User talk:Harmonia1/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Strange computer
Okay, sorry for protocol lapse. Trying again, MarcusAA. maybe I can only sign my posts from my own talk page. Doing this from a strange computer; mine has virus.Harmonia1 22:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Would appreciate some guidance on next steps. Harmonia1 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Bizzare
I had User:Harmonia1/Sacred Band of Stepsons deleted but it still shows up on google searches. Wait and see if it eventually debugs itself. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for helping
I really wanted this User:Harmonia1/Sacred Band of Stepsons deleted, for privacy's sake and neatness. Thanks so much for helping. Will check to see if it is gone from Google later tonight. Is this the best place to respond to you? Left message on your talkback as well. Thanks again, Harmonia1Harmonia1 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have your talk page watchlisted.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Still Bizarre
Marcus: Checked and the user link User:Harmonia1/Sacred Band of Stepsons on Google is still there. Luckily, the link to the real page is still there as well. Will check later or tomorrow. By the way, am really happy with the real page; your advice was and is very helpful.
Harminia1Harmonia1 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like google refreshed it's search results. It's never takein this long before. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Marcus: Thanks so much. Glad to see it gone. Harmonia1Harmonia1 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
nonlethals
Not to horn in, Marcus, but the appropriate terminology is 'nonlethal weapons,' or 'non-lethal weapons,' when referring to Department of Defense, vs. Department of Justice, which does less-lethal and less-than-lethal. This attempt to make the two activities into one can only lead to increasing confusion. Suggest that someone separate the less lethal and nonlethal pages using the simplest criteria, based on military (NLW) or police (LL, LTL) development channels and projected or actual use. The Office of the Secretary of Defense produced an appropriate Directive to develop military nonlethals in all services after Congress decreed that a nonlethal program be initiated (1994, 1995). The Joint Non-lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD)was the result, as well as various single-service programs. JNLWD still exists, but although administered by USMC, belongs to no service but is not officially 'Joint' and thus has no friend at court. I put a note on the less lethal site, on their talk page, about how this was done and Congress's intent in choosing the NLW name. These two areas, 1) nonlethal or non-lethal (military) and 2) less lethal or less than lethal (police), need to be treated separately by Wikipedia. The hyphen versus no hyphen issue in the word 'nonlethal'is one having to do with the way language grows, and may be hampering attempts to find unclassified documents: words are hyphenated until they become compound, so "non-lethal" may precede "nonlethal" or coexist with it in citations. Wikipedians are becoming pawns in a name-game (with money and power attached) that the press doesn't understand and so is itself vulnerable to manipulation by parties with vested interests; people come into the NL area and want to rename in order to own and dominate; military folks rotate every 18 months and so may be naive. I will find you the OSD directive, which should be the final word on whether and how to discuss military nls, since OSD controls all in the Department of Defense, which in turn holds power over the military services, which will not openly go against DoD policy.
I don't want to enter the discussion on your talk page without being sure it is ok, so I will just put some items here for you to export as I find them and if you find them helpful. If my information is unwelcome, I will gladly cease and desist. Harmonia1Harmonia1 (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Link to DoD Directive
(ASD SO/LIC means assistant secretary of defense for special operations/low intensity conflict).
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/dodreg/bldodreg3000-3.htm
Harmonia1Harmonia1 (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Council on Foreign Relations Report on Nonlethal Weapons and Capabilities
[1] Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force Report on Nonlethal Weapons
harmonia1Harmonia1 (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- The notability of the Sanctuary books is not relevant here; the challenge is in establishing that the Stepsons themselves are notable in and of themselves; and things like having people name WoW characters after you will not suffice. Nobody cares about gamers' preferences except other gamers; the challenge is to find substantial coverage of the Stepsons in reliable sources like the Advocate or publications covering literature, culture and/or society. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Orangemike, your help requested
Orangemike, having looked at the gaming sites and the way gaming was used on the Thieves' World site, I am confused as to how and which gaming references, if any, to use. World of Warcraft has lots of Sacred Band activity; which is related to our cite is difficult to determine; the web has numerous snatches of gamers writing which uses various Stepsons characters nad calls out Stepsons as a unit, but I don't what I'm looking at there. Obviously the gaming material on TW site is relevent, but it's articualted for people who understand it already: for example, the 2005 Thieves' World Gazetteer references the necessity of using the Dungeons and Dragons manual, so is it Dungeons and Dragons? Your expertise on this area, as to what to usee as a refernece, and from when, would be very helpful. Am hesitant to choose these myself. Harmonia1 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC )
- I'm not sure to what extent most of what you reference counts as relevant; anything about Thieves' World is going to cover the Stepsons, but that's not the kind of third-party coverage we are required to provide. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad I don't need to sort through the gaming and comic book material, although the first Tempus story, Vashanka's Minion, was used in a graphic novel or comic, evidently. If one insists that the the six Stepson novels were all covered by Thieves' World, and the Stepsons books in Tyse and Mygdonia and New York and the future are somehow Thieves' World, then I need to look elsewhere. However, I think it is relevant to point out that the Stepsons have their own identity now in gaming systems and introduced many to the Sacred Band concept; U'm simply not sure how to do it. Do you not want the Dungeons and Dragons or World of Warcraft references, but rather Chaosium and Green Ronin?
As for more about the fiction and nonfiction, what precisely do you mean? Character lists? Plot synopses? Thanks again for your time. By the way, Janet Morris says Tempus never raped his sister and they turn out not to be related by blood: that she is his 'sister' as in 'brothers and sisters, let us pray. Harmonia1 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Non-lethals
Didn't notice what you had put here about non-lethals until just now. I added the appropriate notice, agreed to your proposal on the talk page and will be posting a notice on the military history wikiproject to generate a thorough consensus. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Great news
Depending on how long it takes to satisfy OrangeMike and get those tags off the Stepsons page, I could make time to help. Have lots of data; there's additional recently declassified info. Will try to figure out how to add myself to the group if that's okay. On the Stepsons topic, this wouldn't be so frustrating if I hadn't answered all your tags on this and satisfied you.... Harmonia1 (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
No more Advocate
OrangeMike, The Advocate no longer exists." Harmonia1 ([[User talk:Harmonia1#top|talk]]) 00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
OrangeMike, myth and fiction are synonyms
According to my very thick Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, myth and fiction are synonyms. See any Random House Websters under "myth (3)." I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to unilaterally change words derived from myth to words derived from fiction. Chose words carefully after looking up both myth and fiction and thinking carefully about connotation and word frequency and differentiation on page. Harmonia1 (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Links like this demonstrate my thesis, but if you will not accept on-line, then how to prove it?
Orangemike, please look at the Circus Maximus site when you type in Sacred Band of Stepsons. This sort of talk proves my thesis. I do feel you are holding this page to a higher standard than many others I've seen. Where are the academic and scholarly references in respected publications (let's not include gaming here, since it really isn't part of the academic world as I understand it) to Thieves' World or similar sies on WP? Or, more to the point, on the Sacred Band of Thebes site, where they had only one external reference to "respected" -- as defined by you -- external publications from this century until I added DeVoto -- and that's ALL there is, except Hillbert's dissertation. Everyone I know thinks print is dead and is scrambling to publish online first; academics are at the head of the stampede. Who decides what is 'respected'? the Advocate was so 'respected' it went out of business. I think the worst difficulty I have is your insistence that anything with 'Beyond' in the title belongs to TW. That's not how I see it; not how Lynn Abbey sees it; not how the paper trail reads. However, I looked at your personal site where you describe yourself as 'deletionist,' which brings us back to the suposed Wikipedia neutral point of view. You have me at a huge disadvantage since you are from this fan, sf, fantasy, gaming culture that evidently disrespects itself, from your comments. I read the authors' new book with a historian's eye and loved it, and volunteered for this work. I'm not getting paid. Saying that World of Warfare is okay but Topic is not seems capricious. Topix had over 137,000 hits on this section about sexuality and Hellenic antiquity; there someone used Sacred Band of Stepsons as a reference in a discussion more scholarly and more respectable than anything I've seen in the fantasy or science fiction 'academic' area. One pushes on, confused but determined. Harmonia1 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm split! Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Marcus, NLs or N-ls
Did you decide between Non-Lethal and Nonlethal? Fairly easy to redirect one to the other, one thinks.
There was a disagreement posted on the NL discussion page. I'm putting my comment here instead of there, for your consideration:
- Consider, Police in US have more than 34,000 separate buying organizations, little funding per entity, need items that are cheap, require little or no training and fit into a street vehicle or helicopter. Italian secret police have no such limits; German police are very limited, British police as well. It is a fact of life that some nation-states use military equipment on their own civilians, not something that terminology can prevent or clarify. All qualified nations with appropriate treaties (not just western developed nations, also Asians, esp. Pacific Rim), look to U.S. DoD for 'nonlethals' that are more than small-unit crowd control devices. Rules for military and police use differ widely in most developed nations. For example, in US police can use tear gas; US military cannot use tear gas in engagements abroad. NATO has a group for Nonlethals and all qualified users send representatives; NATO is not primarily police as we understand the term in the west. NLs are not limited to small-unit crowd control devices or capabilities. Klaus Dieter-Thiel runs a yearly NL conference in Germany; perhaps that conference info is publicly available. If you limit coverage to LL, or LtL, one thinks you should limit discussion to devices that are police-approved and available to them: much harder since police units are not homogeneous. Otherwise the article will add to the confusion, not clarify anything. One thinks some duplication of coverage may be inevitable but can be managed by asking whether police choose it, does it fit into a shotgun, on their belts or their dashboards, into a police personnel carrier or helicopter. Also, police in US and most western nations have no development money, so are dependent on what vendors offer and seldom have 'new' technology or higher-end gear. Some respondents on the other page are interested in developmental items, which also are in large DoD, MoDs, etc. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I've started a section at Talk:The Sacred Band of Stepsons to discuss the requested improvements. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
: Thanks, Explodicle, for your quick response and your effort on this topic.Harmonia1 (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover Scan.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover Scan.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:10 04 20 Tempus Cover-1.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Fair Use
Hopefully I have addressed the fair use issue on the image page as instructed. Believing that I have done, I have removed the tag there. The image is provided for fair use by Wikipedia by the copyright holder and with the permission of the copyright holder (Janet Morris, copyright 1987). The author owns all rights (Janet Morris, copyright 1987) to the work, having reverted the work from the publisher as of Dec, 2009. If more rationale is needed or another form must be filled out for a different type of use, let me know and I will do it. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Also noticed that I have uploaded the same file twice with two different file names; will delete one if I can figure out how. The files are identical, but for the fair use rationale. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Marcus
Speedy deletion of the duplicate is fine with me; I'm not sure which image is linked to the page but if one goes away, I guess I can reload the other. Fumbling my way through this. Thanks for your help. If I knew how, I'd nomiate you for another decoration for your patience and efficiency. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you fill out the "Non-free media use rationale" template I've placed on the image page using Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline for guidance. On the subject of less lethals I think there will be intense rejection by the Wikipedia community to creating a somewhat redundant article on non lethals. Instead, the best route to go would be to have the article renamed to non lethal (or non-lethal) by far the preferred term at least in the U.S. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; and changing to Non-lethal or nonlethal
Will work on the image page. Your idea of changing the name of the current page to non-lethal (the term JNLWD still uses, with hyphen) is a good one, though a redirect for "nonlethal" may still be helpful. "Less lethals" or LTLs won't include the upper end military items, yet non-lethal includes everything. Please check later if you have time to see if I've filled out the Non-free media use rational form as needed. Thanks once again.Harmonia1 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- Marcus, have filled out non-free use rationale on the image page. Hoefull, it is done correctly. Let me know if I need to do more. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
much needed witticism
MAA, you bet. You probably could kill with that brain of yours; too bad the remote viewing program isn't up and running. Bet I know folks who could teach you.... (also meant to be humorous). Seriously, anything to do with NLWs causes folks to lose their NPOV. Hopefully, you will win this fight to rename. Tis a far, far better thing....Harmonia1 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I love where my taxes are going.
Harmonia, I just thought you should see this article I created:Transformer (flying car). Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Marcus, Hi! Thanks. I never would have seen this but for you. I needed a giggle. I'm trying everything I can think of to meet OrangeMike's conditions on the SBT page and get those tags removed, and it's tough. You did a fine job with this article. DARPA, a/k/a The Black Tower, should be thankful you did it. Harmonia1 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Critias6, do you read
Harmonia1 says hiHarmonia1 (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Great to be aboard Harmonia
Thanks for welcoming me.Critias6 (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Elkoholic, welcome
hi thereHarmonia1 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
MAA, NL article categories may need to change or be augmented
Marcus, now that this LL article has moved to Non-lethal, shouldn't the categories reflect the military applications, such as military police, crowd control, peace keeping, peace enforcement, etc. as well as or instead of so many the law enforcement categories? Harmonia1 Harmonia1 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
- I added Category:Military equipment. Feel free to add categories that haven't been thought of. I have also nominated Category:Less-lethal weapons to be deleted and replaced with Category:Non-lethal weapons
Category:Antipersonnel weapon Category:Antimateriel weapon Category:Kinetic projectile devices Category:Chemical incapacitants Category:Electromagnetic antimateriel weapon Category:Vessel stopping devices Category:Vehicle stopping devices Category:Calmative agents Category:Non-lethal delivery mechanisms Category:Area denial weapons . You can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 29#Category:Less-lethal weapons.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. Will comply. 98.19.157.80 (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Elkoholic, have at it
ID some categories for this article; provide some lists of NLWs appropriate for this fora, if you please. Need to decide if ASITS fits within em; or SBD fits anywhere; FRAGIT probably doesn't. Should be able to link GCV to this but hopefully someone less involved will do that. Call if you need help or ask MAA, much smarter on WP protocols than I.Harmonia1 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Critias6, fire when ready
Crit, you may proceed with whatever Nonlethal taxonomy is appropriate within constraints. Share the article list I sent with Elko. Can we use the old Directorate list from 99/2000? I have some docs in MA. Will be there next week. Others on Dotto's old files. We should get some JNLWD yearlies. MAA will surely edit for level and depth appropriate. I think I know how to add categories to the page bottom, but WP thinks differently than we do: WP wants categories of activity or use. Look at categories and type classification that seem appropriate; NLS by class and effect: antipersonnel and antimateriel; electromagnetic, kinetic, chem; list of tech areas from old Nonlethality Global Strategy docs. And let's find the current makeup of NL kits we're using. Run by me first if you have concerns. Citations are a requirement: no original research, all open source Harmonia1 (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Harmonia1, got it
Harmonia, I will review with Elkoholic and see what documents we have and what we need to get. Elkholic just received a document from the JNLWD that lists their updated NLW cpabilities.
MAA, link NL page to GCV page?
Marcus, would it be appropriate to link the N-L page to the GCV page: it's a projected delivery system for NLs, after all. Also, does it make sense to add categories or subcategories as we discussed above, starting with antipersonnel/antimateriel, then electromagnetic/chemical/kinetic, etc? Harmonia1 (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
That would make sense. To add them (if you haven't found out how) place them in alphabetical order at the bottom of the page. I'll see where I can work in the GCV as well as other delivery systems.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- MMA, please clarify: at the bottom of which page? The page that currently is reachable by typing Non-Lethal Weapon doesn't have the categories you posted here, but instead still has the LL categories. I know how to do it, once a category list is started, but not where to do it. Harmonia1 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Example. A good (but not totally necessary) tool to have enabled is hotcat. To install see the gadgets part of your my preferences page.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ah I see, you want create categories? Wikipedia won't let you create a blank category so you must add the category:Less-lethal weapons as I've done at Category:Non-lethal police equipment.Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Will put entries wherever you wish. Am accustomed to breaking NLS down in subcats: first level is asking if they are antipersonnel or antimateriel or both; second level is are they chemical, electromagnetic, or kinetic (acoustics falls into kinetic because it moves molecules through the air, although once it was separate); then there are NL delivery systems to consider. You have "Weapons" but not broken down into antimateriel or antipersonnel, let alone differentiated further. I don't want to upset anyone or change protocols. I can put these in the less-lethal page or wait to see what you do. If we were differentiating military equipment more finely, it might be easier. Would all of these entries go into "Weapons" under "Military Equipment" as subcats? Wikipedia thinks a very specific way about things, not always the way I think. Excuse my caution, but feel it is warranted. Harmonia1 (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
MAA, some categories exist
Marcus, research categories for NL while trying to deal with the Sacred Band issues.
On NL, WP has the category (or subcategories) "antiperonnel weapons" and the category "kinetic projectile weapon." These would be good additions to the category list, I think. I had to create a category list for Sacred Band of Stepsons today. Did it as best I could and removed the tag with that instruction as it said to do. If you think I did that right, I might attempt the NL category list. Harmonia1 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- I cleaned up the categories for Sacred Band and also started a Janet Morris category. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
OrangeMike
Locus has said it will help locate reviews and an article on Janet Morris that may mention the Sacred Band series. We now have a good Library Journal review for Beyond Sanctuary, a Publisher's Weekly review for Beyond Sanctuary (know it's there and can cite it but haven't got it yet; a Kirkus Review for Beyond the Veil which is pretty good for Kirkus, whihc hates everything and especially sf and fantasy, and only notice sf or fantasy if they are popular enough. For fantasy, having reviews from three of the major trades seems quite good to me, since so much is never reviewed at all.
Have broken out some quotes and blockquoted them. If they're too long, can shorten.
Locus could possibly give Locus best-seller list appearances, but don't know if that is appropriate. Do think it is worthy of note that series has had tremendous longevity, starting in 1981.
Started a category list; can expand.
Am about to tackle the question of whether I should add other games that use Sacred Bands or should delete the characters I moved into the TW list (since there a list of characters was allowed, and do some shortened form of it here.
Hope you are pleased with this progress. Harmonia1 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
MAA, thanks again
You made Janet Morris a category? Cool. And thanks for cleaning up the SBS categories. Been pouring over this SBS site to improve it, wikify it and meet the notability guideline. All the games were contracted by Thieves' World, though these characters are important in them, so I can't find more than circumstantial evidence that the proliferation of the Sacred Band in rpgs is in some large part do to the Sacred Banders in Sanctuary and Beyond.
As for your help, it's invaluable: Everything you show me helps. And I am looking through the weapons categories. Acoustics are always the trickiest, since they are really kinetic and the holy grail in NLS is an acoustic impact device using parametric acoustics to generate the "difference tone" between two crossing waves. Can't find anything in the cats on acoustic weapons, although in life we used an acoustic paddle pretty effectively to repel boarders off Somalia. Will try to find citation for that. (Sigh!) If I could construct a parametric device, I could quit working and make the world a safer place at the same time.Harmonia1 (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
MAA, the dogies are restless
So, what happens now that some of the Wikipedians just woke up to the change and want to split into 2 categories? Lucky I read all of Marcus Aurelius, your namesake, on dealing with the body politic -- more than once. Interesting. Accomplishing a split wouldn't be hard, but some of them didn't want that. Is WP a simple democracy? One hopes not, if one has read one's Plato.Harmonia1 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
MAA, look at added cats, please, bottom here
Have added some suggestions for cats. See what you think.Harmonia1 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- MAA, these additions could be done without the word 'weapon,' (so electromagnetic weapon would become simply 'electromagnetic' or 'electromagnetic devices'). If you think the W word is going to upset folks, it's a possiblity since these are type classes under non-lethal weapons; it may be redundant to say weapon a second time; also, some things not covered here yet. But a start.Harmonia1 (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Also, do these cats need to be alphabetical? Or in descending order of importance or universality (better)? I was working on the cats on the NL page and someone else overrode me with their work, which is fine. I think I'll stay over here where I'm safer and make suggestions. NPOV is critical to this effort; no political bias is appropriate where hardware is concerned; weapons don't kill people; people kill people.Harmonia1 (talk) 02:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)