http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&feed=atom&target=OpusWikiPOBia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T23:39:21ZFrom WikiPOBiaMediaWiki 1.15.1http://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Talk:US_frigate_ChesapeakeTalk:US frigate Chesapeake2009-01-09T00:53:59Z<p>Opus: /* United States Navy prefix "USS" */</p>
<hr />
<div>There is a problem with the naming of this article. The United States does not designate sailing vessels with "USN". Vessels of the United States Navy are designated as <i>USS</i>, which stands for United States Ship. This article should be titled USS Chesapeake. See Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799) USS Chesapeake (1799)]. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 10:28, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: See [[WikiPOBia talk:Style Manual]]. I think the salient point is that POB used the designation "USN" for the Chesapeake (perhaps his research revealed that as the actual designation used at the time?) so that is what is used here. Some discussion of this in the article might be appropriate, since this is likely to be a continuing source of confusion. [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:06, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== United States Navy prefix "USS" ==<br />
<br />
Hello - I used "USN" when I named the ''Constitution'' article because the style manual said to do so ... but your discussion prompted me to look a little further, and I found the following quote from the Naval Historical Center website, at [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm]. <br />
<br />
"Into the early years of the 20th century there was no fixed form for Navy ship prefixes. Ships were rather haphazardly identified, in correspondence or documents, by their naval type (U.S. Frigate ____), their rig (United States Barque ____), or their function (United States Flag-Ship ______). They might also identify themselves as "the Frigate _____," or, simply, "Ship ______." The term "United States Ship," abbreviated "USS," is seen as early as the late 1790s; it was in frequent, but far from exclusive, use by the last half of the 19th century."<br />
<br />
The exclusive use of "USS" by the U.S. Navy was apparently not official until an executive order in 1907. <br />
<br />
[[User:Paulster13|Paulster13]] 03:47, 5 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:When one googles "USN Chesapeake", the only hits referring to the ship are to this WIKI, so it does not appear to be a common usage. The Navy officially calls this ship the <i>USS Chesapeake</i>.[http://www.nnsy1.navy.mil/History/CHESAPEA.HTM] In an online document of the United States Congressional Record from 1820-21, the <i>Chesapeake</i> is referred to as "the frigate C." or "the United States frigate C." with "frigate" in lower-case as a descriptive term rather than part of the formal nomenclature of the ship.[http://books.google.com/books?id=1EZOAAAAMAAJ] I have not yet found a single authoritative reference from any period that uses the "USN" designation. As an American, I can say that the use of the term "USS" for American naval vessels is so widespread and natural as to have the strength of convention. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:05, 6 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: There are a couple of issues here. First, there are essentially two ''Chesapeakes'': the historical ''Chesapeake'' and POB's fictional ''Chesapeake.'' While similar in most regards, POB's ''Chesapeake'' exists only in the pages of '''FOW''' (well, perhaps there is a passing reference in '''SM''', or elsewhere), while the real ''Chesapeake'' has a history independent of POB's work. POB apparently referred to the ship as "''USN Chesapeake''", whereas the real ship was originally known, as pointed out, as simply "the frigate ''Chesapeake''". (Although, despite the lack of references at hand, I have in email, somewhere, a discussion of this issue that indicates that it was indeed common before 1907-09 (there seems to be some disagreement over the exact date) to refer to U.S. Navy ships using "USN", "USF" and other designations, without any particular consistency.) <br />
<br />
::: Can you give the location in the POB narrative that uses the USN designation for this or any other ship? I have searched and searched and have been unable to find one. I have read through the middle of book 8 without encountering a single reference. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 02:42, 8 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:::: Going back to the original email I have where this was discussed among the wiki admins (from the middle of '07), it was said that, "POB used USN in FSoW and Surgeon's Mate," but no specific page or ship reference, I see, was given. (I previously, mistakenly said FOW, rather than FSoW.) However, a quick google book search gives several results: [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=USN&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=Patrick+O%27Brian&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=&as_issn= USN Search] -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 03:13, 8 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::::: OK, I see that. There certainly are not very many places where he did this. There are a great many ship references in his books in which he employed no such usage. Why he would do so in only a couple places does not make sense. Perhaps he found this usage on occassion in some ship logs or diaries that he consulted&mdash;perhaps British sources. It certainly was not a usage employed by the Americans then or at any other time. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 00:53, 9 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: Secondly, one of the goals of this wiki -- this was part of the discussion before WikiPOBia was set up -- is to present information that is accurate to the time, as a means of furthering readers' understanding of POB's work and the period in which it is set. On that basis, and because there was no official designation used at that time, I would support renaming (moving) this article to "Chesapeake" (or "Chesapeake (ship)", the disambiguation text to differentiate it from other "Chesapeake" references, and to avoid having to move it once again), without designation, and including a discussion of the designation/name issues in the article. Redirects for both designations can also be created. This should resolve the issue of the article showing up in searches, while maintaining historical and literary accuracy.<br />
<br />
:: It might also be appropriate to create a separate article on '''Ships' names''' (or something to that effect) where these issues are discussed in more detail. I would also suggest that we update the style manual to more accurately reflect the purpose and philosophy of WikiPOBia in this regard -- i.e., that the names and designations accurate to the period and POB's fiction are to be preferred over any specific convention expressed there. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 14:42, 6 January 2009 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Talk:US_frigate_ChesapeakeTalk:US frigate Chesapeake2009-01-08T02:42:43Z<p>Opus: /* United States Navy prefix "USS" */</p>
<hr />
<div>There is a problem with the naming of this article. The United States does not designate sailing vessels with "USN". Vessels of the United States Navy are designated as <i>USS</i>, which stands for United States Ship. This article should be titled USS Chesapeake. See Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799) USS Chesapeake (1799)]. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 10:28, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: See [[WikiPOBia talk:Style Manual]]. I think the salient point is that POB used the designation "USN" for the Chesapeake (perhaps his research revealed that as the actual designation used at the time?) so that is what is used here. Some discussion of this in the article might be appropriate, since this is likely to be a continuing source of confusion. [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:06, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== United States Navy prefix "USS" ==<br />
<br />
Hello - I used "USN" when I named the ''Constitution'' article because the style manual said to do so ... but your discussion prompted me to look a little further, and I found the following quote from the Naval Historical Center website, at [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm]. <br />
<br />
"Into the early years of the 20th century there was no fixed form for Navy ship prefixes. Ships were rather haphazardly identified, in correspondence or documents, by their naval type (U.S. Frigate ____), their rig (United States Barque ____), or their function (United States Flag-Ship ______). They might also identify themselves as "the Frigate _____," or, simply, "Ship ______." The term "United States Ship," abbreviated "USS," is seen as early as the late 1790s; it was in frequent, but far from exclusive, use by the last half of the 19th century."<br />
<br />
The exclusive use of "USS" by the U.S. Navy was apparently not official until an executive order in 1907. <br />
<br />
[[User:Paulster13|Paulster13]] 03:47, 5 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:When one googles "USN Chesapeake", the only hits referring to the ship are to this WIKI, so it does not appear to be a common usage. The Navy officially calls this ship the <i>USS Chesapeake</i>.[http://www.nnsy1.navy.mil/History/CHESAPEA.HTM] In an online document of the United States Congressional Record from 1820-21, the <i>Chesapeake</i> is referred to as "the frigate C." or "the United States frigate C." with "frigate" in lower-case as a descriptive term rather than part of the formal nomenclature of the ship.[http://books.google.com/books?id=1EZOAAAAMAAJ] I have not yet found a single authoritative reference from any period that uses the "USN" designation. As an American, I can say that the use of the term "USS" for American naval vessels is so widespread and natural as to have the strength of convention. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:05, 6 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: There are a couple of issues here. First, there are essentially two ''Chesapeakes'': the historical ''Chesapeake'' and POB's fictional ''Chesapeake.'' While similar in most regards, POB's ''Chesapeake'' exists only in the pages of '''FOW''' (well, perhaps there is a passing reference in '''SM''', or elsewhere), while the real ''Chesapeake'' has a history independent of POB's work. POB apparently referred to the ship as "''USN Chesapeake''", whereas the real ship was originally known, as pointed out, as simply "the frigate ''Chesapeake''". (Although, despite the lack of references at hand, I have in email, somewhere, a discussion of this issue that indicates that it was indeed common before 1907-09 (there seems to be some disagreement over the exact date) to refer to U.S. Navy ships using "USN", "USF" and other designations, without any particular consistency.) <br />
<br />
::: Can you give the location in the POB narrative that uses the USN designation for this or any other ship? I have searched and searched and have been unable to find one. I have read through the middle of book 8 without encountering a single reference. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 02:42, 8 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: Secondly, one of the goals of this wiki -- this was part of the discussion before WikiPOBia was set up -- is to present information that is accurate to the time, as a means of furthering readers' understanding of POB's work and the period in which it is set. On that basis, and because there was no official designation used at that time, I would support renaming (moving) this article to "Chesapeake" (or "Chesapeake (ship)", the disambiguation text to differentiate it from other "Chesapeake" references, and to avoid having to move it once again), without designation, and including a discussion of the designation/name issues in the article. Redirects for both designations can also be created. This should resolve the issue of the article showing up in searches, while maintaining historical and literary accuracy.<br />
<br />
:: It might also be appropriate to create a separate article on '''Ships' names''' (or something to that effect) where these issues are discussed in more detail. I would also suggest that we update the style manual to more accurately reflect the purpose and philosophy of WikiPOBia in this regard -- i.e., that the names and designations accurate to the period and POB's fiction are to be preferred over any specific convention expressed there. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 14:42, 6 January 2009 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Talk:US_frigate_ChesapeakeTalk:US frigate Chesapeake2009-01-06T13:05:25Z<p>Opus: /* United States Navy prefix "USS" */</p>
<hr />
<div>There is a problem with the naming of this article. The United States does not designate sailing vessels with "USN". Vessels of the United States Navy are designated as <i>USS</i>, which stands for United States Ship. This article should be titled USS Chesapeake. See Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799) USS Chesapeake (1799)]. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 10:28, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: See [[WikiPOBia talk:Style Manual]]. I think the salient point is that POB used the designation "USN" for the Chesapeake (perhaps his research revealed that as the actual designation used at the time?) so that is what is used here. Some discussion of this in the article might be appropriate, since this is likely to be a continuing source of confusion. [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:06, 4 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== United States Navy prefix "USS" ==<br />
<br />
Hello - I used "USN" when I named the ''Constitution'' article because the style manual said to do so ... but your discussion prompted me to look a little further, and I found the following quote from the Naval Historical Center website, at [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm]. <br />
<br />
"Into the early years of the 20th century there was no fixed form for Navy ship prefixes. Ships were rather haphazardly identified, in correspondence or documents, by their naval type (U.S. Frigate ____), their rig (United States Barque ____), or their function (United States Flag-Ship ______). They might also identify themselves as "the Frigate _____," or, simply, "Ship ______." The term "United States Ship," abbreviated "USS," is seen as early as the late 1790s; it was in frequent, but far from exclusive, use by the last half of the 19th century."<br />
<br />
The exclusive use of "USS" by the U.S. Navy was apparently not official until an executive order in 1907. <br />
<br />
[[User:Paulster13|Paulster13]] 03:47, 5 January 2009 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:When one googles "USN Chesapeake", the only hits referring to the ship are to this WIKI, so it does not appear to be a common usage. The Navy officially calls this ship the <i>USS Chesapeake</i>.[http://www.nnsy1.navy.mil/History/CHESAPEA.HTM] In an online document of the United States Congressional Record from 1820-21, the <i>Chesapeake</i> is referred to as "the frigate C." or "the United States frigate C." with "frigate" in lower-case as a descriptive term rather than part of the formal nomenclature of the ship.[http://books.google.com/books?id=1EZOAAAAMAAJ] I have not yet found a single authoritative reference from any period that uses the "USN" designation. As an American, I can say that the use of the term "USS" for American naval vessels is so widespread and natural as to have the strength of convention. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:05, 6 January 2009 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Talk:US_frigate_ChesapeakeTalk:US frigate Chesapeake2009-01-04T10:28:09Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>There is a problem with the naming of this article. The United States does not designate sailing vessels with "USN". Vessels of the United States Navy are designated as <i>USS</i>, which stands for United States Ship. This article should be titled USS Chesapeake. See Wikipedia article [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chesapeake_(1799) USS Chesapeake (1799)]. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 10:28, 4 January 2009 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User_talk:OpusUser talk:Opus2009-01-03T11:52:57Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>==General Discussion with Opus==<br />
Please add your comments or questions here or start a new section. Regards. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 11:15, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== wiki upgrades ==<br />
<br />
I've moved this discussion here, off the portal talk page...<br />
<br />
The server is managed by volunteers from [http://www.hmssurprise.org The Gunroom] and owned and donated by one of them. Upgrading to the latest version has been something that has been 'scheduled' for some time, but it also requires upgrading PHP & MySQL and the person who is going to do that just hasn't had time. There are a few other things that depend on the upgrade before they can be implemented, so, since it's a volunteer effort, we wait patiently for it to happen. [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 14:11, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
So how many distinct content namespaces are there in the WIKI? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 14:27, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
The only one other than Main is the Lexicon. BTW, the addition of nautical terms to the Lexicon is high on the priority list (since you expressed interest in that). [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 14:34, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== More Reading ==<br />
<br />
I have spent a great deal of time these last few days devouring <i>Desolation Island</i> and <i>The Fortune of War</i>, both of which are nail-biters. The latter produced a very curious paradox of thought and feeling as I found myself, an American, rooting against my own side, as it were. The author's skill in cultivating deep sympathies for the characters overwhelms partisan loyalties and base prejudices.<br />
<br />
I must admit that when I reached the point in the story (the battle between Java and Constitution) in which I knew Jack and Stephen were to be captured&mdash;middle of chapter 3 of <i>The Fortune of War</i>&mdash;I put the book down and would read no further for three days. After that, I knew that I must read on or stop altogether. Having reached now the end of FW, I can reflect on a powerful and exciting plot. Stephen is definitely a complex figure full of contradictions and inner turmoil&mdash;seemingly a pacifist but able to kill a man in cold blood. Jack is much simpler and more straightforward, and one wonders whether it is not he that is the sidekick. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 11:52, 3 January 2009 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User_talk:OpusUser talk:Opus2008-12-29T14:27:21Z<p>Opus: /* wiki upgrades */</p>
<hr />
<div>==General Discussion with Opus==<br />
Please add your comments or questions here or start a new section. Regards. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 11:15, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
== wiki upgrades ==<br />
<br />
I've moved this discussion here, off the portal talk page...<br />
<br />
The server is managed by volunteers from [http://www.hmssurprise.org The Gunroom] and owned and donated by one of them. Upgrading to the latest version has been something that has been 'scheduled' for some time, but it also requires upgrading PHP & MySQL and the person who is going to do that just hasn't had time. There are a few other things that depend on the upgrade before they can be implemented, so, since it's a volunteer effort, we wait patiently for it to happen. [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 14:11, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
So how many distinct content namespaces are there in the WIKI? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 14:27, 29 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-29T13:31:58Z<p>Opus: /* Speaking of Being Perplexed */</p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
: Yes, the Lexicon articles are in a separate namespace. This was done because the number of Lexicon articles, around 3000, simply overwhelmed the 'content articles', especially at WikiPOBia's startup. (The current Lexicon articles, most of them, at least, if not all, were assembled by script, from data from other sources, and uploaded by bot before WikiPOBia was officially opened.) So, it was though desirable that they ''not'' appear, for example, in the All Articles list. It's been a while since I've looked through all of the related settings variables, but if they can be counted as content without overwhelming the other articles in the All Articles list, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think it might be best to leave things as is. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: Was a substantial amount of the material here compiled in this way? What were the sources? Guide for the Perplexed, I can see, but what were the others? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::: All of it, originally. The other source was Maturin's Medicine. There's a link at the bottom of each entry that indicates the source, see, for example [[Lexicon:Abdomen]] -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:27, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: First, thanks for volunteering to create some articles that would provide a guide to the Lexicon! Saves us the trouble of pressing you!<br />
<br />
: There are a lot of categories associated with Lexicon articles, particularly those from Guide for the Perplexed (GFTP). There are a few reasons for this, but the overall category/subcategory structure was dictated by an issue with the MediaWiki software -- https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211 -- that presents a problem for categories with a large number of entries and that also contain subcategories: in short, some or all of the subcategories often don't appear on the first page of entries, so are easy to miss. <br />
<br />
: Because of this issue and the large number of entries, and the desire to organize them by book/chapter and language (when appropriate), the current categorization scheme was developed. Many of the entries occur multiple times throughout the books, and the book/chapter categorization results in them being assigned to multiple categories, sometimes quite a few. This does overwhelm the All Pages, Category listing, so a category hierarchy was also developed so that they could more easily be 'browsed' by readers of the wiki.<br />
<br />
: There is a top level [[:Category:WikiPOBia]] which is meant to contain all the higher level categories, as subcategories, and then each of these contains other subcategories, so that one can 'drill down' to more specific levels of categorization. The articles themselves are mostly contained in the lower level categories, although, there is an 'All Articles' category that contains all of the Lexicon articles in that section. There are also categories for each book and chapter that were created as places to categorize other 'content' articles, and which contain the appropriate Lexicon subcategories.<br />
<br />
: So, even though there are a large number of categories related to the Lexicon, this is necessary to allow a wiki reader to locate these by language or book chapter, by browsing the category hierarchy. Of course, they can also search the Lexicon (it is included in the default search namespaces). -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:58, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: This arrangement renders many of the best tools in the MediaWiki toolbox unusable. I almost passed over your WIKI by the appearance of its Statistics and All Articles reports alone. It gives the appearance of an empty ship that is not worth the taking, so to speak. (I had already been put off by the slovenly character of the [http://patrickobrian.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Patrick O'Brian Wiki] in Wikia Entertainment.) It was the Categories list that shifted the wind. It was clear from this that there was treasure here even if most of your sails, rigging, and stays were below decks. The well known MediaWiki bug is usually avoided by not overly multiplying the number and complexity of categories. I wonder whether something more elegant and usable could have been achieved by a much simpler design without the enormous multiplication of categories. This reminds me very much of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banyan Banyan tree] in which the central bole can become completely obscured by a huge number of "prop roots". Well, it is your ship, and you sail her as it pleases you.<br />
<br />
:: Note: I do not like to pad my indents because of the inevitable crowding to the right, but if you insist then, again, it is your ship.<br />
<br />
:: Cheers, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 18:51, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::: Oh, well, as for the indenting, I guess it really doesn't matter, seems to be something of a convention (or at least it was on Wikipedia at the time we got started) to sort out who said what, but, you don't have to do it. They do tend to get a bit crowded to the right after a few replies.<br />
<br />
::: As far as tools rendered unusable, please let us know exactly what you mean, and we'll see if there's a way to work around those issues. If you have some ideas on how to rework the category structure so that it works better, let us know that too. Since the entire category tree was created by bot, we could restructure them the same way, so it probably wouldn't require any massive human effort. We try not to be dogmatic, and there's usually more than one way to accomplish something. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but, if there's a better way to do this, not all innovations are to be abhorred. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 19:18, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:::: It is possible to see what can be done without making any changes to the existing arrangement. If something more effective can be found, then a few SQL scripts can rearrange things as you like. I am not one, however, to come in and take over another's house and shouldn't like to try even when asked.<br />
<br />
:::: I originally came here looking for a definitive catalog of nautical terms having already found the GFTP before encountering your WIKI. I was confounded by the Lexicon being so oddly arranged that it could not be found by looking in the usual places&mdash;[[Special:Categories]] and [[Special:Allpages]]. These and other tools like them are extremely useful because they are standard in all WIKIs that use MediaWiki. The arrangement of things here makes these of little use and seriously skews the [[Special:Statistics]] report to make it appear that it is all structure and no content&mdash;like a house with empty rooms&mdash;when in fact there is a great deal worth getting at.<br />
<br />
::::I must confess that I was stymied until I saw a comment somewhere that the Lexicon was in a separate namespace. (To old programmers like myself, this explains all. Namespaces are all about scoping, and it was clear that the Lexicon lay outside the main scope, as it were&mdash;either accidently or intentionally&mdash;hence, my suggestion about the content namespaces variable.) All MediaWiki reports and special pages that are scoped by namespaces&mdash;and I suspect that virtually all of them are&mdash;will be affected in some way by the exclusion of crucial content namespaces. It would be far better to find a way to bring them in play. It is always desirable to have all content within reach of reports and pages that are intended to reveal content and structure as well as to accurately compute statistics about them. Doing so makes the information that is present more accessible and can better reveal where any deficiencies lie. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 04:10, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::::: Hmmm, I see your point regarding the $wgContentNamespaces setting, and, in fact, I believe that is just the thing we were looking for some time ago when discussing issues related to knowing what was where. Unfortunately, it seems to have been introduced in v1.7.0 and we are presently on v1.6.3. (Which would explain the lack of familiarity with that particular setting.) I believe an upgrade to the latest version is "scheduled", but not sure when that will take place since I believe it is contingent on several other factors. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 12:23, 29 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:::::: Who is in control of your software? Is it on a server you own or space that you lease, or is it part of a service? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:31, 29 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Template_talk:EBTemplate talk:EB2008-12-29T05:06:15Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Template Formatting ==<br />
This template ought to be formatted in such a way that it stands out from the text of articles so as to make a clear distinction in appearance and function between the template and the article. A box, perhaps with a faintly hued background, would do nicely.</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/Talk:United_StatesTalk:United States2008-12-29T04:30:01Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Suggestion about Infoblock Templates ==<br />
Would it be worthwhile to have some templates of the type used in Wikipedia and other WIKIs to provide information blocks at the side of articles such as this? See the Wikipedia article on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states United States] for an example.</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User:OpusUser:Opus2008-12-29T04:12:54Z<p>Opus: /* Personal */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Greetings==<br />
I post as Opus. In informal settings, you may call me Russ.<br />
<br />
==Personal==<br />
I am a middle-aged man living in one of the historic old cities of the Southeastern United States.<br />
<br />
My profession is computer systems and database administration. Currently, I am an Oracle database administrator.<br />
<br />
I also study political economics&mdash;primarily of the classic Austrian variety&mdash;and dabble in astronomy. Philately is an old, childhood hobby that I am trying to get back into.<br />
<br />
==Interest in Aubrey-Maturin Novels==<br />
I am fairly new to the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series. That is to say that having read the first of the series soon after the <i>Master and Commander</i> movie was released, I did not read any more in earnest until this month (December 2008). Earlier, the complexity of nautical terminology put me off, but the rich and exciting plot and highly developed characters&mdash;with particular interest in the dynamics of the relationship of Aubrey and Maturin&mdash;have captivated me for a sustained push through the series.<br />
<br />
==Other Interests==<br />
My literary interests are somewhat varied. <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_rings The Lord of the Rings]</i> epic by J.R.R. Tolkien is a special study of mine, having read the entire canonical series (<i>The Silmarillion</i>, <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit The Hobbit]</i>, and <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>) many times through. I have also studied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tolkien Christopher Tolkien's] <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_middle_earth History of Middle Earth]</i>. Many war histories are under my belt, with Winston Churchill's six volume <i>The Second World War</i> being my favorite. I especially enjoy Agatha Christie's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot Poirot] mysteries, and&mdash;when I'm slumming&mdash;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle Arthur Conan Doyle's] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_holmes Sherlock Holmes] mysteries. There is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_Fairy_Tales Grimm's Fairy Tales], which was meant for adults as well as children, and such other "juvenile" material as the writings of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingalls_Wilder Laura Ingalls Wilder] and the novels of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Maude_Montgomery Lucy Maude Montgomery]. I have read all of the major novels of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen Jane Austen's] several times as well as some of her [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen#list_of_works other work].<br />
<br />
My favorite books are:<br />
<br />
Fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmarillion The Silmarillion]</i> (and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_J._R._R._Tolkien ancillary works]) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien J.R.R. Tolkien]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet Out of the Silent Planet]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis C. S. Lewis]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Marner Silas Marner]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Evans Mary Ann Evans] (a.k.a. George Eliot)</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_On_The_Orient_Express Murder on the Orient Express]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_christie Agatha Christie]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women Little Women]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_May_Alcott Louisa May Alcott]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Non-fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The Gathering Storm</i> (vol. 1 of <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(Churchill) The Second World War]</i> series) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_churchill Winston Churchill]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_and_Decisions Knowledge and Decisions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(book) Socialism]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises Ludwig von Mises]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions A Conflict of Visions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375409431&view=excerpt The Supreme Court]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist William H. Rhenquist]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
==ETC.==<br />
Everyone is invited to converse with me on my talk page.</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-29T04:10:32Z<p>Opus: /* Speaking of Being Perplexed */</p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
: Yes, the Lexicon articles are in a separate namespace. This was done because the number of Lexicon articles, around 3000, simply overwhelmed the 'content articles', especially at WikiPOBia's startup. (The current Lexicon articles, most of them, at least, if not all, were assembled by script, from data from other sources, and uploaded by bot before WikiPOBia was officially opened.) So, it was though desirable that they ''not'' appear, for example, in the All Articles list. It's been a while since I've looked through all of the related settings variables, but if they can be counted as content without overwhelming the other articles in the All Articles list, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think it might be best to leave things as is. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: Was a substantial amount of the material here compiled in this way? What were the sources? Guide for the Perplexed, I can see, but what were the others? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::: All of it, originally. The other source was Maturin's Medicine. There's a link at the bottom of each entry that indicates the source, see, for example [[Lexicon:Abdomen]] -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:27, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: First, thanks for volunteering to create some articles that would provide a guide to the Lexicon! Saves us the trouble of pressing you!<br />
<br />
: There are a lot of categories associated with Lexicon articles, particularly those from Guide for the Perplexed (GFTP). There are a few reasons for this, but the overall category/subcategory structure was dictated by an issue with the MediaWiki software -- https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211 -- that presents a problem for categories with a large number of entries and that also contain subcategories: in short, some or all of the subcategories often don't appear on the first page of entries, so are easy to miss. <br />
<br />
: Because of this issue and the large number of entries, and the desire to organize them by book/chapter and language (when appropriate), the current categorization scheme was developed. Many of the entries occur multiple times throughout the books, and the book/chapter categorization results in them being assigned to multiple categories, sometimes quite a few. This does overwhelm the All Pages, Category listing, so a category hierarchy was also developed so that they could more easily be 'browsed' by readers of the wiki.<br />
<br />
: There is a top level [[:Category:WikiPOBia]] which is meant to contain all the higher level categories, as subcategories, and then each of these contains other subcategories, so that one can 'drill down' to more specific levels of categorization. The articles themselves are mostly contained in the lower level categories, although, there is an 'All Articles' category that contains all of the Lexicon articles in that section. There are also categories for each book and chapter that were created as places to categorize other 'content' articles, and which contain the appropriate Lexicon subcategories.<br />
<br />
: So, even though there are a large number of categories related to the Lexicon, this is necessary to allow a wiki reader to locate these by language or book chapter, by browsing the category hierarchy. Of course, they can also search the Lexicon (it is included in the default search namespaces). -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:58, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: This arrangement renders many of the best tools in the MediaWiki toolbox unusable. I almost passed over your WIKI by the appearance of its Statistics and All Articles reports alone. It gives the appearance of an empty ship that is not worth the taking, so to speak. (I had already been put off by the slovenly character of the [http://patrickobrian.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Patrick O'Brian Wiki] in Wikia Entertainment.) It was the Categories list that shifted the wind. It was clear from this that there was treasure here even if most of your sails, rigging, and stays were below decks. The well known MediaWiki bug is usually avoided by not overly multiplying the number and complexity of categories. I wonder whether something more elegant and usable could have been achieved by a much simpler design without the enormous multiplication of categories. This reminds me very much of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banyan Banyan tree] in which the central bole can become completely obscured by a huge number of "prop roots". Well, it is your ship, and you sail her as it pleases you.<br />
<br />
:: Note: I do not like to pad my indents because of the inevitable crowding to the right, but if you insist then, again, it is your ship.<br />
<br />
:: Cheers, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 18:51, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::: Oh, well, as for the indenting, I guess it really doesn't matter, seems to be something of a convention (or at least it was on Wikipedia at the time we got started) to sort out who said what, but, you don't have to do it. They do tend to get a bit crowded to the right after a few replies.<br />
<br />
::: As far as tools rendered unusable, please let us know exactly what you mean, and we'll see if there's a way to work around those issues. If you have some ideas on how to rework the category structure so that it works better, let us know that too. Since the entire category tree was created by bot, we could restructure them the same way, so it probably wouldn't require any massive human effort. We try not to be dogmatic, and there's usually more than one way to accomplish something. It seemed like a good idea at the time, but, if there's a better way to do this, not all innovations are to be abhorred. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 19:18, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:::: It is possible to see what can be done without making any changes to the existing arrangement. If something more effective can be found, then a few SQL scripts can rearrange things as you like. I am not one, however, to come in and take over another's house and shouldn't like to try even when asked.<br />
<br />
:::: I originally came here looking for a definitive catalog of nautical terms having already found the GFTP before encountering your WIKI. I was confounded by the Lexicon being so oddly arranged that it could not be found by looking in the usual places&mdash;[[Special:Categories]] and [[Special:Allpages]]. These and other tools like them are extremely useful because they are standard in all WIKIs that use MediaWiki. The arrangement of things here makes these of little use and seriously skews the [[Special:Statistics]] report to make it appear that it is all structure and no content&mdash;like a house with empty rooms&mdash;when in fact there is a great deal worth getting at.<br />
<br />
::::I must confess that I was stymied until I saw a comment somewhere that the Lexicon was in a separate namespace. (To old programmers like myself, this explains all. Namespaces are all about scoping, and it was clear that the Lexicon lay outside the main scope, as it were&mdash;either accidently or intentionally&mdash;hence, my suggestion about the content namespaces variable.) All MediaWiki reports and special pages that are scoped by namespaces&mdash;and I suspect that virtually all of them are&mdash;will be affected in some way by the exclusion of crucial content namespaces. It would be far better to find a way to bring them in play. It is always desirable to have all content within reach of reports and pages that are intended to reveal content and structure as well as to accurately compute statistics about them. Doing so makes the information that is present more accessible and can better reveal where any deficiencies lie. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 04:10, 29 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/BostonBoston2008-12-28T19:34:11Z<p>Opus: Initial Creation</p>
<hr />
<div>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston '''Boston'''] (42°21'N 71°03'W) is a major port city of the [[United States]] being the capital city of the state of Massachusettes. During the period of the [[Aubrey-Maturin series|Aubrey-Maturin]] stories, it had a population of around 30,000. The city lies at the back of a natural, sheltered, deep-water harbor that is formed by a deep indentation of the coastline at the mouth of the Charles River. It was in her shipyards that the famed [[privateer]] <i>[[Acheron]]</i> was built during the [[Peace of Amiens]] (1802-1803).</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-28T18:51:46Z<p>Opus: /* Speaking of Being Perplexed */</p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
: Yes, the Lexicon articles are in a separate namespace. This was done because the number of Lexicon articles, around 3000, simply overwhelmed the 'content articles', especially at WikiPOBia's startup. (The current Lexicon articles, most of them, at least, if not all, were assembled by script, from data from other sources, and uploaded by bot before WikiPOBia was officially opened.) So, it was though desirable that they ''not'' appear, for example, in the All Articles list. It's been a while since I've looked through all of the related settings variables, but if they can be counted as content without overwhelming the other articles in the All Articles list, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think it might be best to leave things as is. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: Was a substantial amount of the material here compiled in this way? What were the sources? Guide for the Perplexed, I can see, but what were the others? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
::: All of it, originally. The other source was Maturin's Medicine. There's a link at the bottom of each entry that indicates the source, see, for example [[Lexicon:Abdomen]] -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:27, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: First, thanks for volunteering to create some articles that would provide a guide to the Lexicon! Saves us the trouble of pressing you!<br />
<br />
: There are a lot of categories associated with Lexicon articles, particularly those from Guide for the Perplexed (GFTP). There are a few reasons for this, but the overall category/subcategory structure was dictated by an issue with the MediaWiki software -- https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1211 -- that presents a problem for categories with a large number of entries and that also contain subcategories: in short, some or all of the subcategories often don't appear on the first page of entries, so are easy to miss. <br />
<br />
: Because of this issue and the large number of entries, and the desire to organize them by book/chapter and language (when appropriate), the current categorization scheme was developed. Many of the entries occur multiple times throughout the books, and the book/chapter categorization results in them being assigned to multiple categories, sometimes quite a few. This does overwhelm the All Pages, Category listing, so a category hierarchy was also developed so that they could more easily be 'browsed' by readers of the wiki.<br />
<br />
: There is a top level [[:Category:WikiPOBia]] which is meant to contain all the higher level categories, as subcategories, and then each of these contains other subcategories, so that one can 'drill down' to more specific levels of categorization. The articles themselves are mostly contained in the lower level categories, although, there is an 'All Articles' category that contains all of the Lexicon articles in that section. There are also categories for each book and chapter that were created as places to categorize other 'content' articles, and which contain the appropriate Lexicon subcategories.<br />
<br />
: So, even though there are a large number of categories related to the Lexicon, this is necessary to allow a wiki reader to locate these by language or book chapter, by browsing the category hierarchy. Of course, they can also search the Lexicon (it is included in the default search namespaces). -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 16:58, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
:: This arrangement renders many of the best tools in the MediaWiki toolbox unusable. I almost passed over your WIKI by the appearance of its Statistics and All Articles reports alone. It gives the appearance of an empty ship that is not worth the taking, so to speak. (I had already been put off by the slovenly character of the [http://patrickobrian.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Patrick O'Brian Wiki] in Wikia Entertainment.) It was the Categories list that shifted the wind. It was clear from this that there was treasure here even if most of your sails, rigging, and stays were below decks. The well known MediaWiki bug is usually avoided by not overly multiplying the number and complexity of categories. I wonder whether something more elegant and usable could have been achieved by a much simpler design without the enormous multiplication of categories. This reminds me very much of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banyan Banyan tree] in which the central bole can become completely obscured by a huge number of "prop roots". Well, it is your ship, and you sail her as it pleases you.<br />
<br />
:: Note: I do not like to pad my indents because of the inevitable crowding to the right, but if you insist then, again, it is your ship.<br />
<br />
:: Cheers, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 18:51, 28 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-28T16:13:23Z<p>Opus: /* Speaking of Being Perplexed */</p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
: Yes, the Lexicon articles are in a separate namespace. This was done because the number of Lexicon articles, around 3000, simply overwhelmed the 'content articles', especially at WikiPOBia's startup. (The current Lexicon articles, most of them, at least, if not all, were assembled by script, from data from other sources, and uploaded by bot before WikiPOBia was officially opened.) So, it was though desirable that they ''not'' appear, for example, in the All Articles list. It's been a while since I've looked through all of the related settings variables, but if they can be counted as content without overwhelming the other articles in the All Articles list, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think it might be best to leave things as is. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: Was a substantial amount of the material here compiled in this way? What were the sources? Guide for the Perplexed, I can see, but what were the others? [[User:Opus|Opus]] 16:13, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-28T16:13:03Z<p>Opus: /* Speaking of Being Perplexed */</p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
: Yes, the Lexicon articles are in a separate namespace. This was done because the number of Lexicon articles, around 3000, simply overwhelmed the 'content articles', especially at WikiPOBia's startup. (The current Lexicon articles, most of them, at least, if not all, were assembled by script, from data from other sources, and uploaded by bot before WikiPOBia was officially opened.) So, it was though desirable that they ''not'' appear, for example, in the All Articles list. It's been a while since I've looked through all of the related settings variables, but if they can be counted as content without overwhelming the other articles in the All Articles list, that would be fine. Otherwise, I think it might be best to leave things as is. -- [[User:Jblumel|Jblumel]] 15:53, 28 December 2008 (GMT)<br />
<br />
: Was a substantial amount of the material here compiled in this way? What were the sources? Guide for the Perplexed, I can see, but what were the others?<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User:OpusUser:Opus2008-12-28T14:54:40Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Greetings==<br />
I post as Opus. In informal settings, you may call me Russ.<br />
<br />
==Personal==<br />
I am a middle-aged man living in one of the historic old cities the Southeastern United States.<br />
<br />
My profession is computer systems and database administration. Currently, I am an Oracle database administrator.<br />
<br />
I also study political economics&mdash;primarily of the classic Austrian variety&mdash;and dabble in astronomy. Philately is an old, childhood hobby that I am trying to get back into.<br />
<br />
==Interest in Aubrey-Maturin Novels==<br />
I am fairly new to the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series. That is to say that having read the first of the series soon after the <i>Master and Commander</i> movie was released, I did not read any more in earnest until this month (December 2008). Earlier, the complexity of nautical terminology put me off, but the rich and exciting plot and highly developed characters&mdash;with particular interest in the dynamics of the relationship of Aubrey and Maturin&mdash;have captivated me for a sustained push through the series.<br />
<br />
==Other Interests==<br />
My literary interests are somewhat varied. <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_rings The Lord of the Rings]</i> epic by J.R.R. Tolkien is a special study of mine, having read the entire canonical series (<i>The Silmarillion</i>, <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit The Hobbit]</i>, and <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>) many times through. I have also studied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tolkien Christopher Tolkien's] <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_middle_earth History of Middle Earth]</i>. Many war histories are under my belt, with Winston Churchill's six volume <i>The Second World War</i> being my favorite. I especially enjoy Agatha Christie's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercule_Poirot Poirot] mysteries, and&mdash;when I'm slumming&mdash;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle Arthur Conan Doyle's] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_holmes Sherlock Holmes] mysteries. There is also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimm%27s_Fairy_Tales Grimm's Fairy Tales], which was meant for adults as well as children, and such other "juvenile" material as the writings of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Ingalls_Wilder Laura Ingalls Wilder] and the novels of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Maude_Montgomery Lucy Maude Montgomery]. I have read all of the major novels of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen Jane Austen's] several times as well as some of her [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_austen#list_of_works other work].<br />
<br />
My favorite books are:<br />
<br />
Fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmarillion The Silmarillion]</i> (and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_J._R._R._Tolkien ancillary works]) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien J.R.R. Tolkien]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet Out of the Silent Planet]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis C. S. Lewis]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Marner Silas Marner]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Evans Mary Ann Evans] (a.k.a. George Eliot)</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_On_The_Orient_Express Murder on the Orient Express]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_christie Agatha Christie]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women Little Women]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_May_Alcott Louisa May Alcott]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Non-fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The Gathering Storm</i> (vol. 1 of <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(Churchill) The Second World War]</i> series) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_churchill Winston Churchill]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_and_Decisions Knowledge and Decisions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(book) Socialism]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises Ludwig von Mises]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions A Conflict of Visions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375409431&view=excerpt The Supreme Court]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist William H. Rhenquist]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
==ETC.==<br />
Everyone is invited to converse with me on my talk page.</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User:OpusUser:Opus2008-12-28T14:13:27Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Greetings==<br />
I post as Opus. In informal settings, you may call me Russ.<br />
<br />
==Personal==<br />
I am a middle-aged man living in one of the historic old cities the Southeastern United States.<br />
<br />
My profession is computer systems and database administration. Currently, I am an Oracle database administrator.<br />
<br />
I also study political economics&mdash;primarily of the classic Austrian variety&mdash;and dabble in astronomy. Philately is an old, childhood hobby that I am trying to get back into.<br />
<br />
==Interest in Aubrey-Maturin Novels==<br />
I am fairly new to the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series. That is to say that having read the first of the series soon after the <i>Master and Commander</i> movie was released, I did not read any more in earnest until this month (December 2008). Earlier, the complexity of nautical terminology put me off, but the rich and exciting plot and highly developed characters&mdash;with particular interest in the dynamics of the relationship of Aubrey and Maturin&mdash;have captivated me for a sustained push through the series.<br />
<br />
==Other Interests==<br />
My literary interests are somewhat varied. The <i>Lord of the Rings</i> epic by J.R.R. Tolkien is a special study of mine, having read the entire canonical series (<i>The Silmarillion</i>, <i>The Hobbit</i>, and <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>) many times through. I have also studied Christopher Tolkien's <i>History of Middle Earth</i>. Many war histories are under my belt, with Winston Churchill's six volume <i>The Second World War</i> being my favorite. I especially enjoy Agatha Christie's Poirot mysteries, and&mdash;when I'm slumming&mdash;Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes mysteries. There is also Grimm's Fairy Tales, which was meant for adults as well as children, and such other "juvenile" material as the writings of Laura Ingalls Wilder and the novels of Lucy Maude Montgomery. I have read all of the major novels of Jane Austen several times as well as some of her other work.<br />
<br />
My favorite books are:<br />
<br />
Fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silmarillion The Silmarillion]</i> (and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_J._R._R._Tolkien ancillary works]) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolkien J.R.R. Tolkien]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_the_Silent_Planet Out of the Silent Planet]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis C. S. Lewis]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silas_Marner Silas Marner]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Evans Mary Ann Evans] (a.k.a. George Eliot)</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_On_The_Orient_Express Murder on the Orient Express]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agatha_christie Agatha Christie]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Women Little Women]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisa_May_Alcott Louisa May Alcott]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Non-fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The Gathering Storm</i> (vol. 1 of <i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(Churchill) The Second World War]</i> series) by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_churchill Winston Churchill]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_and_Decisions Knowledge and Decisions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_(book) Socialism]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises Ludwig von Mises]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions A Conflict of Visions]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell Thomas Sowell]</li><br />
<li><i>[http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780375409431&view=excerpt The Supreme Court]</i> by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist William H. Rhenquist]</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
==ETC.==<br />
Everyone is invited to converse with me on my talk page.</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/WikiPOBia_talk:Community_PortalWikiPOBia talk:Community Portal2008-12-28T13:46:18Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>== TOC Project ==<br />
What exactly are you planning with a table of contents project? --[[User:LadyShelley|LadyShelley]] 00:59, 2 July 2008 (BST)<br />
<br />
== Speaking of Being Perplexed ==<br />
After reading the first few titles of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, I went in search of a WIKI that almost certainly must exist for it and found this one. The first thing that I usually consult in a new-found WIKI is its [[Special:Statistics|Statistics Page]]. That of this WIKI reports an incredible disproportion of total pages (over 6,500) to content pages (just 250)&mdash;a rate of less than 4% actual content to total pages. (The English Wikipedia has a 17% rate with over 2.5 million articles, and the [http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Lord of the Rings WIKI]&mdash;a smallish WIKI with just over 3,000 content pages&mdash;boasts a 40% rate.) After probing around a little, I realized that there may be a problem with the WIKI's namespace array. In order for pages in a WIKI to count toward content, the namespaces in which they reside must be included in the MediaWiki canonical namespaces and content namespaces arrays. Perhaps someone needs to make additions to the $wgContentNamespaces variable in the LocalSettings.php script. (This variable can be added if missing.) What suggests this to be a problem is 1) the low content page count, and 2) the absence of many pages from the [[Special:Allpages|All Articles]] list. None of the Lexicon pages, for example, appear in this list, and these I understand to be in a separate namespace.<br />
<br />
I also find that there is a bewildering number and complexity of categories here. There are almost 2,000 categories in this WIKI. I wonder whether the actual number of content pages is in a desirable ratio to the number of categories. The previously mentioned Lord of the Rings WIKI has 360 categories for its 3,000 content pages. For the same ratio to exist in this WIKI, there would have to be about 16,500 content pages. Now, I do not hold up LOTR WIKI as a particular standard&mdash;although not an active contributor, I do regard it as a particularly well organized WIKI&mdash;but it does seem to me that there is an extraordinary use of categories here. I notice that there is an odd multiplying of categories with many pages appearing in multiple category trees. This is not particularly unusual, but in the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_occam William of Ockham], "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." Almost 1,500 of the almost 2,000 categories here are part of a multitude of Guide for the Perplexed category trees, and pages are cross-linked in these trees in a myriad of ways. One entry, [[Lexicon:Quackeens]] is a leaf in five trees in which four of these trees it is deeply nested. The English Wikipedia has an enormous number of categories, but many of them, perhaps most, do not quite satisfy the site's own guidelines for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categorization categorization] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overcategorization overcategorization]. (Many of its categories have only one page, for example. Is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran Fourth Council of the Lateran] the only thing of note that happened in Italy in 1215. If so, then perhaps there should not be a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1215_in_Italy 1215 in Italy] category. Wouldn't it be better to roll it up under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1215 1215] category, from which this important event happens to be strangely missing.) Of course, that site is somewhat of a free-for-all. Wouldn't things be much easier to find here if there was a simplification of the categories? Couldn't the forest be felled and replaced with articles that arrange things together neatly?<br />
<br />
Regards, [[User:Opus|Opus]] 13:46, 28 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User_talk:OpusUser talk:Opus2008-12-28T11:15:11Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>==General Discussion with Opus==<br />
Please add your comments or questions here or start a new section. Regards. [[User:Opus|Opus]] 11:15, 28 December 2008 (GMT)</div>Opushttp://wiki.hmssurprise.org/phase3/index.php/User:OpusUser:Opus2008-12-28T11:12:49Z<p>Opus: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Greetings==<br />
I post as Opus. In informal settings, you may call me Russ.<br />
<br />
==Personal==<br />
I am a middle-aged man living in one of the historic old cities the Southeastern United States.<br />
<br />
My profession is computer systems and database administration. Currently, I am an Oracle database administrator.<br />
<br />
I also study political economics&mdash;primarily of the classic Austrian variety&mdash;and dabble in astronomy. Philately is an old, childhood hobby that I am trying to get back into.<br />
<br />
==Interest in Aubrey-Maturin Novels==<br />
I am fairly new to the Patrick O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series. That is to say that having read the first of the series soon after the <i>Master and Commander</i> movie was released, I did not read any more in earnest until this month (December 2008). Earlier, the complexity of nautical terminology put me off, but the rich and exciting plot and highly developed characters&mdash;with particular interest in the dynamics of the relationship of Aubrey and Maturin&mdash;have captivated me for a sustained push through the series.<br />
<br />
==Other Interests==<br />
My literary interests are somewhat varied. The <i>Lord of the Rings</i> epic by J.R.R. Tolkien is a special study of mine, having read the entire canonical series (<i>The Silmarillion</i>, <i>The Hobbit</i>, and <i>The Lord of the Rings</i>) many times through. I have also studied Christopher Tolkien's <i>History of Middle Earth</i>. Many war histories are under my belt, with Winston Churchill's six volume <i>The Second World War</i> being my favorite. I especially enjoy Agatha Christie's Poirot mysteries, and&mdash;when I'm slumming&mdash;Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes mysteries. There is also Grimm's Fairy Tales, which was meant for adults as well as children, and such other "juvenile" material as the writings of Laura Ingalls Wilder and the novels of Lucy Maude Montgomery. I have read all of the major novels of Jane Austen several times as well as some of her other work.<br />
<br />
My favorite books are:<br />
<br />
Fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The Silmarillion</i> (and ancillary works) by J.R.R. Tolkien</li><br />
<li><i>Out of the Silent Planet</i> by C. S. Lewis</li><br />
<li><i>Silas Marner</i> by Mary Ann Evans (a.k.a. George Eliot)</li><br />
<li><i>Murder on the Orient Express</i> by Agatha Christie</li><br />
<li><i>Little Women</i> by Louisa May Alcott</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
Non-fiction:<br />
<br />
<ol><br />
<li><i>The Gathering Storm</i> (vol. 1 of <i>The Second World War</i> series) by Winston Churchill</li><br />
<li><i>Knowledge and Decisions</i> by Thomas Sowell</li><br />
<li><i>Socialism</i> by Ludwig von Mises</li><br />
<li><i>A Conflict of Visions</i> by Thomas Sowell</li><br />
<li><i>The Supreme Court</i> by William H. Rhenquist</li><br />
</ol><br />
<br />
==ETC.==<br />
Everyone is invited to converse with me on my talk page.</div>Opus