User talk:Afluegel/Archive 1

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SciGlass

An editor has nominated SciGlass, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SciGlass and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glass

Hello, I appreciate your edits to the glass article, however I don't believe the content is currently generic for all types of glass and feel it would be better to show a comparison of glass properties between different types of glass and describe how these changes affect the technological applications of the glass. I have therefore started a discussion on the talk page. Cheers Jdrewitt (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Page move from Glass container industry to Glass container production

Hi. I noticed you tried to move the content of the article glass container industry to a new title at glass container production by copy and pasting the article text to the new title. This is not the correct way to perform a page move, because it destroys the edit history, does not move the associated talk page, and generally causes problems for later editors. The correct procedure is detailed at WP:MOVE. Thank you. ~Matticus ^U_C 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Category name

I see you're moving articles into a category called Category:Glass application. That should be Category:Glass applications, to comply with the normal naming scheme for categories. --Srleffler (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, this is fine with me. I don't know, however, how a category name is changed. --Afluegel (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

For a simple spelling change like this, just create the new category and change the category tag on each of the articles. When you're done, put the tag {{db-speedyrename}} at the top of the old, empty category and an administrator will delete it. Note that this procedure is only for uncontroversial changes like spelling fixes.--Srleffler (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just did it.--Afluegel (talk) 09:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Optics and glass

I've removed some of the optics categories from the glass category space. Category:glass is a subcategory of Category:Optical materials, as it should be. Glass is just one of many optical materials. Category:Optical devices is fine under Category:Glass applications, but then subcategories for specific optical devices and techniques (telescopes, microscopes, etc.) should not appear in the glass categories, since they are already linked in through Category:Optical devices. Category:Optics should not appear, since the connection of optics to glass is through materials and devices.--Srleffler (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the category reorganization, by the way. Nice to see the glass category getting some attention.--Srleffler (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thank you also for the compliments. -- Afluegel (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Category Plasma

You recently created Category:Plasma. I presume you were not aware that Category:Plasma physics already exists. I did a category redirect from "Plasma" to "Plasma physics", which - if I understand correctly - will automatically assure a consistent categorization and also help prevent such a mistake in the future. Happy editing! --Art Carlson (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was well aware of the category Plasma physics, but is does not only contain the material itself (Plasma) but also the science about it. Therefore, I created the new category Plasma for the material. Anyway, if you think that the category Plasma should be deleted nevertheless, I will follow your advice because you are the physicist. I just studied chemistry, so it is not a familiar topic for me.--Afluegel (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, at least you had your eyes open. The article Plasma (physics) was originally named simply Plasma, until the biologists pointed out that the term was just as common there as in physics, so anything just named "Plasma" is a problem. If you start looking, I think you will not be able to separate articles about "the stuff" from "science about the stuff". Articles like Space plasmas, Aurora (astronomy), or Relativistic plasma include some of each. I really think it's better to stick to the single category Category:Plasma physics. --Art Carlson (talk) 13:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, I did not know all this background information. Thank you. I will re-categorize it now as it was before and put a deletion template in the category Plasma.--Afluegel (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Glass makers and brands

I have nominated Glass makers and brands, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass makers and brands. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dougie WII (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the deletion after reading the concerns as explained on the discussion page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glass makers and brands.--Afluegel (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Glass-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 00:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know about the proposal process. I think we can find a good solution at the discussion page Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Thank you.--Afluegel (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I may consider it at a later time, because I am extremely busy professionally.--Afluegel (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re Glass-stubs

Yup - that's pretty much right. We'd have the following:

• {{Glass-art-stub}}, with Category:Glass stubs and Category:Art stubs as categories
• {{Glass-material-stub}}, with Category:Glass stubs and Category:Materials stubs as categories
• {{Glass-engineering-stub}}, with Category:Glass stubs and Category:Engineering stubs as categories
• {{Glass-stub}}, with only Category:Glass stubs as its category

That would allow anything to go into both the categories that are related to the subject of the articles, and makes it easier if we ever need to split Category:Glass stubs up. It probably doesn't need to be proposed, since it was the decision of an SFD page (any decision is regarded by WP:WSS as pretty much the same as a proposal), but it wouldn't hurt to add a comment on the proposal page anyway (I'll do that). I doubt there would be any objections to it. Actually, creating a stub based on discussion at SFD should probably be a speediable creation rather than the full five days (that's something I'll bring up for discussion at WP:WSS). Grutness...wha? 00:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All right, if I understand it correctly, you will make the proposals as necessary, and I just need to wait for about a week. Then the stub templates could be created, categorized, and used accordingly.--Afluegel (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Afluegel - I've had a look at the glass stubs category, and it's partly right, partly wrong. Ideally (and as I wroter in April, above), all of the templates should feed directly into the glass stubs category (i.e., there wouldn't be a separate Category:Glass art stubs or Category:Glass materials stubs for now). Separate categories could be made later when we were sure there are 60 stubs using each template. Until then, each template could feed into two categories (similar to, for example, the way {{Nauru-geo-stub}} does. So, basically, I'd move all the stubs into the main category and delete the two subcategories. Other than that, though, it looks good. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All right, I will correct this.--Afluegel (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)