User talk:Neelix/Archive 9

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.

When there's a non-notable fictional element with a merge or redirect target, please either go ahead and do the redirect/merge yourself, explain in your PROD rationale why such a merge or redirect was considered inappropriate, or just take the article straight to AfD. I make a habit of contesting PRODs where none of these has been done. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Twynne. Since you had some involvement with the Twynne redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — the Man in Question (in question) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for creating all those funny redirects from the name variants. But don't you think "Crooked object" is a bit exaggerated? I mean, it's certainly not a "name" of that thingie, just a semantic explanation of something that might have been a name for it, and there is certainly no shortage of other "crooked objects" that have nothing to do with our strange little symbol. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have reverted your edits to ship articles where you removed the hatnotes. Pages such as HMS Boyne are not disambiguation pages, but rather set index pages, and are covered by different rules. It is completely correct to place a hatnote on the individual ship articles. Martocticvs (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reasoning is simply one of being an aid to browsing. The major difference between a disambiguation page and a set index page is that the contents of one are for the most part distinct subjects that just happen to share the same name, whereas with the other they are extremely closely related subjects (ie, all ships). So when a reader makes his or her way to HMS Example (1782), the otherships hatnote provides them with a link to the index page that would otherwise not be there, and that may then lead on to more useful reading on their part about other ships with the same name. Anyhow, if you think it is wrong, bring it up at WT:SHIPS before embarking on a mass edit (as a change to that will encompass tens of thousands of articles). Martocticvs (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is official policy; the only mention I have found of it is in the Project's guidelines, where it is included in the example article. I would oppose a move to remove them though, as they are of use to a reader. The set index page (which is stated in official wiki policy that these are considered to be articles in their own right - list articles, essentially, and not disambig pages at all) should not really find itself being linked from any article, as the name on its own is just a disembodied thing - if you ever bring up a ship name in an article it is pretty much guaranteed to be because you are referring to a particular ship, so you would link to that ship. That means the index page would never be linked, and its usefulness to the reader would be denied. Also, because of the way some ship articles are named (there is a big discussion going on about this at the moment), it isn't always clear to a reader that they are going to the right article if they are searching for it (eg HMS Test (F235) - they might really be after HMS Test (F132)), and so having that link to the index page which contains enough information to tell them which is the right article is a pretty useful feature. On its own, that's no reason to keep them if the majority consider them to be wrong, but first you would need to improve the way such articles are titled - which is not an easy thing! I doubt very much that anyone who is involved with the Ships or Military History projects would agree to removing them though. Martocticvs (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The article World city (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is not a disambiguation page as labeled. It is an unreferenced article and the information should be merged into Global city with references of course. For the page to exist as a DAB it should follow the format of such a page or be deleted. Removal of this PROD without corrective action will result in a MfD.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. My76Strat 02:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Very bad move, in my opinion - even worse than the previous one. I'll consult other members of the Wales project. Deb (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. As rehearsed in the earlier discussion on the talk page, he was not known as 'Talysarn', he was known by his name, with 'Talysarn' added if required to distinguish him from other John Joneses. 'John Jones, Talysarn' is how it usually seen, although Wikipedia conventions make this 'John Jones (Talysarn)' - it's a disambiguator not an alternative name. D22 (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, he was not known as Talysarn, and is not referred to as such in the article. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the disambiguation hatnotes you removed from Oakwood Cemetery (Troy, New York). I will now explain why it is needed and why your edit comment "Please see Wikipedia:Hatnotes#Disambiguating_article_names_that_are_not_ambiguous for an explanation of why this is an error" is itself in error.

The Battle of Lissa was the featured article today. When I saw it I immediately opened that article to check if the references I had added to it earlier where still there. I was puzzled to see that they were missing from the references section. Only later did I realize that this article was about the battle in 1811, not the Battle of Lissa in 1866. Now, how was I to know this. The text on the front page did not show "1811" in bold. From the small picture it was impossible to tell if the ships-of-the-line were form the 1810s or from the 1860s. I found it even more puzzling that this featured article had no hat text linking to the 1866 article. I decided to fix it and copied and modified the hat text from the 1866 article, and pasted it to the 1811 article.

I now see, that six minutes later you also removed the hat text from the 1866 article. (You have already been reverted by another editor.) Checking your edit history I see that you had removed the hat text from the 1811 article about one minute before I opened the page.

As a general rule: If there is any possibility that the user is on the wrong page, without knowing it, the disambiguation text is needed. People have been heard of visiting the wrong cemeteries. As for sea battles, most Wikipedia readers – if they have ever heard of the Battle of Lissa – will not know that there were more than one of them. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Whooping. Since you had some involvement with the Whooping redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). DarkAudit (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jc37,

I have been doing a lot of work lately going through the long and tedious process of checking a lot of fictional characters against Wikipedia's notability guidelines by doing individual Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News searches on each of their names. I have been nominating the ones that have thus demonstrated a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources for merges. Despite the great deal of time I have put into checking for sources for these articles, you have been objecting to the merges wholesale without checking for sources yourself. Why have you been doing this? Are we not both trying to improve Wikipedia and clean up its articles?

Neelix (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hope we are.

And I'm glad to hear that you are attempting to check sources.

But please be aware of things like Recentism, in relation to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. Information online can exhibit a trend to those things which are "recent". That's part of why we're supposed to avoid talking about google hits in a deletion discussion (WP:AADD).

As you already noted, I'm a fan of merging, and only splitting out fictional content when appropriate, per WP:SS.

But my concern is that by just blanking stub articles and just redirecting, we aren't presuming the information is viable. When removing, do you have any reason to suspect it's a hoax?

The "wiki-way" on wikipedia has always been: one person adds something, and someone else can add some more. There's no reason we can't wait for someone to add more references. (There is no deadline.) And in the meantime, primary sourced information IS allowed on Wikipedia.

Anyway, I seem to recall that we were in a discussion involving several articles. I still wonder what made you decide to pick the ones you did, my guess would be that you just wanted a bunch of pages removed from the nav template (something all these pages had in common).

In any case, I'll happily continue discussion with you on those talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc37 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 29 October 2010

A tag has been placed on Nothink 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 band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of George and Dragon, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.georgeanddragonpub.com.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you opened this discussion some time ago and there has been a fair bit of comment. I reckon it could be closed now. Thanks. —Half Price 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

On 21 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ProtoGalaxy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the formation of a ProtoGalaxy in Newfoundland was recorded in 2010? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I reverted your edit to Photometry (optics). Hatnotes using templates like {{about}} are broader in application than the standard disambiguation hatnote templates. They serve to distinguish topics that are related to one another or easily confused. As such, they are often appropriate even when the article is not the target of a redirect.

In this case, "Photometry (optics)" is ambiguous with "Photometry (astronomy)" because when astronomers do photometry, they are working with optical systems. Optical scientists and astronomers use the term differently, however, requiring two separate articles. The hatnote is essential to help readers get to the right article for their field of interest.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:African topic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Mhiji (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Origin of modern humans, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://en.geneawiki.com/index.php/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After seeing your template nomination, I though that I should nominate the article as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Bill episodes for details. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

right thanks for letting me know, i think some of the problems happened because a vandal was deleting a section and i had some edit conflicts with another editor, kind regards Tom B (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Keith Kenyon, 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 {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shearonink (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I wanted to try and clean up the picture of Theo on his wiki page that I believe you have inserted there. Sadly my skills are insufficient to remove the dated picture and insert a current publicity shot that is somewhat more flattering..... are you able to help with this and make the image I uploaded the primary and sole image of Theo on that page ?

Would really appreciate your assistance.

Ont502 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0nt502 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoah whoah whoah! What on earth do you think you are doing? You've got rid of the page on topspinner without even discussing it on the talk page, a complete no-no! A lot of hard work went into making that page, not least by myself. Every other cricket delivery has its own page, it is completely inconsistent for the topspinner to be the single exception. Please undo your changes immediately. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, apologies if I came across as abrupt, I had just taken a week preparing a rewrite for the page only to find it completely deleted and that kinda knocked me sideways for a few minutes. Anyway, would it be possible for you to undo your merge as that would be a lot easier for you than it would for me to try to create a whole new page. Thanks 188.221.246.173 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Secondly, the term "topspinner" is not specific to cricket, so an article about topspin specifically in cricket should not be located at Topspinner." I'm afraid you are entirely wrong in this assertion. I invite you to google the word "topspinner"; you can go through all ten pages without a reference to a single sport other than cricket. The word "topspin" is frequently used in tennis and table tennis as in "topspin forehand", however the word "topspinner" belongs virtually exclusively to cricket. I believe you seriously erred in merging these pages; however I am happy to create a new page, but it should be called "topspinner" not "topspin in cricket". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.246.173 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What complete rubbish. The fact that it was clearly so difficult to find those terms just highlights the extremely limited use of the term "topspinner" outside of cricket, compared to the extremely common usage within the sport. As a counterexample, I could easily find 6 usages of the term "forehand" within cricket, yet I'm neither stupid nor arrogant enough to suggest that the racquet sport page be redirected to a more generic description. I tell you what, how about we compromise on the term "topspinner_(cricket)" - similar to how slider_(cricket) differentiates it from the baseball slider. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Because every other important cricket term has its own page, and I don't see why the topspinner shouldn't have one just because you apparently have a problem with it. There was a lot more information in topspinner than in many pages. I have no interest whatsoever in editing a generic page. A page's right to independence should be judged on its importance as a term, not its current level of information. Look: clearly we are disagreeing on this issue, and I am not happy to accept your proposed solution. How do we proceed from here? Do we bring the subject to the attention of the cricket portal and see what they think? 188.221.246.173 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I will; although seeing as this is a cricket subject, then a cricket talk page would be the most relevant place. I would like to add another point - a topspinner in cricket is mechanically identical to a curveball in baseball. If a topspinner in cricket is a "subset" of topspinner in general, then by definition so is the curveball. Therefore are you going to merge the article curveball into topspin? If not, how can you justify this arbitrary distinction? Simply because you don't personally like cricket? Simply because of the similarity of the terminology? That's a very, VERY poor excuse. 188.221.246.173 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, please see the discussion at: [| the cricket talk page]. I hope this solution is ok with you? Py0alb (talk) 11:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Anamnesis (philosophy), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Anamnesis.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

When you are converting a page such as Anamnesis into a disambiguation page, it would be greatly appreciated if you would move the largest portion of prose to its destination article instead of cutting and pasting the content which makes it difficult to track the attribution history. I appreciate that you indicated where the content was split from in your edit summary when you created Anamnesis (Christianity). Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you moved a lot of articles to be consistent, but wouldn't it be better to have the articles as [[Literature of X]]? For countries like Malaysia a nationalised demonym seems slightly off in terms of literature. If there's a reason or guideline somewhere, please point me to it, and I'll revert Malaysia back (I reverted before I saw the rest, sorry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs)

Hi Davis,

Thank you for checking back with me on this point. Most concepts that apply to all countries of the world are most commonly formulated as either "Concept of Country" (as for "history" and culture") or "Concept in Country" (as for "education" and "crime"). Some national concepts, however, are most commonly formulated with the use of demonyms. That is the reason I created the Asian topic generator. Concepts like literature and cuisine normally take the form "Demonym concept". A search on Google books demonstrates that such is the case for Malaysia as well. A search for "Malaysian literature" turns up 3450 results, whereas "Literature of Malaysia" turns up only 154. Have I provided you with sufficient justification to move the article back to Malaysian literature?

Neelix (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

So long as you've gone and made sure every other country is the same ;) I'll go change the mainlinks in some other articles now.

So, when you feel like it, create the North American and Oceanian templates! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davis,

It's good to have you onboard! Don't worry; the other continental demonym-affixing template generators are high on my priority list. I'm hoping to fix the non-functioning ones first, though. At the moment, Asian topic is the only one that works.

I've noticed that you have switched some of the demonyms linked on "Asian topic" (ie. Christmas Island → Christmas Islander, Guangxi → Guangxi people, Hong Kong → Honkonger, and Philippine → Filippino). Why have you made these changes? "Asian topic" is not a template unto itself, linking between demonyms for various countries; it is rather a template generator that affixes demonyms to concepts to create strings. Think of the "literature" example we have already discussed. The correct forms are "Christmas Island literature", "Guangxi literature", "Hong Kong literature", and "Philippine literature", not "Christmas Islander literature", "Guangxi people literature", "Honkonger literature", or "Filippino literature". The demonyms you have inserted refer to people from the corresponding countries, not to concepts relating to those countries. If you wish to create a template that links to the peoples of all the countries of Asia, feel free to do so, but "Asian topic" serves a very different purpose.

Neelix (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a misunderstanding of the purpose, but in the title names if that makes sense. It seems odd to me that the Malaysian literature page is the one linked to but not the Filipino literature, as both are the demonym. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

But I fail to see any actual discussion first of the merge process or proof that there are issues of sources the sub regions - for Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia - can you lead me to the items or whatever evidence that made you decide such a move? SatuSuro 08:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

At many afd's to see something like Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar for specific bioregions proved fruitless in finding additional sources is tantamount to saying googles algorithm, and all its inherent projects is the source of all knowledge - thats crap. There are many other forms of information and also ways of searching for information, and many other culturally based systems that do not fall under the scope (yet) of the oggle empire - specially something as obscure as maritime regions in the Australasian area. So you see you tried the wrong person with that one. I remain unconvinced that the massive table created will ever really have anything but vast empty spaces. Nah I dont agree - but also the specific sources for the individual separate articles and the complexity of the relationships may see my sending you a message sometime saying - I now have the means - I am reverting your effort - but it wont be tommorrow - maybe within the year I will do it - until then enjoy yourself if you ever go back to it - and hey thanks for your civility and quickness of reply - it is appreciated - dont take me the wrong way - its fine for the moment - but if I do get the hook and handle on the right sources and material - I will contact you and actually discuss first - cheers SatuSuro 14:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw you have been really active lately and I clicked on over to your user page and was pretty impressed. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help university students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply to become an ambassador, Sadads (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you'd make a solid mentor for newcomers, if it's something you have any interest in.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the encouragement. The Online Ambassadors program does sound like something I would like to support. You've convinced me to apply. Neelix (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Kyle (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Kyle. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't see this merge proposal when you made it on January 12, but I strongly disagree with it. These are really unrelated art forms, and we need to be able to distinguish them when linking in articles about the older form. Would you kindly undo it so we can begin a discussion? (Also this one, of course). Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief! This passed me by too. I agree with Ssilvers that we need to get back to where we were at the start of the month. We have merged chalk with cheese and we seriously need to unmerge them. Tim riley (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia ads	file info – #226

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

In regards to your recent nomination of the Literature of Southeast Asia topic, would Template:Southeast Asia topic be redundant as well? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Davis,

Template:Southeast Asia topic is only redundant if there are no concepts that can be related to all the countries in Southeast Asia that cannot be related to all the rest of the countries in Asia as well. While that is possible, I do not know it to be the case. The difference in the case of Template:South East Asian Literature is that it is a hard-coded template, not a generator, and literature is a concept that applies to all the countries in Asia.

Neelix (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Anthroponymy Newsletter Volume 1 · No. 1 · Jan 1, 2011 – Jan 31, 2011 Previous month's issue - Next month's issue To remove yourself from this list click here
Main page (discussion) • Resources • Style advice (discussion) • Category structure (discussion) • Participants (discussion) • Assessment (discussion) • Recent Changes • Award • Popular articles
Current Newsletter contributors Hutcher (talk · contribs) Who is new? JohnCengiz77 (talk · contribs) Neelix (talk · contribs) Fortdj33 (talk · contribs) What's new? A new design has been implemented to make the WikiProject a little easier to work with. A Standards document has been started, which will always be available at the WP:APO Navigation menu above. Please help us by contributing. We need your say at Standard discussions to build a consensus and therefore a solid standard! How to help WikiProject Anthroponymy Please keep up with the discussions at our main talk page. Your input is needed! Please check out our Standards and discuss potential changes at Standard discussions. Please help out! Expand the articles in Category:Given name stubs and Category:Surname stubs. Read the project to-do list and help to complete the tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-02-08 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Loretta Expand : Adrian,Ciarán,Name change,Sinclair (surname) Infobox : Gul (name) Merge : Family name and Surname, Martin (name) and Martyn Split : Fraser (surname) split from Clan Fraser Patti (name) ? Patti and Pattie Kim (surname) ? Kim Björk (name) ? Björk (disambiguation) Michelle (name) ? Michelle Luna (name) ? Luna (re-split) Trevor ? Trevor (disambiguation) Bramwell (name) ? Bramwell (disambiguation) Cindy (given name) ? Cindy, Cyndi, Cyndy Cynthia (disambiguation)  ? Cynthia Pigott (surname)  ? Pigott, Piggott Pigot (surname)  ? Pigot Alicia (given name)  ? Alicia Clare (surname)  ? Clare Cortes (surname)  ? Cortes Prudence (given name)  ? Prudence, Prue Prunella (given name)  ? Prunella	Article developments See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Article alerts Anthroponymy articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 FL 2 2 GA 2 2 4 B 3 19 3 8 5 38 C 7 21 16 45 2 27 118 Start 11 30 67 143 2 119 372 Stub 1 11 19 187 4 159 381 List 18 40 336 13,900 43,736 38,777 96,807 Category 985 985 Disambig 16,202 16,202 File 3 3 Project 15 15 Redirect 1 2 13 1,963 21,170 23,149 Template 116 116 NA 1 1 Other 1 5 6 Assessed 41 126 456 16,250 82,241 39,087 138,201 Unassessed 4 200 204 Total 41 126 456 16,254 82,241 39,287 138,405 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,740 Ω = 5.18
Article of the month – List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology In Norse mythology, a valkyrie is one of a host of female figures who choose which warriors will win or die in battle. The valkyries bring their chosen who have died bravely in battle to the afterlife hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin, where the deceased warriors become einherjar. There, when the einherjar are not preparing for the events of Ragnarök, the valkyries bear them mead. Valkyries also appear as lovers of heroes and other mortals, where they are sometimes described as the daughters of royalty, sometimes accompanied by ravens, and sometimes connected to swans. (More...)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 06:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC).

On an indirectly related tangent, I wonder if you might leave the high road of article title standardisation and give an opinion in the much more humble realm of article organisation standardisation? :) I opened an RFC on the general organisation of country articles here which has not so far gained any outside views. Any input would be useful.

PS Do you keep track of all literature articles etc.? I came across Literature of Somalia, which was moved back to that title. Maybe you want to check it out!

Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Burlesque (genre), which has just been brushed up and now makes pretty good sense and is pretty well referenced. Then see the discussion at Talk:Burlesque - going forward and feel free to contribute your thoughts about a possible rename, as you had originally suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. A side issue - travesty. At the moment:

• Travesty is a redirect to Burlesque.
• En travesti is about theatrical roles played by the opposite sex.
• Travesti is about South American transexuals.

Grove Opera, Oxford Music and Oxford Opera all give 'Travesti' for the stage term. I don't know if any of this has anything to do with Burlesque! What do you think? I would be interested to have your opinion. Best. --Kleinzach 07:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zach,

Silvers has switched Travesty to redirect to Victorian burlesque, which seems appropriate; American burlesque is not called "travesty". I think Travesti should remain an article about the transgender identity; that's what the majority of the incoming links refer to and a Google Books search reveals that it is also the most common use of the term. There is a hatnote on that article linking to En travesti. Do you feel that any changes should be made?

Neelix (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all we still have a section on 'Travesty' in Burlesque, which seems out of place. Should we delete it?

Second, while 'Travesty' is sometimes identified with 'Burlesque' , the references in the OED are 17th century and literary rather than theatrical, so perhaps it should point to the main article - or perhaps be a short article in it's own right?

IMO opinion En travesti should really be 'Travesti' (primary subject) with the present article disambiged to Travesti (South America) or whatever. However maybe that's not an immediate issue?

BTW we still have the problem of the anomalous Burlesque (literature). Should we merge it with Burlesque? (I have just added a section about music to the main article). (Shall we keep this talk here?) Best. --Kleinzach 02:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Zach,

Unfortunately, I'm not going to have Internet access this weekend, so I likely won't be able to continue this discussion with you until Monday. I hope you don't mind waiting for my input until then.

Neelix (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely fine. This whole thing has been quite a mess. Maybe better to sort it out slowly. --Kleinzach 03:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Green-backed is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-backed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. The nomination includes other green- prefixed partial title match lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I undid your merger of anthropogenic with anthropization. There didn't seem to be a reason for the move, and the terms do not seem to be the same (accept that anthropization is a form of anthropogenics). The merger caused a lot of confusion. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Neelix/Archive 9,

I found this image among the unidentified Trifolium species. Did you take this photograph somewhere in Newfoundland? If it is from Newfoundland, then it shows Trifolium campestre according to the USDA list for this province [1]. Best regards, Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Starfield.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. GrapedApe (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Neelix!

Congratulations! Your application to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Program as an Online Ambassador has been accepted.

First off, I apologize for the following info-dump. If you're wondering how to get started or are wondering what's going on, please contact me.

If you haven't already done so, take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Guidelines

The "mentorship process" section lays out approximately what will be expected of you as a mentor. If you'd like, you can also volunteer to be the coordinating online ambassador for a class or two.

Please add yourself to the top of the list of available mentors, and note the number of students you think you'd like to mentor next term (it doesn't have to be a final answer, this is just to help with matching students and mentors once the students start getting active) and if you'd like to take on the coordination role for any classes note that as well: Wikipedia:Online_Ambassadors/Mentors (Don't add yourself to the lower "Additional online ambassadors section; that's for ambassadors-in-training and ambassadors who are already mentoring all the the students they want to take on.)

To coordinate between Online Ambassadors and Campus Ambassadors, we've been using a Google Group as a mailing list. It's not required, but almost all the ambassadors are on it. Would you like me to subscribe you? Email me with your email address if so.

You can catch with what's been going on so far with the first major message this term, with details about what the group should and shouldn't be used for: Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#Information_for_Ambassadors_about_January_-_May_2011_term

You can also check out the first two ambassador newsletters, which have more detail about what's going on right now. You'll get future editions delivered to your talk page.

If you use IRC, please consider adding #wikipedia-en-ambassadors and #wikipedia-en-classroom to your channel lineup.

Finally, please help us find more mentors! Because the number of students, and their involvement with mentors, is increasing so much for this term, we're going to need a lot of solid Online Ambassadors. Please take a few minutes to think of several other editors you know who would make good mentors, and invite them to apply the the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. The key things we look for are: regular activity (so that we can be confident they'll keep up with their mentoring role for the whole term), friendliness, and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones). You can point them to Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors for information on how to apply and what to expect.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You PRODded this a year ago, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi John,

Thank you for letting me know. It looks as though someone has beaten me to the AfD nomination.

Neelix (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there will be some bitching over the move. While you and I find no problem with this (I am the one that initiated the original cuisine of xxx to xxx cuisine) the people who work on the Hawaiian cuisine article believe that Hawaiian cuisine is what is consumed outside of the islands and has no relation to the cuisine of Hawaii. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Neelix - for the first time I think. I have moved this back to the original title. First of all, the adjective Luxembourgian is never used. There is an adjective Luxembourgish but Luxembourgish literature refers specifically to literature in the Luxembourgish language. Literature of Luxembourg refers to literature in any language written in Luxembourg. I know Luxembourgian has been used (incorrectly) all over Wikipedia but we don't need to perpetuate the error. I realize you made the change for consistency but remember it's the exception that proves the rule. – Ipigott (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

Thank you for informing me of how infrequent it is that the term "Luxembourgian" is used as an adjectival for Luxembourg. As it would appear that "Luxembourg" is itself the most common adjectival for Luxembourg, I have moved the article to Luxembourg literature. Google Books searches reveal only 6 hits for "Literature of Luxembourg" and another 3 hits for "Luxembourgian literature", but 72 hits "Luxembourg literature". Perhaps it would be good to work towards removing the term "Luxembourgian" from article titles in general. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about Luxembourg literature as I believe many people here in Luxembourg would associate it with Luxembourgish literature whereas Literature of Luxembourg is completely neutral. See here for example. Nevertheless you are quite right that Google shows the term is frequently used is both senses and I had in any case provided a redirect from Luxembourg literature to Literature of Luxembourg. If you want to keep Luxembourg literature I won't change it but please don't change all the others: Art of Luxembourg, Culture of Luxembourg, Music of Luxembourg, Architecture of Luxembourg, Photography of Luxembourg... I've changed the lead in the article back to "literature of Luxembourg" to avoid confusion.

I have been fighting Luxembourgian for years but it's been a losing battle. The whole problem starts with the categories: Category:Luxembourgian art, Category:Luxembourgian artists, Category:Luxembourgian literature, etc., etc. I once succeeded in changing one of these for a time. There had even been a discussion in favour of the change but then one of the know alls came in and changed everything back on the grounds that Category:Luxembourgian xxx was well established and predated Category:Luxembourg xxx.

It's a great pity we can't use the vernacular as people all over the world see the categories and start using Luxembourgian when they add to WP articles, lists, templates, etc., just like you. But now I've given up on the categories and have been guilty of adding dozens if not hundreds of them to articles I have written. Anything you can do to correct this situation would be much appreciated. BTW, in Commons there is no problem as the categories there are Art of Luxembourg, Literature of Luxembourg, etc.

I'm putting all this back on your talk page for continuity. Please continue the discussion here. I'm watching. - Ipigott (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

I think we have the same views here. I don't want to move articles like Art of Luxembourg and Culture of Luxembourg to Luxembourg art and Luxembourg culture. Most national subjects employ a "Subject of Country" format and that shouldn't be changed. I was just thinking of the subjects like literature and cuisine that employ an "Adjectival subject" format. These should be changed from "Luxembourgian" to "Luxembourg". I don't concern myself much with category names, but I may at some point. I certainly agree that they should be consistent with the article titles. If a discussion about changing the category names arises again, feel free to let me know; I would be glad to support consistency with the vernacular.

Neelix (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to have come to an agreement on this. Maybe Luxembourg literature is in the same boat as Quebec literature (which starts off nicely as "This is an article about literature in Quebec."). Quid Maria Chapdelaine? Is it not French literature??? But that's another story. Bye for now. - Ipigott (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I left you a note on your meta talk page. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 00:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has done more than one edit at List of regions of Illinois, you are invited to join in a discussion on its possible deletion. Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Neelix. One of the classes working with the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, Jonathan Obar's Media and Telecommunication Policy, is working in small groups and would like us to assign a mentor to each group (rather than having students request the mentors they'd like, as other classes are doing).

I invite you to sign on as the mentor for one or more groups, especially if any of the topics catch your interest. To sign up, go to the course page and add yourself as "Mentor: you" in the section for that group. They students and/or professor or campus ambassadors should be cleaning things up soon to list all the usernames for each group and add a few more groups. Once you know who the students are in the group, you can leave them each a quick introduction to let them know you'll be mentoring their group.

Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this move. I can see there is a trend in this direction which is all to the good. Would you also like to move Art of Denmark to Danish art in the same way. Same with Culture of Denmark. Maybe Culture of Luxembourg too. There might be others requiring the same treatment. Thanks. - Ipigott (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

I've done some more research and I agree with your assessment; "Adjectival culture" and "Adjectival art" are more common constructions than "Culture of country" and "Art of country". Per WP:Commonname, the ones not currently using the former format should be moved. I am working through the national art articles now and will try to get to the national culture articles soon. Unfortunately, I am unable to move Art of Denmark to Danish art because Danish art has an edit history and I am not an administrator. Nonetheless, if you nominate the article for such a move on WP:Requested moves, I would be glad to support.

Neelix (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now been moved. - Ipigott (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I (co-author of Danish art) also support this & other moves. You may not realize that British art is just a disam page, and that the main article Art of the United Kingdom lost a requested move debate last month to go to British art. Really no good arguments were produced, and after an interval I will revive the request, & let you know. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I would be glad to support that proposal when the discussion is revived. Neelix (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Neelix, your votes in the steward elections are invalid if you do not link this account here to the account m:User:Neelix on meta. Could you please put a small note on your user page with a link to m:User:Neelix to confirm also from this direction that you are identical? ("an account on Meta with user page linked to your main wiki, and a link to your meta account from your home wiki user page" election guidelines) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have checked all your votes and corrected one which was invalidated already. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, a couple of templates used by WP:APO have been nominated for deletion. We could use your help to Oppose their deletion. If you agree the project needs them, as per WPAPO:HN then please vote Oppose here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Aboutgivenname

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Anthroponymy at 04:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Hi, my name is Brandon Banks of MSU's Spring TC 210 course with the Wikipedia Project. I found out that you are my groups' mentor and I just wanted to say hi. Have a good day and look forward to working with you. Banksbr2 (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hiya Neelix. I see you haven't made any edits to your RFA since it began; you may want to start. - Dank (push to talk) 13:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)