User talk:Neelix/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Neelix. 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.

I'm pretty sure this is one of those cases where the qualification of WP:MOSDAB—"it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"—really needs to kick in. The problem is that Aristo and Ariston are the same name—not similar or separate names—for all of the Greek entries. There is no valid criterion by which they can be kept separate, and while the strict conformity with article names might work elsewhere, in this case it would be very confusing to users who know that they are looking for someone with the identical name to the others listed on the disambiguation page from which the object of their search is absent! "See also" doesn't cut it without an explanation. We could list all of the people named Aristo(n) on both pages, but that would require someone to volunteer to keep them updated together.

If everything on Wikipedia needs to be standardized (which I doubt), then the right thing to do would first be to standardize these entries acording to WP:GREEK#Ancient Greek, in other words, to move all Greek Ariston pages to Aristo. Still, we'd need a fuller explanation at the emptied page Ariston than "See also Aristo." I respectfully request that you either accomplish such a move of the Ariston articles, or else restore things to how you found them and not remove helpful information, while of course feeling free to add any new information you think belongs. Wareh 21:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Aristo (ruler) and Ariston (hero) are unhelpful redirects. No one will ever type them into the search box, and they only raise non-notable fancruft to the level of visibility where it will cause confusion with legitimate historical subjects. Wareh 21:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Also, having Ariosto point anywhere but to the 300,000-times-as-famous person is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. In such a case the right thing is to create Ariosto (disambiguation) and to put a dab-header at the article on the principal reference. Wareh 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh,

I'm glad you care about the functionality of disambiguation pages. I agree that the Aristo and Ariston disambiguation pages should be merged. This was not completely the case before I extended these articles. It also makes sense for Ariosto to be a redirect page to the most likely intended meaning, having a link to the other entry (or entries) at the top of that page. Feel free to make those changes if you deem them appropriate. As to Aristo (ruler) and Ariston (hero), I believe them to be helpful and legitimate redirects. If you disagree, please begin a discussion on their talk pages.

Thank you for your insight,

Neelix 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ought Aristo and Ariston to be merged? In addition to the Greek name, there are usages distinctly fixed in each spelling. But maybe you're suggesting something that hadn't occurred to me—that we have one combined dab page "Aristo or Ariston may refer to:" and figure this won't bother or confuse anyone. Is that what you have in mind? (I am not going to expend energy proposing those redirects I regard as counterproductive, but, just so you understand my point, the designation "Aristo (ruler)" refers correctly to two rulers more notable than the fictional sci-fi character of the 90's. So what does it accomplish? I'm concerned it's more for the cosmetic appearance of the disambiguation page than for anything else.) Wareh 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh,

That is indeed what I am suggesting. If people are going to search for articles called "Aristo" when they type "Ariston" and vice versa, then it makes sense to combine the two disambiguation pages. This is agreeable enough as both disambiguation pages are fairly short.

With respect to the redirects you mentioned, you have assumed correctly. I did create them for the cosmetic purposes of the disambiguation page. It is unlikely that someone will type a qualifier (something in brackets) in the search bar along with the name they're trying to find. As such, the redirect page is there primarly so that future editors of the disambiguation page will recognize that the link is valid and not just a link to something unrelated.

Neelix 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I merged the pages, in a form that I hope is a reasonable compromise between your desire for conformity and my desire for organization. I've also moved Ariosto to Ariosto (disambiguation). By the way, when you alter a redirect or otherwise interfere with the structure of wikilinks, as you did with Ariosto, it is essential to correct inbound links. A quick look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Ariosto makes it plain that most of these are in reference to the Italian poet. Now they point in the right place again, but if Ariosto were to remain a disambig. page, it would have been your job to correct all of those links to Ludovico Ariosto. I see this has been pointed out to you before, so just keep it in the front of your mind when changing redirects and disambiguation structures. Wareh 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh,

I've checked out your merge, and it looks great. My main intentions in editing these disambiguation pages to begin with was to standardize formatting so that it is easier to understand and navigate. You have preserved those standardizations while combining the two pages. I do apologize for causing you any trouble in not checking out the links to the former redirect page(s), and I will attempt to remember to do so in the future when extending redirect pages to disambiguation pages.

Neelix 02:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm so glad that the result is agreeable to both of us! Wareh 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since you do a lot of work in disambiguation, I think it is worth addressing more seriously those situations where creating redirects (that had no prior reason for existing) might not be the best thing to do. For a really obvious extreme-case example, look at the disambiguation page Leonius. Historians will probably never come to conclusive results about whether they're all the same person. If they are, there is cause for only one article. If they are not, nothing will ever be known about the additional persons beyond their work and legacy in poetic form. The topics need to be disambiguated, but the creation of additional redirects would patently detract from the quality of the encyclopedia's information and organization.

I would really feel better if I could persuade you that Aristo (ruler) and Ariston (hero) are not helpful; you seem to have admitted that the only thing they "help" is the tidy appearance of a page you worked on. But this is a false tidiness, as it suggests that these topics are comparable, in their place in the encyclopedia, to topics that really do have articles. When WP:MOSDAB says, "a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not," it is not suggesting creating new redirects. The general principles of disambiguation pages—for example, that article names should be unpiped and not concealed—are to provide the reader, at a single glance, a true representation of the Wikipedia treatments available. In my opinion, it is more honest to provide no wikilink to a topic of no notability, and instead make it obvious to the browser that this is an incidental detail mentioned in in the treatment of another, putatively notable, topic.

If I can't persuade you fine—I'd rather drop it. (It is not a solution to start a discussion on the talk pages, because you know as well as I that no one will ever look at the talk page of a redirect!) But there are a great number of disambiguation articles that follow the principles I'm suggesting here, and I am concerned that if you go on with what you think of as tidying, you will eventually find I am not the only or most strident defender of the logical & organizational value of this existing Wikipedia practice. I hope you will give more consideration to whether the existing link structures, redirect structures, and disambiguation structures you find in Wikipedia don't at least sometimes reflect the careful work and deliberation of other editors who have given things plenty of thought. Obviously, much of the time they need improvement, and I wish more power to you as long as you're improving things. Wareh 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just wondering why exactly you redirect the redlink George Kerr (footballer) to the Lincoln City F.C. article. First of all, he is notable as he is a football manager, and why Lincoln City? Seems quite subjective, considering he managed two other clubs. I've now expanded it to an article. Thanks, Mattythewhite 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Matty,

I created the George Kerr (footballer) page because I was in the process of reformatting the George Kerr (disambiguation) page. I knew he was significant enough to have his own article, but I didn't know enough about him to write one myself. The choice of redirecting to Lincoln City F.C. was, admittedly, arbitrary. The redirect served to allow this entry on the disambiguation page, while acting as a temporary solution in hopes that someone would come along and expand the redirect into a full-fledged article. Thank you for doing so.

Neelix 12:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I hate to stick around here like a bad penny, but I really think you should stop creating redirects that don't already exist, which no one will type into the search box, and which may not really be logical or satisfactory in their naming, just so that a blue link will appear, instead of a perfectly appropriate explanation, in a disambiguation list. This is not called for by any Wikipedia guidelines, and for good reason. It can be misleading & disruptive and sometimes makes the encyclopedia work worse. How many independent complaints to the same effect will it take? Wareh 13:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wareh,

I appreciate your concern about my practices of creating redirect pages, and I believe that I understand your objections to my doing so. I simply disagree. It is not explicitly stated in the guidelines that a user should not do so, but neither is it stated that one should do so. You have stated your case, and made reference to "idependent complaints to the same effect". I do not find this to be the general case. Several users who have started discussions on my talk page (I kiss you, page Anomaly, and Article titles) all agree that this practice is a good one. I do not know whether or not I was able to convince the user "Superslum" of the validity of the practice, but a better outline of my reasoning for doing so is directed to that user in the Red Links are adored discussion. You stated in one of your initial edits of my talk page that you were "not going to expend energy proposing those redirects (you) regard as counterproductive" be removed. If you have changed your mind and now feel that this is an important practice to prohibit, begin a more public discussion on an appropriate guideline page. I feel that the practice of creating redirects for the purposes of disambiguation pages is helpful to the growth, appearance, and easier navigation of Wikipedia. Unless a guideline is established which states otherwise, I will continue to improve Wikipedia in this way.

Neelix 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Neelix, how are you doing? I couldn't get back to you sooner due to a family medical emergency. Now, in regard to the Abdiel Colberg page. I see from the your talk page that you are familiar with the purpose of a disambiguation page and that you know that when two or more notable persons share a common name, that said page is necessary.

Both Colberg's are notable, one the rollerskater and the other (his father), the producer. Even though the producer is a well known personality among Puerto Ricans (pop. 4 mil +), and doesn't have his own article, he is still notable IMdB. With the disambiguation page people will know which of the Colberg's they will be reading about and not be confused. Here is an example of various notable people who share the same common name of Pedro Flores, yet some do not have their own articles. I myself created the disambiguation page, upon request because some poeple were confused as to who was who. I hope that you understand and that this will not lead into a misunderstanding between us as to why I will object to any merge between the biographical artilce of Abdiel Colberg the rollerskater and the disambiguation page of those who share the same name of Abdiel Colberg.

Take care and I hope that you have a nice day. Tony the Marine 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tony,

That completely makes sense. It might be a good idea, however, to create the article for the producer. Even if it is a stub, it will prove his notability to other users who will wonder why the disambiguation page exists. This would also apply to the other people named Pedro Flores. As a general rule, I find it good practice to create the article before adding a link to it on the disambiguation page.

In looking over your previous contributions to Wikipedia, I'm impressed by your achievements. How did you go about gaining the honour of having four featured articles to your credit? Specifically, at what point should you make the suggestion that an article be considered for featured status?

I hope your medical emergency is over. I will be praying for you and your family.

Neelix 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the kind words. A stub on the other Coleberg would be nice.

In regard to the FA's. I am a seeker of knowledge. I have often found myself seeking the answers to certain questions that I ask myself in regard to history yet, I have found the answers to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, I have taken it upon myself the task of answering my own questions by creating an article with all the bites and pieces of all the sourced material out there and I normally end up with an article unlike any other. Such was the case about the Military history of Puerto Rico and about the contributions of Hispanic Americans in World War II. The great thing is that my articles have been widely acclaimed by, government officials and public in general.

Now, I have written many articles, as you already know, many of which can be FA's (such as Black history of Puerto Rico, German immigration to Puerto Rico, Corsican immigration to Puerto Rico, etc., etc. ) but, I refuse to nominate any of them because I have witnessed the ugly side of the racist elements in the voting process and I am not going through that hasle. However, I do encourage you to write with a passion and when you believe that you have something really good, good enough to be an FA, let me know and I'll look it over.

Take care (Oh, by the way it would be much better for me if you answered in my talk page (smile)). Tony the Marine 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. Since you are into surnames, Tell me something about "Cole", is it Irish?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marine 69-71 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I left a note for you at Talk:Lapetus... Til Eulenspiegel 15:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya. Just a quickie, but you might want to read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages) - I see you've created a couple of disambiguation pages, but they're slightly out of sync with the Manual of Style. I've tidied up Christian Martin (disambiguation)‎ but will leave you to fix Carl Petersen (disambiguation). Any problems, leave me a message on my talk page. Good luck! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. To cut and paste the example of name disambiguation from the MoS (about half way down WP:MOSDAB :

For people, include their birth and death years (when known), and only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name. Keep in mind the conventions for birth and death dates, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death. Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role.

John Smith is the name of: John Smith (filmmaker) (born 1952), London-based avant-garde filmmaker John Smith (mathematician) (18th century), mathematician at the University of Oxford, 1766–1797 John Smith (Ohio Senator) (1735–1824)

You had a slightly different structure originally on Christian Martin, where you actually listed an individual first, then, the other individuals with the same name :

Christian Martin is a VP and Executive Producer for NBC Universal - iVillage.

Christian Martin may also refer to:

• Christian Frederick Martin (1796-1873), luthier
• Christian Martin Frahn (1782-1851), German numismatist and historian
• Johann Christian Martin Bartels (1769-1836), German mathematician

I think the correct style should be (as it currently is) :

Christian Martin may refer to:

• Christian Martin, VP and Executive Producer for NBC Universal - iVillage.
• Christian Frederick Martin (1796-1873), luthier
• Christian Martin Frahn (1782-1851), German numismatist and historian
• Johann Christian Martin Bartels (1769-1836), German mathematician

I think the distinction is a subtle one, but I think it's important - the disambiguation page shouldn't really be seen to be "favouring" one Christan Martin over the other ones...I don't have a problem being told I'm misinterpreting policies or guidance, but in this case I'm not completely convinced that I am. I'd welcome your views, though. Regards, Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - don't worry, your message wasn't rude in the slightest, and I don't mind at all having this discussion with you. I picked a couple of names at random - common ones where there could be more than one or two people with such a name. Robert Butler is an article about an individual, which has a hatnote to a disambiguation page at Robert_Butler_(disambiguation). That page doesn't have one individual above the disambiguation - ie. it says Robert Butler may refer to ... 1 ... 2 ... etc, so the third of the options above. James Martin is itself a disambig page, which doesn't list one individual before saying "may also refer to". Ditto Paul Bennett. I stress that I picked these three at random, so it may well be that three you pick may have the "Joe Bloggs is a whatever...Joe Bloggs may also refer to....etc." structure set out second above. What do you reckon - maybe a question for the help desk to resolve? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I generally answer questions on the helpdesk page, rather than ask them! How about I draft something up in my sandbox, send you a link, you make some changes and then I post the "agreed" question to the Helpdesk? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - draft question in on my sandbox here : User:Gilesbennett/Sandbox. Feel free to make any changes (remember to sign at the bottom) and let me know when done. I'll post it to the helpdesk at that stage. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya - I see you've made some changes. Are you happy for me to post the question? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 20:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of people have posted their views on the Help desk - I think the view seems to be not to have one individual before the "Other people" section. It does, however, raise the question of how to then list the people - what order? Date of birth? Any ideas? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetically might be problematical if you've got multiple individuals with exactly the same name - these are disambiguation pages, after all (although I appreciate middle names may help). How about (1) alphabetically and (2) sub-sorted by year of birth (where available)? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 18:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think it's an issue on any of the disambig pages you've been creating either. Maybe just cross that bridge when we come to it, I guess! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do - I'll also try and have a go at distilling what we've learnt onto the talk page for the manual of style on disambig. Will drop you a note when I do so you can have a comment. Nice collaborating with you. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 19:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

There is a call for deletion on most of the Firefly character articles. -- Shsilver (talk) 17:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please state line where there are biases (in the talk page). Thank you. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry a lot. I was in hurry that time. Thank you for the spell checking, though. By the way, I already fixed where POVs are as you have pointed out. I talked to the user who tagged it and hopefully could get a better collaboration. Thank you very much. --βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Lost Soul (Doom), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Lost Soul (Doom) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Lost Soul (Doom), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Winfrey.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC) --—Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - This image will in all likelihood have to be deleted. The sculptor is still alive and presumably still holds copyright over the sculpture, and the sculpture is not significant enough to make a claim for non-free content inclusion. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(replying to message on my talk page) - Yes, I'm afraid so. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you really wedded to that picture you have just loaded? It is twee to say the least, does not seem to represent knowledge other than through a culturally specific icon. --Snowded (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The image you added to this article has nothing to do with the topic of this article as explained in the lead, so I have removed it. It might be appropriate in another article. --Bduke (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Neelix, I erroneously used the community convention rather than the island convention. Having said that, there are a lot of islands in a lot of articles that are in the wrong format. I found a number of them in List of islands of the United States just to mention one of them and there are many more to be found. The only exception, so I was told by a New Zealander (see my talk page), are the islands of New Zealand. Go figure. Cheerio, Peter Horn 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I got this backwards. You used the convention covering the naming of communities, towns, cities etc. I used the convention covering the naming of of islands (except those of New Zealand) because I considered it the name of a pair of islands, not just a community. Peter Horn 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Neelix. Thanks for adding the distinguishing link at the top of the article. I noticed the other uses of "Flower Island", and wonder whether we should move this article to "Flower Island (film)" Do you think it's necessary? Dekkappai (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall off-hand, but it seems like there's an actual "Flower Island" in South America somewhere... It doesn't have its own article yet, but potentially could eventually. I guess we could hold off re-naming the film article until an article is started on the island though. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

List of islands of Central America, List of islands of Mexico & List of islands of South America. I found no "Flower Island" or a Spanish language equivalent in any of the afore mentioned lists. Peter Horn 17:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Flower Island (San Juan Islands).

in the San Juan Islands Peter Horn 18:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Nengscoz416 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry about that, I have never seen or read that page before. I don't mainly edit disambiguation pages about forenames and surnames, but saw this page, and it hardly had there dates on, I mainly see more of place name disambiguation pages. Re-add them if you like. --AxG ^{@ ►talk} 16:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:Coffer (disambiguation). `'Míkka>t 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix; I have noticed your efforts to improve the community articles and the listing of them. I was wondering if we could work together to improve the list for a start and then move to the communities to standardize on the format to describe them (i.e. location map, coords, type such as (abandoned, resettled, fishing station, unincorporated town, incorporated town etc.) and an info table similar to Summerford as an example. --HJKeats (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keats,

I began adding infoboxes to communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, based on the infobox on Summerford, Newfoundland and Labrador. After adding a few, I thought it would be best to make sure I was using the correct template before adding it to every community in the province. I reviewed Template:Infobox Settlement and made some changes to the infobox on Admirals Beach, Newfoundland and Labrador. Most of the changes are simply fields that are available to be filled out in the future rather than changes that have been made to the current appearance of the infobox. Would you mind reviewing it briefly to make sure it's formatted properly for mass copying to the other communities in the province? I wanted to make sure you were on the boat before I proceeded. :Neelix (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Neelix, absolutely wonderful, I'm all for standardization. I kinda like the way that Alberta have done their smaller communities (i.e. Bashaw). Certainly all of the fields will not be filled in for all communities, some may. Can we include things unique to NL to identify abandoned, resettled, amalgamated, etc.? This way it will put these communities both past and present into context. Can we also decide on what graphics do get entered into the info box? I would like to see the location map included in the info box and the town crest. A lot of the NL communities articles now have a graphic of town crest as displayed at MUN, someone went through a lot of work to image those. Certainly these are just suggestions, and you are free to suggest/recommend others. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I have started by making a suggestion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador as you have suggested. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Qyd the location map is now inside the infobox, check out Summerford as an example. I believe we should include all of the variables from the infobox, that way when the information becomes available it can be added in the correct location. --HJKeats (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keats,

I have extended the infobox on Admirals Beach, Newfoundland and Labrador to include the additional information. Are any other changes to the infobox needed, or will I proceed to add the infobox as seen on Admirals Beach to all the communities in the province?

Neelix (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, How does it compare with Bay de Verde, have a look at that one. I kinda like including the mayor's, MHA's, and MP,s, census divisions, postal code, area code, etc. A lot of it is repetative throughtout the province but if someone is researching just a community they don't have to do other searches to capture this kind of information. What do you think... --HJKeats (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Neelix. Just saw the addition you made to Admirals Beach. --HJKeats (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Keats,

I added the information on the infobox at Bay de Verde to the infobox at Admirals Beach. I like the additions, especially the comments to guide users as to what to place in each field. There are a few fields I'm not sure about:

image_map, mapsize, and map_caption - Is there any need for these considering the pushpin map?

subdivision_type2 and subdivision_name2, subdivision_type4, and subdivision_name4 - Subdivisions 0, 1, and 3 (country, province, and census division) all make sense to me, but what is Subdivision 4? Subdivision 2 is "county". I didn't think there were any counties in Newfoundland and Labrador. Please correct me if I am wrong.

leader_title, leader_name, leader_title3, leader_name3, leader_title4, and leader_name4 - Leaders 1 and 2 make sense (MLA and MP), but what do these three others refer to?

area_magnitude - How is this different from area_total_km2?

Let me know what you think about these fields, and be sure to tell me if you know of any others that might need to be added.

Neelix (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix; I agree with the pushpin map we can do without the image map and all of its associated variables. Not sure on the subdivision 4, I had taken the settlement infobox and copied its entire contents, removed some that I figured wasn't necessary. I would say all of the others you mentioned that doesn't make sense, we can drop those also. At least what we do have will be typical for most communities and if other descriptors are required then they can always be added later. Thanks for this, Hayward... Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, dealing with this latest dump of snow we had yesterday... --HJKeats (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix; I agree, the coords at the top should be canned when they are included in the infobox, no need of duplication. I have had some correspondence with Bearcat and he has done some work over the weekend with the community listing and he has generated a whole bunch of new ones based upon the official municipality listing from GoNL. My preference would be an article similar to List of communities in Alberta except with a Newfoundland and Labrador spin taking into account resettlement, summer fishing stations, complete abandonment and just natural withering away of communities over time. And we must not forget those communities that have changed name over time such as Hibbs Hole to Hibbs Cove. --HJKeats (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just want to make sure you are aware that there are two lists now... List of cities and towns in Newfoundland and Labrador and List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Is this a conversation we should put on the WikiProject Newfoundland and Labrador talk page and hopefully solicit the suggestions and support of other NL enthusiasts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HJKeats (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix; Just made a discovery between Google Earth and Wikipedia. Articles in Wikipedia with title coordinates get linked in Google Earth and you can bring up the article while browsing. When I removed the coordinates in the title of the article the link disappears in Google Earth, apparently the infobox coordinates do not provide the same linkages. What say we leave the title coordinates to maintain the link. Are you familiar with Google Earth? If you are, have a look at Bay de Verde and Bay Bulls in Google Earth and compare those which still have title coordinates. --HJKeats (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The hatnotes appear appropriate. Are you intending on moving Formalism to Formalism (disambiguation)? That would make sense. However, removing those hatnotes without a connection to the disambiguation page doesn't seem positive to me. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Schmidlapp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

There's a bucket full of slang terms for urine (piddle, piss, whiz, and I'm dry for the rest), do you think just one, or all of the slang terms need to be in the lead? Piddle and piss have disambiguation pages, whiz does not (wiz does though). Thanks, WLU (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Or, we could rely on the disambiguation pages to do that work for us. How about we list the terms we can think of, then decide. Perhaps we should move this discussion to talk:urine? WLU (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Vulcans do not edit wikis. They are not... peaceful. :D Good to see someone else using a Trek-related name. Only problem is, I have to dislike you: Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 08:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Just kidding about disliking you. :D

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article City Light News, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, this whole mess is now sorted out. Thanks for your help and please let me know if there is anything I still missed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Neelix! Thanks for your detailed response; let me go through it point by point.

1. {{See also}}. The only reason why I use this template on dab pages is because it is convenient when only a few "see also" links are available. A full-blown "See also" section with only one or two links looks... well, ugly and unwieldy. The notice on the template page you refer to is nothing more but a usage recommendation; there is nothing preventing us from using the template in other cases when using it makes sense. Note that MOSDAB does not mandate usage of the "see also" section, yet alone sets a standard as to how it should be formatted. All it does is listing the cases which can be suitable for inclusion into such a section (whatever it looks like in the end).
2. WP:NC:CITY#Russia. You, unfortunately, have only read the first paragraph (which you then quoted), but the move I performed was actually based on paragraph three ([w]hen the name of the locality is completely unique, but conflicts with the name of a different concept, use the parenthesized locality type as disambiguator). A town and a river are different concepts, and there is no other inhabited locality in Russia (and, possibly, in the whole world, although I could be wrong on that one) by that name, hence Ochyor (town) is correct. Trust me on this interpretation, as I was the person who wrote that particular guideline, put it up for community's vote, and got a nearly 100% support :)
3. More on the town/river separation: they both do have the same name. All rivers include the "River" specifier in the title, regarding of whether it is a part of the actual name or not (where this rule was set, I do not remember, but it is a very common and enforced practice, at least from what I see). In any case, in accordance with Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created, when there is disagreement about whether [the specifier is a part of the name or not], it is often best to assume that it [i]s.
4. Regarding dab pages with only two entries: as per the very clause you linked me to: [i]n such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless (emphasis mine). I am fully aware of this clause, but please let me assure you that I only create two-entry dabs when I know for sure that they are further expandable (they minimize the number of maintenance tasks later when the dab is expanded). I don't have access to my archives of Perm Krai reference materials at the moment, but I will look more Ochyors up as soon as I do. In the meanwhile, I don't see how having hatnotes and the dab is of any harm. They just cover more contingencies of how readers arrive to the destination articles, is all.

I'd appreciate your further comments in light of all this. Thanks, and pleasure talking to you again :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and good luck with your edits and your userpage :) If you ever see me doing something with the disambiguation pages that you think is not fully in compliance, please don't hesitate to let me know. As I only work on disambiguation pages which concern Russian toponymics, I very well realize that I may be missing some pieces of the bigger picture. I, in turn, promise to provide the full reasoning for my edits, as they often concern the bits of the big picture other editors don't often get exposed to. That's collaboration in action :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For the creation of many useful disambiguation pages, e.g. Yellow-breasted. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't {{dablink}} go on any page that a disamig page links to? I ask regarding Paul Goodman (writer). Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Spirit_of_Freedom.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mangostar (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that section before, but had seen similar hatnotes on other articles. I have now seen the error of my ways! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved and cut and paste history spliced. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the reversion of my recent edits, I understand your point about the See also section; thanks for the education. My change of the introductory fragment is in accordance with the Introductory line section so I'm not sure why it would be considered incorrect. I suppose one could posit that the article falls under the Linking to a primary topic section, though I think more people would stumble on this page looking for any of the three rivers with the name American River, not just looking for the one in California. By the way, I have seen many disambig pages with {disambiguation) in the title that fall under the former section, not just the latter. I guess it depends on your point of view. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Live long and prosper. Truthanado (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No biggie, I just think that people who type foxtrap into the search bar are, for the most part, more likely to be searching for animal trapping than the place in Newfoundland. Dabbing is probably the best solution here; in truth, I meant to do that at the time but I have a bit of a short attention span sometimes :-) Bearcat (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at the template and wondered about some of the links and why they go where they go. For example clicking on St. Helena takes you to Demographics of Saint Helena or Canary Islands redirects you to Canarian people. It's a bit unexpected because I thought I would be taken to an article about the place. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see the template in an article but came to it through a what links here, so I wasn't sure what it was supposed to do. The best idea to get it to work correctly is look at the history of others of the same type and ask whoever is the main editor. I've done that before and it usually works. I'm not good at all with templates and only work with very simple ones. After a quick look at Template:South American topic and Template:European topic it appears that they link to countries. Sorry I can't really help. BY the way, I can't believe you read my user page and actually clicked on the links. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page. regards --Merbabu (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You should actually leave both the original cuisine template on the articles you removed it from along with your new template as the new template does not cover all of the topics of the cuisine template which is used on all other cuisine articles.--Chef Tanner (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Resignation (disambiguation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://encarta.msn.com/resignation.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good morning. I've tried to synopsize the question at Talk:Specious. Would you please check my write-up and correct or amend my summary? Thanks. Rossami (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page of a redirect can be a pretty isolated place for a discussion. Any thoughts on where else we can advertise the question so we can get other opinions? Rossami (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a Requests for comment page but the last time I was out there, it had really fallen into disuse. If you have time to look into it, you might want to see what there rules are these days. I guess I was thinking that you must have found the page somehow. Maybe the path that brought you to the page would give a clue about who else might have an informed opinion. The other place might be to post a link on the Deception page. I'll go do that one now. Rossami (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Statistical Science (journal) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Waking Up (album) to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Beatts.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image 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 image 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. Polly (Parrot) 02:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gals.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gottlieb.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandfalls.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Image:Hedley.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Hedley.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gary King (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Mateo, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. asenine ^t/_c 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix!
We thank you for uploading Image:HSM2.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Neelix!
We thank you for uploading Image:Quote.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for the message. As you can see by the deletion log, the article was proposed for deletion with the rationale, "no sources to indicate this person meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO". There were indeed no sources and the article does fail WP:BIO because there are no sources. No one objected to the article's deletion by removing the {{prod}} message, so I deleted the article on April 21.

The article was proposed for deletion on April 15 by UnitedStatesian. Notice to an article's creator of a prod nomination is not required, but is considered courteous; however, the burden falls on the nominator, not on the deleting administrator. When I got there, the five-day waiting period had already passed.

I have restored the article so you can provide sources to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. In the future, use your watchlist to track articles in which you're interested, because there is no guarantee of proposed or speedy deletion notification. If you have more questions or need more help, let me know. Thanks again for the message. :-) - KrakatoaKatie 12:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Christoph Walton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit software i'm using (twinkle) is designed to send this message to the creator of a page if its nominated for CSD, so i guess it means you're the initial contributor. thanks! Ironholds (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I have put Line back to be the disambig page, as a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Line will show many pages about other sorts of line: poetry lines, text lines, railway lines, etc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)