You claimed that the page said something it did not: 'mischaracterise' is the charitable interpretation. I also directly quoted the relevant portions for the page, so I'm not sure where your interpretation comes from. And to clear up any confusion on the other page, an extended excerpt:

"For me, the 1894 collection of information is next to useless." ... IMHO not a problem of the Social Democratic Workers' Party article. Whether or not the 1894 article is a "next to useless collection of information" should not affect the writing of the Social Democratic Workers' Party article. If the 1894 article does not live up to standards, then that article should be improved... this should, IMHO, be unrelated to whether or not to link 1894 in the Social Democratic Workers' Party article. Also, in Wikipedia one doesn't know what will be in the 1894 article tomorrow. If today it fails to give a good overview of social developments in that year, then I hope it will give such overview soon. Not linking 1894 in the Social Democratic Workers' Party article does not help to overcome the flaws of the 1894 article. Neither does probably the linking of that year... linking the year in one article and the quality of the linked article are IMHO unrelated. But, anyhow, the 1894 article should picture some useful social context. And the person writing the Social Democratic Workers' Party article should not be hampered if it doesn't do that yet.

Further, the piped link theory for years is of limited importance IMHO. If I think it useful to make a link to the 1893 article in the gnossienne article because these compositions were published for the first time in the same year and the same city as the first version of The Scream was painted, I think 1893 as a link does the job perfectly, while there is the navigation that allows to explore the 1893 year. Neither of the alternative "year" articles is really appropriate or useful in the gnossienne article IMHO:

• 1893 in art, mentions The Scream, but has no "music" topics (so why should it be linked from gnossienne?) - neither do I want to push the idea that for this composition developments in other art forms were as important as those in music in 1893 Paris;
• 1893 in music, although mentioning the premiere of Debussy's string quartet this article does not really show anything specific on fin de siècle Paris.
• 1890s mentions some fin de siècle topics... but not what other artists were doing in Paris at the time. And also: not all Gnossiennes were composed in the 1890s (some were composed in the late 1880s...), so not too appropriate as a link from the gnossienne article.
• 1893 in Paris... does not exist yet... but if it would ever exist it would be linked from 1893, so 1893 as a non-piped link does perfectly fine for me in the gnossienne article.
• Also, don't be a nanny, wikipedia readers don't need the steering apparently preferred by some (which is also a POV, if you want to convey to a reader what that reader should appreciate as "relevant" or not about a topic). I mean, what was said above: "the possibility of diverting the reader to an unfocused body of information, and the risk of diluting the high-value links in the text"... It is no judgement call to decide for others what dilutes and what doesn't. For example, people that want to know more about the time when the gnossiennes were composed should not need three clicks to go to the article of 1893 in literature. Links play a role in easy navigation, which is somewhat opposed to navigation by someone's POV preferences.

So, I'm not a proponent of the universal application of piped links for years (although this may be useful in some instances!) - the risks of steering for a POV structure of knowledge should be kept in mind too IMHO. I'd rather say: let facts speak for themselves as much as possible. -- Francis Schonken 09:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

'And the other guidelines you link to are all music related, 1968 in the United Kingdom is not a music article.'

And let repeat what I wrote, with relevant portions highlighted:

Do not use piped links to "years in music" or analogous pages (eg 1983). (See Wikipedia:Wikiproject Music standards for discussion). (From here, and to head off the inevitable irrelevancy, note it says 'analogous' pages.)

You are aware of the meaning of 'analogous'? I'm beginning to believe that 'mischaracterise' was too charitable.

'Clearly we should only makes links that are relevant to the context, but as they are people who are born or died in a particular year in the UK, the corresponding year in the Uk is more relevant than the general year.'

First, 'clearly' is another word used inappropriately: it's not a catch-all justifier, as you use it. And more to the point, since time in the UK does not flow differently to time elsewhere, it's difficult for me to see the point of shunting off readers to the 'ghetto' of UK-only, especially since many of the 'Year in the UK' pages don't even exist and any 'Year in the UK' pages that do exist are directly linked from each year page. You'll have to try harder, please. -- CalendarWatcher 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

'Yes I am aware of the meaning analogous.'

Good.

'However, the Music and Album guideline which you have repeatedly quoted do not apply as we are not talking about music articles.'

I thought you said you understood the meaning of the word? Pity.

'I have given you many examples where this practice is used so unless you wish to go through every single one and get them removed, I see no reason to not do so on UK pages'

You have not provided a single reason for doing so here, relying instead on a pouting, 'But mummy, the neighbour's kids are doing it' rationale. Since you have not seen fit to provide concrete reasons, I will be removing them from the UK pages. -- CalendarWatcher 11:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) reply

No problem, thanks for your message. -- Guinnog 22:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I've read your essay about categorization, but I'm not convinced. Categorization is not as simple as you present. We have several different ways of categorizing articles. If X is an article, and Y is a category, the reason why X gets put in Y can be because of one of the following three cases:

1. X is about Y
2. X is a Y
3. X is related to Y

For example all the articles in Category:Presidency of the United States are ABOUT the topic of the presidency, all the articles which ARE presidents are in Category:Presidents of the United States, and all the articles RELATED TO the subject of George W. Bush are in Category:George W. Bush. These are tree different relationships. I call these three types of categories TOPIC categories, INDEX categories, and SUBJECT categories.

So I agree what you are saying in your essay if it is about TOPIC categories (X is about Y) or SUBJECT categories (X is related to Y). I don't agree for INDEX categories (X is a Y). These are the categories that people use like database searches. If they look in these Y categories they expect to see every article which IS a Y. This is a reasonable expectation. For the other two types, it is reasonable to only find articles which discuss the subject in some significant way, as you say.

Since you left your comment at CfD about Law & Order, I have written quite a bit (just above your comment) with my reasons for deleting these categories. I'd appreciate if you could read them and comment, either here, there or on my talk page. I'd really like to create a consensus on this issue, and am willing to debate this until we reach a common understanding. BTW, I'm trying to get some interest in tagging categories by the types I've just described. Please tak a look at Wikipedia:Category types. -- Samuel Wantman 08:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

If I thought your reaction was purely emotional, I wouldn't have started the conversation. I respect your opinions.

You said:

"The section of WP:OC which deals with non-defining or trivial characteristics says "If you could easily leave something out of a biography, it is not a defining characteristic". I would argue that, if something cannot be easily left out of the biography then it is probably something, which if there are other articles which share this characteristic, would form the basis of a categorisation. "

I don't agree with this. Many of the criteria we have for WP:OC are for things that cannot be easily left out of a biography. We don't have Category:Racists but I'm sure that is an important part of many people's biographies. I'll give you some more examples lifted from WP:OC: : Famous redheads, Outstanding Canadians, Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio, Quarterbacks from Louisiana, Secular Jewish philosophers, LGBT murderers, German-American sportspeople, Potential 2008 Republican U.S. Presidential_Candidates

Categories are not an alternate method of presenting information. They are meant as a way of organizing information so it can be browsed in useful and interesting ways. We make distinctions between lists and categories. There are good reasons to present some information as lists and some as categories. -- Samuel Wantman 10:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I can't imagine an autobiography about Lucille Ball or Red Buttons that did not mention their red hair. -- Samuel Wantman 10:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

My point is that they both were in fact famous (in part) for being redheads. It was part of their image which they cultivated and by which they were known. -- Samuel Wantman 10:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Heaven's no! I am in total agreement with WP:OC. Just because notable information can be made into a category, it doesn't mean that is should be. We've identified many good reasons for this. Even though being a redhead was a big part of their image, it is still trivia, and for the few where it is marginally not trivial, it will collect hundreds more who are very trivial. Consider all the times that Hank Aaron was on an all-star team. We merged all those categories into one. Consider all the significant films in which Cary Grant appeared. Should we have a category for the cast of each? The problem I'm talking about is purely practical. These performance categories simply create too many categories in the articles of famous actors. Since we can make lists out of the same information, why make categories? -- Samuel Wantman 11:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

What is the problem with browsing a list? You go to the actor and you see a list of their performances, you go to the performance and you see a list of the main cast. If either list is too long, it gets split off and linked. With categories, the notability problems will lead to massive conflicts over which films to include and which not to include. Many actors had scores of notable films. Look at the categories for some famous film actors. Imagine them cluttered up with 20 or more notable film appearances. Would that be an improvement? -- Samuel Wantman 11:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

I understand what you are after, but getting all categories to conform to your idea about notability is counter-intuitive to most users, and would be a herculean undertaking. What you propose is very hard to implement for categories for people. I've got to get to bed! It's past 3 AM here. -- Samuel Wantman 11:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Tim, about a month ago, I have created a talk page of U-Pick Live. On the page, I suggested to add a YouTube link of U-Pick Live. I very recently determined that doing so would be in an indefinate violation of the External Links Policy. This talk page that I created is a complete waste of the article and of Wikipedia. In order to fix things, or not make them worse, I propose to Delete the talk page. I have not read the deletion policy of Wikipedia, so it may not apply to that, but you tell me what should be done to fix things, and I'll do it. Thank you. I've taken a look at the deletion policy, and I'm still not entirely sure. I do recall reading that I can blank the talk page that I created, indicating that I want it deleted. I'll double check on that. I don't remember where I found that, so I'm going withdraw on that. I'm trying to think of all the possabilitys I know of to deal with this issue.

-- Wikipedier 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Wikipedier (talk) reply

Hi Tim! Can you point me to a page where the Template:Year by category sort by Hundreds index ended up wrong and I will try to fix any problems it. I am sure we can find an improvement from indexing years in thousands. (eg 0. 1. 2.) and I belived I had it working well.

I am trying to sort "year" type pages into hundreds as follows:

This is an improvement on sorting years into Thousands (eg 0. 1. 2.) and I am using the form ⑴ to index and represent 100BCE.

Check out Category:Years in Ireland for an example using BCE and give me your thoughts on how we can improve Template:Year by category.

Γνώθι Σεαυτόν 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

For the heads-up regarding the mass CFD of actor-by-series categories. -- BlueSquadron Raven 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for creating this one. It's been on my to do list for a while now. MRoberts <> 13:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Re. this edit summary. Any user is entitled to remove an unsubstantiated statement. The target of "Christmas shoppers" is not referenced, so was legitimately removed. You have illegitimately reinstated unsourced material, which is a disruptive act. Please refrain or you'll end up getting blocked. Likewise the use of the word "unfortunately". It's editorialising, it's POV and it's not the way we write articles. I am sure the reader will have a modicum of intelligence and sensitivity to draw their own conclusions about the events described. Stick to the facts. Or else find a source that has stated this: then you can include it and reference it. We do need a bit of intellectual precision. Thank you. Tyrenius 22:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I think there's been a misunderstanding here. I'm trying to damp down a minor edit war and instill policy for editing. It seemed as though you were another participant in this fracas, especially as you had made a previous edit to the article. In the light of your message to me, I understand that you have been acting from a procedural basis, not an editorial one, in which case my apologies for misperceiving your action and leaving the note above, which I withdraw. Part of the confusion was that Astrotrain was leaving edit summaries calling Vintagekits' edits vandalism when he disagreed with them. Tyrenius 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Definitely verification is the way forward and application of policy, which solves many problems immediately. Your participation in helping to get this area on the straight and narrow would be most welcome. I hadn't realised you were an admin earlier (more haste...). MrDarcy is also trying to instill some decorum per this block. See this discussion on AN/I. Tyrenius 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Tim!, I wanted to ask you if adding this external link to the Bugs Bunny in Double Trouble article would be acceptable with all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Adding the site may violate the site's copyright policies, but I'm not sure.(I know if it does, I can not add the link). Can you see if you think if it would? i wanted to add the link, because, first of all, I agree the article is stub, and I think there ahould be more information on the article, plus I play the game, but I also want to make sure it would be compatable with all of all the policies, and certainly as well as the GFDL. The link is about Genie Codes for certain Sega Genesis games, including this one. I personaly would want the link added, because of how hard the gameplay is, the these codes would make it easier, for people interested in playing the game, like me, but I understand Wikipedia might not allow such things, so I'm asking you first. The link is right here -- Wikipedier 03:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedier reply

Thanks Tim!. I was just trying to make sure it wouldn't be vandalism, so I wouldn't be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedier I looked at the site again, and I see no copyrights on it. I think it would help the article to add the link. If the link is removed, then I'll know it will be a good idea not to have the link on the article. I'm going to give it a try. Thanks for your help.-- Wikipedier 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedier (talk) Now, I'll see what happens.-- Wikipedier 19:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedier reply

Well, the end result is that there is a bot programmed to removed angelfire sites because of concerns with notability and reliability. I very recently used one of the codes, and they worked for me, but given that concern by the bot, I got my answer to my question, which is that adding the link would not be in accordance with all of Wikipedia's policies, and I therefore removed the link. I added it in the first place with the hope to help Wikipedia. -- Wikipedier 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC) Wikipedier reply

Hi Tim! -- I wanted to lay out in more detail the usability point, because when I was reading your essay, you said "The argument that an article may end up with too many categories must also therefore be false because it implies that an article contains too much information." This fails to really address the problem of usability, and almost suggests a confusion between tagging and categorization. More detail at User talk:Tim!/Ceci n'est pas une pipe#"too much information" and usability --Best, lquilter 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC) reply