Talk:James Hartness

Information Boxes

It's great to add the aviation angle to Hartness's article and the talk page. However, in the hierarchy of significance, I recommend the Biography—Project Vermont—Aviation Portal order of precedence. I plan to be upgrading this article in the near future. HopsonRoad 21:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hartness and aviation

Although Roe (who wrote the extensive ASME biography) and Wicks (who wrote a briefer biography for ASME) disagree on whether Hartness purchased a Wright flyer, I'm siding with Roe who does not report his having done so. This is corroborated by his surviving grand-daughter, Mary Fenn of Brownsville, Vermont.--User:HopsonRoad 01:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Hartness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080302004605/http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/nov99/features/tool/tool.html to http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/nov99/features/tool/tool.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621145145/http://www.hartnesshouse.com/hartness-history.shtml to http://www.hartnesshouse.com/hartness-history.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Categorization of people?

James Hartness was an inventor and entrepreneur, who was born in Schenectady, NY. User:Aboutmovies moved him into Category:Politicians from Schenectady, New York. I reverted back to Category:People from Schenectady, New York, saying that, "Hartness was a politician for only two years of his life. He was primarily an engineer and entrepreneur, so "People" is a better category."

With this edit, Aboutmovies reverted me, saying, "rv, that does not matter, he was a politician so we move him down (and politicians are people too)".

Which would be the preferred categorization in this case? HopsonRoad (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute and not something that one editor should weigh in on alone. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

If Hartness' involvement in politics were some minor role, I'd say it might be better to leave it off. He was, however, for those two years a state governor. While he might have been primarily an inventor and entrepreneur, a governorship is enough to make him a notable politician, too. For example, upon his death the newspaper headline was: "Springfield in Mourning as Last Rites are Held for James Hartness Inventor, Scientist and Ex-Governor" (emphasis mine). So it seems entirely appropriate to categorize him as a politician; that is an essential, defining characteristic (among others). If we had "inventors by city" categories we could also categorize him as an inventor from Schenctady, NY, but we don't have those categories. Huon (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

As an aside, while the help requests are meant more for editing help, Wikipedia does have a dedicated process for people to give a third opinion in a dispute. It should only be used when the two people originally involved in the dispute couldn't reach a consensus via discussion, though. Huon (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Huon. I'm aware of WP:3O, but this seemed to me to be a policy question that wasn't well described at WP:COP. Your explanation helped me understand that one opts for the deepest subcategory, even if an individual might show up on two subcategories. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I apologize I could not go more in-depth in the edit summary, but there is limited space there. Plus, I get this same argument all the time and simply get tired of explaining all the time. Yes, we try for the deepest sub-categorization, as otherwise the parent cat is not diffused. As it is, in cities such as say NYC where there are 20+ occupation subcats, many people are in many of the sister cats. I swear, half of all politicians are lawyers, and many actors are also screenwriters (meaning they can go in the writers cat). Aboutmovies (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Aboutmovies. I understand that it's difficult to hold the hand of every surprised fellow editor, as you perform work on a large scale! No offense taken here! You might try as an edit comment, "Placing individual in the deepest pertinent subcategories per WP:COP." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)