User talk:Markalexander100/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Blocking 2 Edit summary 3 Friendly reminder 4 Dear Markalexander100 5 Singapore's FAC 6 Image:Chihuly Inside and Out close-up.jpg 7 impossibly 8 Killing fields 9 Cambodia 10 Wishes for the Chinese new year 11 References/Great Mosque of Djenné 12 The Cantos 13 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Itsukushima torii 14 Shostakovich 15 60% of protein [2] 16 Vietnam and Thailand links 17 Image:Kircherearthfires.jpg 18 My adminship 19 Mud! 20 Kigo 21 Fidel 22 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish September Campaign 23 Neua pad prik 24 Biggest-selling female musician 25 Deleting other editors comments 26 Bach 27 FAC Nomination 28 Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vientiane_treaty 29 Wikipedia:Featured list candidates 30 University of California, Los Angeles 31 hindu temples 32 how to put your name at the end of a message?

[edit] Blocking

That IP address was blocked because of this obviously bad edit; I know mistakes sometimes happen in the confusion of editing this page, so I'll unblock the address and keep an eye on it. Mark¹ 04:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It must be a shared IP address situation. Thanks for posting that; I thought I was blocked because someone was insisting on a "fisherperson" link that didin't make sense and reverted my edit with an accusation of vandalism.

Thanks alot! Zosodada 05:30, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I have just a small suggestion. I would like to ask you, if possible, to put an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). And it would be good if that is indeed, every single time. Even for small changes.

None of us like arbitrary rules. So I would like to shortly explain why this particular rule is so important. You see, every time you change an article, it is not only the article which is modified. A record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on the watchlist. And most people have an article on their watchlist because they do care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 21:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly reminder

As a fellow Admin to another, please remember to list your actions about vandalism at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. It helps to keep track of long time vandals and such. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:37, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Markalexander100

(please refer to delete votes)

• • Dear Wiki contributors, admins & sysops. You have been mislead by Curps. Please see that article in question and decide for yourselves if deletion is a correct Wiki thing to do. I have decided not to pursue the re-naming of Curps's article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and through consultation with other helpful Wikis, I have decided to start a series of Asian Tsunami articles on my own ... there is freedom to initiate such a move right ? The articles in questions is proposed to drill deep in the subject in question. In Asian tsunami : The earthquake I have attempted to focus just on the earthquake that caused the Asian Tsunamis. In Asian tsunami : Time-line (currently vandalised by Curps), I have drilled down to the exact minutes to minutes account of the waves of deadly tsunamis. I will be added other article in the Asian tsunami series like the humanitarian aspects, current news & occurrences etc. because I think it is the right thing to do. kenkam 06:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore's FAC

Hi, you objected to elevating Singapore to featured status on FAC. I and some others have tried addressing your objections; would you mind reevaluating the article? Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:38, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Chihuly Inside and Out close-up.jpg

Perhaps I should clarify that it is a picture of a glass sculpture and not of a picture. I encourage you to reconsider your vote. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] impossibly

I just went through the article, reading, I must admit, some parts for the first time. You were right, some of the grammar was appalling, thanks for pointing it out. But let me nag you about "there are similarities that can impossibly all be due to chance" (since that phrase was mine; I have no problem with breaking it down of course, "There are these similarities. It is impossible that all of them are due to chance", but I don't even know if you are objecting to the pronoun or to the adverb) would you prefer "the having arisen of which as a result of chance is a matter of impossibility" maybe? I think this would be unassailable, gramatically :oD dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm objecting to the adverb: There are these similarities. It is impossible that all of them are due to chance would be fine. ;) Mark¹ 00:13, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Or replace "can impossibly" to "cannot possibly". Peter O. (Talk) 00:22, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

there's an idea. I think we are looking at a semantic shift of 'impossibly', similar to 'terribly' (i.e. we are used to expressions like 'impossibly beautiful', where the word has lost its logical for an emphatic meaning). Will try 'cannot possibly'). dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killing fields

The question is, what is the origin of this term? Was it a Cambodian usage, or was it invented by Hollywood? Or by the author of the book the film was based on? It is used by Cambodians now, but that is because of the film and because they know that is what tourists call it. And as far as I know, they only use it in relation to Choeung Ek. I would like to see a source before I agree that it is the generic term for all the Khmer Rouge execution sites. Adam 10:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, the origin of the phrase is an interesting issue, but one beyond my googling ability: I suspect it's lost in the murk of late 70s and early 80s popular culture. What I do know is that the phrase is now used to refer to all the sites ([1]); I've also found several examples of it being used to refer to the genocide as a whole. That seems to be dealt with at Democratic_Kampuchea#Revolutionary_Terror, but what we don't have yet, as far as I can find, is a discussion of the places where they did their killing: how many, where, organisation or lack of it, and so on. We could always call that page Khmer Rouge genocide sites, but Killing Fields is more intuitive. Mark¹ 00:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cambodia

Cambodia has improved so much since it was nominated for FA status - you've really done some good work there. However, would it be possible to fix up the modern day history? It's my last major objection, which I don't think it'd be too hard to fix - and it's getting awfully close to judgement day for the article. Ambi 13:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wishes for the Chinese new year

Hello, dear Markalexander100. Thanks for your great contributions to the article Nanjing University. Best wishes for the coming Chinese Spring Festival and Chinese Chicken Year. Dictioner 02:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References/Great Mosque of Djenné

Hi, thanks for the info. Did you yourself use those sources to add or confirm material in the article? If so, do you mind formatting them properly as references as at Wikipedia:Cite sources. There is a section for how to format websites as references. Thanks - Taxman 14:52, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Sure, done. Mark¹ 04:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cantos

Thanks for the FAC vote. Glad you liked the article, which has certainly improved since I nominated it. Filiocht 10:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Itsukushima torii

Hello - I have lowered the photo's saturation using Photoshop, so I would appreciate very much if you would reconsider your vote. Thanks! — Dan | Talk 13:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shostakovich

Hi, Markalexander.

I had edited a paragraph to read as follows:

"What is uncertain is the extent to which Shostakovich expressed his opposition to the state in his other music. The revisionist view was put forth by Solomon Volkov in his 1979 book Testimony. Although Testimony purports to be Shostakovich's memoirs dictated to Volkov, the book is clouded by ongoing controversy."

And you subsequently restored the original paragraph, which reads:

"What is uncertain is the extent to which Shostakovich expressed his opposition to the state in his other music. The revisionist view was put forth by Solomon Volkov in the 1979 book Testimony, which was claimed to be Shostakovich's memoirs dictated to Volkov. The book claimed that many of the composer's works contained coded anti-government messages. It is known that he incorporated many quotations and motifs in his work, most notably his signature DSCH theme. His longtime collaborator Yevgeny Mravinsky said that "Shostakovich very often explained his intentions with very specific images and connotations" (Wilson p. 139). The revisionist perspective has subsequently been supported by his children, Maxim and Galina, and many Russian musicians. His widow Irina supports the general thesis but denies the authenticity of Testimony. Other prominent revisionists are Ian MacDonald, whose book The New Shostakovich put forward more interpretations of his music, and Elizabeth Wilson, whose Shostakovich: A Life Remembered provides testimony from many of the composer's acquaintances."

And your comment suggested you did so in the interests of a neutral point of view.

(a) The statement that Volkov's book is clouded by ongoing controversy, is neutral, is it not?

(b) The question is more complex than "Volkov is a revisionist, and his case is essentially thus," and "These others are 'anti-revisionists'"; the paragraph as it stands (and subsequent discussion of the 'anti-revisionists') essentially defines the issue in Volkov's terms, which is not neutral, is it?

(c) I agree that the paragraph which you have restored is of interest, but I would suggest that it belongs in a related article on Volkov.

Cheers, Karlhenning 15:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

a) "clouded" I think is not NPOV: it implies that as a matter of fact the book is "tainted" in some way. That may or may not be right, but as some people would not agree, we should not say so. I'd have no argument with "controversial", though I don't think it would add much to Many musicians and scholars ... contest the authenticity (and debate the significance) of Testimony, which we already have.

b) and c) I think that perhaps you're misreading the paragraph, or at least not reading it the way I meant it. ;) Only two of the sentences are about Testimony/Volkov; the remainder of the paragraph discusses the revisionist case in general, and mentions five other broadly revisionist opinions (five and a half if you count Irina). Mark¹ 01:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 60% of protein [2]

I don't believe it. I deleted it. I think I'm deting what you added, so if you want to put "xxx says yyy (reference)" no problem.; but I still won' believe it. I bet rice alone gives Cambodians more protein than fish. 4.250.168.238 11:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, it's in the reference already cited. Rice, by the way, contains very little protein. Mark¹ 06:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam and Thailand links

I would respectfully disagree with the characterization of the links you deleted as "commercial". While it is true that we try to sell prints (and we do sell maybe ten in a good month), this is mostly so that we can support the site. The primary goal of the site has always been to share our photography. We have about half a million visits per month, so the sales that I mention are just a drop in the water. People return to the site because they like the contents, which is provided at no charge and without advertising, thanks to the few sales we obtain. Unlike real commercial photography sites, we have a generous free personal use policy, and often grant free permissions to organizatons as well.

The problem is that there are hundreds of sites with pictures of travel destinations, and since we can't list all of them it would be unfair to list just some. If you really want to share photos via Wikipedia, you can release some under GFDL, upload them and add them to specific pages. Mark¹ 06:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a fair argument that I respect. However, I note that there are potentially millions of topics too. The reason why those topics are there while others are not is that someone has bothered to write copy for them. This does not make it unfair to other topics. The reason why some photo sites would have links and some not would be that some photographers have bothered to contribute a link to wikipedia. If a link is weak in contents, the community can certainly decide to remove it. However, I would challenge you to find other sites that offer the same amount of professional level photography, say, about Vietnam, AND at the same time a personal free use policy as extensive as the link I added. I have looked into the GNU before (I work in software), but unfortunately, it doesn't work as well for artistic content, where the copyright issues are different, and very delicate. For instance, you don't see too much music released under the GNU, do you ?

The written and unwritten articles are not competing with each other, however (if you only sell ten pictures a month, I'd say you're not competing very well rather than that you're not competing). The reason that we don't already have a hundred links to photo galleries on each of the southeast Asian pages is not that people don't bother to add links, it's that we delete them as fast as people add them. Links to photo galleries are just not what Wikipedia is for: we want to provide information on this site, not to send people to other sites. There are, incidentally, a lot of GFDL images, if not music: Category:GFDL_images. Mark¹ 07:01, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Kircherearthfires.jpg

Image:Kircherearthfires.jpg says it is PD, but its source is a Stanford page which does not state the material is PD. Where is the Stanford copyright status information? An image copied from a PD source is not itself PD unless the holder of the copyright on the copy makes it PD. (SEWilco 06:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Basically, Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. Whether Stanford thinks it has copyright is irrelevant. It doesn't. ;) Mark¹ 07:05, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah. I was not aware of that principle being applied to images. Thanks. (SEWilco 16:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

This is obviously a similar image, although focused on his subterranean rivers: http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/heat/gallery/figures1/fig105.htm (SEWilco 18:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC))

That's a nice one- it's difficult to decide which ones to leave out of the articles! Mark¹ 03:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Depends upon the article. Volcano has the "internal fires" one, as "subterranean rivers" is not as focused on the topic. Incidentally, you might want to tweak the brightness and contrast so the details are more visible. (SEWilco 06:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] My adminship

Hi Mark, Your support in my nomination means a lot to me. I look forward to helping out. - BanyanTree 04:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mud!

Hello! I was just looking at edits on Tibetan Plateau and noticed that you contributed "Between them, these rivers carry 25% of the world's mud." I would like to nominate that sentence for deletion, since of course any "...liquid or semi-liquid mixture of water and soil, or sediment, is commonly referred to as mud." This accurate definition (from mud) would make it extremely difficult to say what percentage, even roughly speaking, of the world's mud was in a certain region at a certain time, much less in general. Comments? Musser 23:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm now regretting being a fool and not citing my source, but I definitely wasn't making it up. Give me a while to try to track down where I got it from and maybe to clarify it. Two possibilities spring to mind: 1) it means 25% of the sediment carried by rivers, which one can measure reasonably accurately; or 2) it's referring to the Indus and Bengal fans: the latter alone is 2,500 kilometers long and 22 kilometers thick, which is a hell of a lot of mud. Compared to that, measuring the mud at the bottom of your garden is irrelevant, since only the big chunks of mud will be statistically important. Compare the (as far as I know accepted) fact that Lake Baikal contains 20% of the world's total unfrozen freshwater: compared to that, minor sources of freshwater are again irrelevant. Mark¹ 04:07, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The first option there is an interesting possibility, which might make sense. If that's the case, I think I could reword to make it a little more clear. Those fans in your second suggestion certainly do represent a lot of sediment. I could see how someone might think that would constitute a significant portion of the world's mud. But the overburden pressure resulting from 22 km of sediment would have the effect of driving the water out of the lower portion of this sediment... making it mud no more. In fact, this is the process of formation for sedimentary rock. Either way, would you mind posting on my talk page if you manage to track down that source? I will be away from the computer more than usual over the next few weeks and might miss you otherwise! Regards, Musser 05:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kigo

gK had already done a bunch of good work on what was originally a very stubby article that I think was a direct translation from the Japanese Wikipedia (before he "left the building"—see his user page). I've decided that I want to finish that work with the goal of first going to Peer review, and then Featured article candidates (and then to the main page as a Featured article, of course). If you want to help, or just make some suggestions, that would be appreciated. As for the bolding. Since the article is about kigo, I was trying to make the various kigo stand out from the regular Wikilinks. The other way to go would be only wikilink the kigo so that they didn't need bolding. Another way to go would be to make each kigo a new entry in a wiki-list (using "*"), but that would make for a l-o-n-g article. If you can offer another way to achieve the same results, that would be great. BlankVerse ∅ 09:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest something like "ochiba (fallen leaves)", and use ochiba when referring to that kigo thereafter. After all, "ochiba" is the kigo, not "fallen leaves". But I'm afraid I don't know enough to help with the actual content. Mark¹ 02:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Ochiba is a kigo in the Japanese language. Fallen leaves is a kigo (season word) in the English-language that can be used in writing English-language haiku (Higginson's Haiku World has several nice examples including one from Cid Corman). Although I think that I've done a good job of emphasizing that everything about kigo comes from the Japanese concept, I've also tried to show that it is not exclusive to Japan or the Japanese-language. BlankVerse ∅ 03:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, "fallen leaves" can be a kigo in an English poem, but in the section called "Common kigo in Japanese haiku" it's not the kigo under discussion. In the section on English language kigos, italics or quote marks might work. Mark¹ 04:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fidel

SeeWikipedia:Requests for page protection --SqueakBox 03:12, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, largely in response to Kapil's behaviour on that page, I have opened an RfC on him: [[3]]. It would be most helpful if you could certify it. Thanks, Viajero 00:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polish September Campaign

I have adressed your comments, and images are in the middle of being clarified/removed (see comments). Are you still objecting, or just commenting? Or perhaps a 'conditional supporting'? :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just letting you now that User:Themanwithoutapast now supports the article. Please reconsider your vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neua pad prik

Hi Mark. I've added Neua pad prik to the list of Thai dishes at Cuisine of Thailand. I noticed that prior to this addition, there are nearly no popular dishes listed which contain beef, is there a reason for that? Whenever you have a chance, could you please help me translate the word "neua" into Thai? It would doubly helpful for a disambiguation article I'm working on at NEUA. —RaD Man (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biggest-selling female musician

Biggest-selling female musician - need to be deleted not cleaned up.......you can't take it seriously .....its a joke ....:)Vorash 04:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I wavered... If you list it on VfD, I'd gladly support. Mark¹ 04:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It was created by crazy fans of MAdonna and Mariah Carey.......you can clean up it 100 times, but they will continue to write their crazy stuff over and over again.....they dont want to listen to any facts.......it was created following my work in Best selling music artists and because they dont want to recognise a figures presented there...:)Vorash 04:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The value of the article is to keep the crazy fans' arguments out of the main articles for those artists! It presents all three cases, let it be. Wasted Time R 10:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting other editors comments

Please refrain from deleting other editors comments. Thanks. I have reverted your changes. El_C 09:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

As a general principle, you're obviously right, but people shouldn't vote on archived discussions. It just confuses people. Mark¹ 09:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to reserve the right to add a comment to a vote I already cast, if you don't mind, especially considering the only recent withdrawal of TBSDY's nomination, which I hadn't seen until now. The "confusion" argument seems quite weak here—or alternatively, I would like to reserve the right of "confusing" people when I want to, as well. Seeing that all comments are timestamped and we have edit histories, archival is a practice of convenience more than necessity anyway. Don't overdo it. JRM · Talk 09:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I find your continued deletion border on vandalism. Please stop. El_C 10:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You are of course entitled to your opinion that people should continue to vote on closed votes, but don't expect many people to share it. ;) Mark¹ 02:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That was not a (new) vote, nor was it a change of vote, it was a comment on a vote. El_C 02:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It was a comment on a new vote. Deleting invalid votes and leaving the comments on them would just be bizarre. Mark¹ 03:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bach

Why have you reverted the changes I made to the bach page? User:Helohe.

Hi, the comment that Gould is "one of the best bach performers" is completely subjective and therefore unencyclopedic. Mark¹ 01:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Nomination

I rewrote the nomination of Starfleet ranks and insignia so it doesnt sound like i am saying which votes will be counted. Please do not make further changes to my nomination without talking about it. It was a very serious problem last name with at least 4 users voting against FAC simply because they thought the article was "dumb" or "just about Star Trek". Per everything Ive read on Wikipedia: Featured article candidates, those votes are inactionable and are not counted. I have a right in my nomination to voice my concern about this. -Husnock 05:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

FOLLOWUP: After saying all that, I actually went back and removed the paragraph myself. The question about those concerns is now on the FA talk page. Maybe you can answer it. -Husnock 05:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vientiane_treaty

I went ahead and stubbed the article and moved it, so it can be hopefully expanded to something about the real Vientiane Treaty of 1973. Letting you know in case you want to withdraw the VfD :) — Phil Welch 09:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

I saw your post about the sections. I think what happened was that you clicked a link just as I was moving some new nominations to the top of the list. Sorry about that. Should be OK now. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Mark¹ 08:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I think I addressed your concern about the quality of the English in the Notes section of List of Popes. Could you take a look at it? --Spangineer ∞ 17:46, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of California, Los Angeles

Hopefully this will settle down quickly. It's a silly little issue, just over the inclusion of an old photograph. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:07, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There's often a direct proportionality between triviality of a dispute and the vigour with which it is pursued. ;) Mark¹ 08:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the passage of a couple of days, perhaps the dispute has settled down. Whenever you think it best to unprotect the page, please feel free to do so. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Mark¹ 01:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hindu temples

I put those temples in the hindu temples in cambodia category for the as a sub group in Hindu temples category to show the distinction from other hindu temples. The temples may be inactive but they are none the less hindu temples. The only ones that could be considered former hindu temples are the Angkor Wat and Bayon since they started off as hindu and were turned into buddhist ones. both temples show hindu mythology on them since the khymer empire started off as hindu.

 

---

I hadn't anticipated this issue, and was just keen to get the categories started in a hopefully useful way. With the title Hindu temples, I appreciate that it is ambiguous whether Hindu refers to architecture or religious usage, and whether the usage is current or historical. Now I remember why I have wiki-breaks! :-)

There are probably no consensual guidelines for issues like this, but there are many pages discussing categorisation.

My view is that categories can interpreted as being "current" by default where there is a "former" category, e.g. Colonies and Former colonies. Category:Formerly_X should be a child category of Category:X, as having to always either use Category:Current_X as a sibling or Category:Current_and_formerly_X as a parent would be cumbersome. Differing examples include Current national leaders and French monarchs.

In general, Wikipedia is tilted towards current data rather than historical data, e.g. the history of population sizes of countries is a lot rarer than the latest census total. If I'm reading an old document, I may want to look up facts relevant to that time. But I digress, and who reads old stuff anyway? :-)

Like the rest of Wikipedia, we are aiming for a compromise between perfect accuracy, maximum usability, and unanimity, i.e. verifiable facts presented in a NPOV manner, readability, consensus. I don't know how many Cambodian temple articles have this issue but here's a range of category solutions:

Highly specific

Buddhist temples in Cambodia that were originally Hindu, which could in turn be a child of Buddhist temples in Cambodia and Formerly Hindu temples, not to be confused with categories like Former Buddhist Temples (sic). This is bad when it results in categories with too few members and overly-long titles.

Inclusive and readable

Hindu temples in Cambodia and Buddhist temples in Cambodia. Relevant category pages can have a template or text explaining that they categorise religious sites by historical as well as current usage, as well as by architecture (for structures). Hopefully, the relevant article(s) cover historical and current usage, as well as architecture where appropriate.

Overly general

Buildings. This is bad when it results in categories with too many members.

Hmmm, was I supposed to vote? --Zigger «º» 15:20, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)

[edit] how to put your name at the end of a message?

how do set your sig at the end of a message?

Four tildas: ~~~~