd 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (Ps. With your premission I copy part of this discussion to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems so other can see this too).
- I think articles choose should fit in with the Wikipedia definition and description of a system. If necessary, update this page in line with the scope of the Wikipedia Systems project scope (and/or vice versa!). I hope this helps. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I will start the discussion on the boundaries of the WikiProject System some other time on the WikiProject Systems talkpage. It's a complicated matter, and not that urgent at the moment. I just wanted to stimpulate it here. I do agree however with you, that the description of a
You may have noticed that Kenneth M Burke left the WikiProject Systems. I guess he got demotivated from the reactions after his big efforts at the systems theory article. He also told me, he has other priorities now... probably with a new job. It's a pity he left so sone. I also tru to get some more clearness in the demotivating reactions on the talkpage... with all seem to come from one person using multiple anonymous IP adresses. This is a rather messy business, were I have to improvice. I'll keep you informed. Good luck with your proceedings. - Mdd 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The systems theory article
I've seen you tagged the systems theory article some more. To be true, I have not been reading in details all changes made by Kenneth M Burke. I've only had second thoughts about the importance of the Macy conferences, but didn't look much further. Now that he back off I suddenly see taggs appearing and see for example some strange use of the word GST. Can you tell me your opinion on the current Systems theory article? - Mdd 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is over-long and rambling. I'm not enough of an expert to give it a major edit, but I would suggest just cutting significant chunks that don't seem relevant in an encyclopedic article. If you are knowledgeable enough, feel free to do so! People can always add them back if there is disagreement. — Jonathan Bowen 22:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I guess I could say that I'm an expert on
- I can always give an article a copy-edit after you have had a go if you let me know. — Jonathan Bowen 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I made a start on the talk:systems theory page with explaining what is wrong with the current article. Maybe you check (and maybe fill in the blanks of) my contribution, and maybe add some of your own comments? - Mdd 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
A Debora Hammond article
I made a start with a Debora Hammond article. Maybe you could take a look a it, see if it needs some more copy-editing. I got a tip (on my talk-page) to nominate this article to appear metioned on the Main Page. Maybe the nomination is even more important (I changed it a little, see [3]), and needs the finising though from an expert. You help will be more then welcome here. Thanks - Mdd 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Notability changes
Hi Jonathan, thanks for tidying up the Joep Gommers article. Saw you added a notability notice. I've added some articles and links, hopes this satisfies the criteria. Much more links to be found on google et cetera, but none worth while mentioning. Hope this information finds you well. Sincerely, Marc (193.172.235.130)
- Thanks for your feedback. I guess the Wikipedia notability experts will rule on this in due course. — Jonathan Bowen 19:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Museum 'Documentation' etc
Hi Jonathan, I noticed your edit to Louise Kirkby Lunn categs, and then your Reading connection and your Museum interest. I was in Reading as a teenager (next door to Whiteknights Pk) and was Keeper of archaeology collections at Ipswich for a decade. Ipswich Museum has a very interesting history and I wrote an article about that, too. By 'documentation' do you mean describing the institutions as they are, or the collections? or both? or (as I did) their curatorial dynasties? best wishes Dr Steven Plunkett 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Steven, thank you for your note. By "documenting museums", I mean contibuting to the "collection" of museums on Wikipedia and cataloging them (using Wikipedia categories). I hope this converse explanation helps! Probably only large (e.g., national) museums need more that cursory information on their collections within Wikipedia, but I have created a Wikia wiki under http://museums.wikia.com/ for museums (and people associated with museums) that wish to include wiki-based information online that is not suitable for Wikipedia. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)]
- Nice work - I have bookmarked it and will come back to it shortly when a little spare time permits. Greetings, Dr Steven Plunkett 21:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{
- I have added more to the article and restructured it with sections. This is important as a (popular) cultural term as well as being a nickname for a couple. — Jonathan Bowen 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- In case you hadn't noticed, the article is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Posh and Becks. I voted delete because I don't think this term is notable enough for a separate article (though it certainly should be mentioned in V and D's articles). NickelShoe (Talk) 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Proposed deletions of virtual art galleries
Another editor has added the "{{
- In my view, these are notable examples of virtual art galleries. I have added more to the articles to indicate this. — Jonathan Bowen 23:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bran Point
Thanks for creating the article on Bran Point last July. You wrote: "The geology of the area is particularly interesting." Can you find some description of the geology there? All the article says now is what you wrote in the original stub, "The coastline in the area is formed from rocks and shingle with exposed cliffs behind." --Bejnar 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I added some further geological information. Thank you for your interest. — Jonathan Bowen 07:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
New systems categories
Thanks for creating the systems science category. Maybe you can give a short response on the question I have asked about this on the WikiProject Systems talkpage - Mdd 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems#A new Category:Systems science. I think the Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. Thanks for the further updates. — Jonathan Bowen 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- This further update leaves the Category:Systems rather useless. I wonder want you are thinking of that? - Mdd 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I would leave Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory at the top level. As an engineer, there is more to engineering that just science. I certainly don't think the top level is useless, it is a good high-level container for all aspects of systems. — Jonathan Bowen 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory also in the Category:systems is acceptable. By creating a Category:Systems I personally think you have created a new top level category beside the category:systems. A loop between the two categories is necessary. - Mdd 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Category loops are not allowed on Wikipedia. (It will get deleted by someone eventually if created.) Of course the ordering of categories is open to debate. But I think the Category:Systems category is the best high-level contain for all things to do with systems because of the simplicity of the name. Adding "science" (for instance) limits the area to scientific aspects (which is fine as a particular category under systems). I hope this is helpful (and convincing!). Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree more and less that categories with "science" added should limits the area to scientific aspects and to the subjects the sciences are about. After creating an Category:Systems science the most logical place for the Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory is in that category. This categories shouldn't also be in the parent and child category because of Wikipedia rules. And easy solution here seems to me to put the category:systems under the category:systems science or even easier to delete it. - Mdd 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Category loops are not allowed on Wikipedia. (It will get deleted by someone eventually if created.) Of course the ordering of categories is open to debate. But I think the Category:Systems category is the best high-level contain for all things to do with systems because of the simplicity of the name. Adding "science" (for instance) limits the area to scientific aspects (which is fine as a particular category under systems). I hope this is helpful (and convincing!). Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory also in the Category:systems is acceptable. By creating a Category:Systems I personally think you have created a new top level category beside the category:systems. A loop between the two categories is necessary. - Mdd 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I would leave Category:Systems engineering and Category:Systems theory at the top level. As an engineer, there is more to engineering that just science. I certainly don't think the top level is useless, it is a good high-level container for all aspects of systems. — Jonathan Bowen 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- This further update leaves the Category:Systems rather useless. I wonder want you are thinking of that? - Mdd 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with this since I think the Category:Systems should include non-(hard) scientific aspects (e.g., economics, law, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc., as under Category:Conceptual systems) and also fits well under the Category:Structure category. Would you include also these under (just) systems science - I don't think it would be appropriate. If we had to delete one I would delete Category:Systems science but I don't see a good reason to delete either. (Indeed I can see good reasons to have it with the additional categories that you have created.) Systems in general are interdisciplinary, not just scientific. I hope this convinces you that there is more to systems than systems science. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- There is not doubt of that. I personally see this a bit like "museums" vs. "science museums", "literature" vs. "scientific literature", etc. You can have a category in one category and a parent category if the circumstances warrant it. For example, engineering is largely scientific, but includes other aspects, so I think warrants being under "systems" and "systems science" (for example). Do shoot down the argument above if you disagree! I am assuming you see it differently, but do say more explicitly why if this is the case and where you think the non-scientific aspects should live without an overall systems category. — Jonathan Bowen 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Marcel, I just checked and cycles are discouraged but allowed in certain circumstances — see Wikipedia:Categorization#Cycles should usually be avoided. It could be argued that this is one of those circumstances — so do re-add "systems" under "systems science" if you feel strongly about this! — Jonathan Bowen 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have copied this dialogue to the WikiProject Systems talk page and will further respond there, because there are things I want to discust that concern the whole WikiProject. - Mdd 12:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Ht-//dig
A {{
- I am glad to see someone has removed this notice. Ht-//dig remains notable. Even if it is now used less, it should remain as a historical record for those interested in the history of computing (like me!). — Jonathan Bowen 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)]
ARSA Redirect
Could you take a look at the discussion I started on the ARSA redirect page? (Unsigned entry added by: TheodoreB, 18:26, 5 August 2007)
- I have answered on Talk:ARSA. Please note that it is normal to sign discussion entries using ~~~~. Good luck editing! — Jonathan Bowen 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
You created this category with a popcat template. The category now has a number of subcategories, and I am not convinced that it still makes sense to populate the main category, so I have taken the liberty of removing the popcat template. --RichardVeryard 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, this seems very reasonable to me. Thanks for letting me know. — Jonathan Bowen 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Books associated with Oxford