User talk:Neelix

Welcome!

Hello, Neelix, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DS 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

CMC

Hi Neelix, I really like the organization you've applied to the CMC abbreviation article. I'm wondering, however, about the placement of CMC of Irish Dance. I think it might be a better fit under the Music category, if it were to be entitled Music & Entertainment. I didn't want to just jump straight in and switch your excellent reformatting around, but am interested in what you think.--Kelly Kohnen 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kelly,

Thank you for your polite suggestion. I always enjoy good communication among Wikipedians.

I had placed Cosa Meara Company of Irish Dance in the "Education" section of CMC because it is a college network. I try to avoid mixed categories such as "Music & Entertainment" simply because they combine separate fields. If you feel that the entry should be moved to the "Music" section, perhaps the title of that section could be switched to "Entertainment" as the other entries in that category are also in that field.

I'm glad you approve of my reformat of the CMC page. I'm on a character combination stint, going around to all the 3 and 4-character combination pages I can find to reformat them. It's good to receive encouragement and helpful criticism as I do so.

Neelix 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Katherine/Catherine

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I was wondering why you chose to undo my merger of Catherine and Katherine without any explanation. In general, it is good practice to leave an edit summary so people know what you're up to. I suggested a merger more than a week ago, and since no one responded, I performed it. I thought it was unrealistic to have two different pages for two spellings of the same name. Thanks, Lesgles (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. Don't worry about it, and I'll be sure to keep Catherine Booth in there! Lesgles (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Qor

Hi, Neelix. Please be careful when you make edits to redirects, such as what you did with "Qor". It redirects to the acronym/word QOR, which disambiguates to (now) three links. I added Kor to the disambig page, which I suggest is probably what you intended to do in the first place. Cheers. SigPig 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Manual of Style

I recently edited a disambiguation page you created, Big Game (disambiguation). Please read the Manual of Style before proceeding to make any more disambiguation pages. Thanks for your contributions, and if you have any questions, please go to my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Phage

Thankyou for establishing a disambiguation page, and I hope you don't mind that I flipped it around a bit. Considering "phage" is by far more used as a shortened form of "bacteriophage" I created a Phage (disambiguation) page, redirected Phage to Bacteriophage and added a disambiguation link in Bacteriophage. Thanks again for creating the disambig page - I think it works much better than my former plain redirect. Also, Neelix from Voyager was my favourite character ;-) -- Serephine / talk - 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chain

Nice job on reformatting chain! Gregorydavid 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing Five and Nine

To answer the question you asked on my talk page, here's what I would do:

• If it's a number in the name of a proper noun (e.g., Seven of Nine, 2 + 2 = 5, etc.) and it has its own article, it goes in disambiguation.
• If it's the number itself in the context of something else (e.g., starfish usually have five arms, nine is often considered a lucky number) and it does not have its own article, it goes in the main number article. --DryaUnda 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Game James

Yes, the dropping of this entry was intentional - knowing people could restore it if they believed I was wrong. My thinking: Disambiguation pages are for sorting out which of several pages the user wants to get to when they enter the keyword. It didn't make sense to me that someone would enter "Game" expecting to find Mr. Worthy. Perhaps Big Game - and he would find it. But just "Game" didn't seem a likely thing for someone looking for him to type in. I feel strongly enough about it to suggest you don't put it back in, but not enough to revert it if you decide to do so. John (Jwy) 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and insightful response. From your explanation, I must agree. I will not put it back in.

Neelix 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

dabbing

Glad you are into dabbing as well. But, as you might notice, I made a change to Game (disambiguation) after yours. You might want to double check WP:MOSDAB, especially WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic and the usual practise is not to alphabetize, but to put the most likely target toward the top. Makes fixing the pages more fun, actually. None of these problems are major problems, but if you are going to be doing a lot of this, its worth checking. . . Have fun. John (Jwy) 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I always appreciate helpful suggestions from more experienced Wikipedia editors. I'll try to remember to keep the primary target at the top from now on.

Neelix 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mention it except you plan to do a lot of dab stuff. And thanks for correcting my Grammar. . . John (Jwy) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Links are adored

I had searched out names of people named Jones and created a passel of Red Links which have been destroyed. I had intended to create articles for each of the Red Links. Your name is conspicuously present on the Jones "History" page. If you destroyed my Red Links at Jones, you harmed my work. Wikipedia adores Red Links, therefore, removing them should be avoided. Superslum 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Superslum,

I'm sorry to have upset you about the Jones page. I hadn't realized that the broken links had been inserted there on purpose. Normally, disambiguation pages collect broken links over time due to articles being deleted or random additions from passers-by.

As a general rule of thumb, I agree with your assertion that links to pages that have not yet been made are valid, however I would find that most true of articles and stubs rather than disambiguation pages. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct people quickly to the page they are looking for. Broken links stand in the way of that.

As to my "name being conspicuously present on the Jones 'History' page", I kept a summary of my edits which is found on that page. I made no attempt to keep people from knowing that I "deleted broken links".

I would suggest that you write the articles for people named Jones before you link to them on the disambiguation page. I have not destroyed your work as the entries are still saved in the history of the page. In creating your new articles, you can use that as your reference.

Neelix 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Narnia

Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in The Chronicles of Narnia. I thought you may be interested in knowing that there is a WikiProject working to improve articles about Narnia, your help would be greatly appreciated. Please consider joining the WikiProject Narnia. Thank you! Bornagain4 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clovis/Ludwig

I saw your article List of names derived from Clovis and I would like to ask you what your source is, because as far as I know the information there is wrong. Clovis is not the root of all these names, it is Hludwig.

BehindTheName.com explicitely states that:

Ludwig comes from the Germanic name Hludwig which meant "famous warrior", composed of the elements hlud "fame" and wig "warrior". This was the name of three Merovingian kings of the Franks, though their names are usually spelled in the Latinized form Clovis, and three kings of Bavaria.

It seems that you misinterpreted this and concluded that ALL names derived from clovis, which is wrong. Clovis is only a latinized form of the name and does NOT have frankish roots. Although some names may derive from it, they do not all trace their roots back to Clovis (The name Ludwig is not related to Clovis at all). Unless you don't mind, I will try to change some of your pages, but please check your sources in future references. --Ludvig 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up on my onomastical error. I did not find the information on "Behind The Name" but on a Wikipedia disambiguation page. As information not contained in entries should not be contained on the respective disambiguation page, I moved this information to List of names derived from Clovis. I proceeded to add given names and surnames that were listed in entries on that page as being derived from each other or from the same source. Do you believe "Behind The Name" a credible source?

If you feel confident that Hludwig is the proper root, the easiest way to fix this problem is probably to simply rename the article "List of names derived from Hludwig". Almost all of the entries have respective disambiguation pages, and most of these have a link to "List of names derived from Clovis" in their "See also" section. Although each of these would need to be changed individually, I see this as the best way of clearing things up.

Neelix 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Madge disambiguation page

Hi! I just added Madonna back on the Madge disambiguation page, and thought it'd be polite to explain why. If you still disagree with me, feel free to change it back; I don't normally spend much time on disambiguation. I added it back in because I believe that the purpose of a disambiguation page is ultimately to help someone find what they're looking for. As long as the page is clear and easy to understand, I think that adding additional meanings helps the users who can now find what they're looking for, while not really affecting users who were looking for one of the other meanings. Madge is a commonly-used nickname for Madonna, particularly within the press, and I think that a reasonable person may type it in, looking for Madonna. That it's not detailed in the Madonna article is irrelevant, to my mind. (I could have added it there, I suppose, but the article is really long as it is.) The single nickname "Jacko" isn't in Michael Jackson, either ("Wacko Jacko" is, but it's unique enough to not need a disambiguation page), but it's a legitimate disambiguation, in my opinion, for much the same reason. Anyways, cheers! --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Baby,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reason for adding Madonna to the Madge disambiguation page. I agree with your ideas about disambiguation pages; that their purpose is to help people locate a specific article, that not only the most common entries should be found there, and that it is reasonable to have Madonna on the Madge page considering it is her nickname. I also believe that disambiguation pages should not include pictures, citations, or new information. If an entry's article does not include information that is contained on the disambiguation description, then either important information is missing from the article or obscure information is used on the disambiguation page. Because Madge is not mentioned as a nickname for Madonna on her article, I took it off the disambiguation page. Still, I understand your reasons for wanting to keep it there and I won't remove it again.

Neelix 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nikolay

Hi, Neelix! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. In the edit summary, you specified that you reformatted the page "according to disambiguation page guidelines" (I assume you mean WP:MOSDAB). You also restored most of the entries dealing with people whose first name is Nikolay (e.g., Nikolay Kharitonov and Nikolay Zimyatov). However, MOSDAB specifically mentions that [p]eople who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name. With Russians, it means that listing people with the last name matching the title of the dab page is fine, but listing people with the first name matching the title of the dab page is not. In spirit of disambiguation guidelines, only royalties and non-human entities should remain on this particular dab page, and all people with the first name of Nikolay should go to currently non-existing List of people named Nikolay, a link to which should be provided at the bottom of the dab page.

Furthermore, I wonder if Nikolay itself should either be a redirect to Nicholas (with the disambiguation page located at Nikolay (disambiguation)) or if the information about Russian human name should be put to Nikolay (name) (in which case the dab page will stay at "Nikolay").

Your comments on this will be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was, however, referring to WP:MOSDAB. I have been reformatting disambiguation pages since January, at which time I read through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages very thoroughly. I have not referred back to it very often since then. Apparently the guidelines have changed. Now having read the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", I agree with your assessment that the people named "Nikolay" or "Nikolai" should not be mixed with other entries. The entries should be moved to List of people named Nikolay.

If this change is made, the only entries left on Nikolay will be Nikolai, Alaska and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. I would suggest that Nikolai be switched from a redirect page to a short disambiguation page with these two entries and a "See also" section with a link to Nicholas and List of people named Nikolai. Nikolay could then be switched to a redirect page to List of people named Nikolay. Let me know what you think.

Neelix 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, thank you for your thorough explanation. Unannounced changes in the guidelines hit everyone every once in a while, so no problem there.

I have several comments regarding your response above. First of all, creating separate lists of people named "Nikolay" and "Nikolai" is really unnecessary. Both spellings refer to the same Russian name of "Николай"; the only difference is the transliteration method. Second, Prince Nikolai of Denmark wouldn't be the only one left. Both Nicholas I and II should stay, because they are well-known as either Nicholases or Nikola[y/i]s. Nikolai, Alaska, of course, is a definite keep. Alwin Nikolais should probably go, or he may be mentioned in the "see also" section.

Finally, about the list of people named Nikolay. Would you like to compile this list yourself, or would you prefer me doing it? For starters, it can include over sixty Nikolays listed in the list of Russians; others will surely follow.

Again, thanks for taking time to respond to this. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I'm glad we're working this out together. The reason I have been editing pages relating to "Nicholas" is that all of its varients are listed on that page. I would like to use that page as a hub, each varient linked to a list of people with that name. That way, the etymology and origin of the names need only be recorded on the "Nicholas" page. A page called List of people named Nicholas could be linked as well. This would eliminate the need to have the "Famous persons with the name Nicholas" on the "Nicholas" page. I would also suggest that a person should be listed on only one of the "List of people named..." pages linked from "Nicholas". This would avoid needless repetition.

For this reason, I would not leave "Nicholas I of Russia" and "Nicholas II of Russia" on "Nikolay" as they could be listed on "List of people named Nicholas". As to who should make the changes, I would like to try, but there are so many varients that any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Let's solidify our solution before we start in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Neelix 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, the problem with listing people in only one list has merit insofar as navigation is facilitated, but it may be a problem if it's the only approach we consider. Although "Nicholas XX" is the prevailing usage, it is not at all uncommon when these two emperors are referred to as Nikola[y/i] XX in English, and it is impossible to tell which of these titles a reader would expect to find. We, of course, should provide for both contingencies.

Considering how I handled similar situations in the past, here is how I would do it for Nicholas I (just an example):

• he would be listed as Nicholas I on the "Nicholas" dab page;
• "Nicholas" dab page would link to "Nikolay" dab page, to the "list of people named Nicholas", and to the "list of people named Nikolay" in the "see also" section;
• Nicholas I would be listed on "Nikolay" disambiguation page, with a note that while "Nicholas" is prevailing usage, "Nikolay" is also common (aka clause)
• "Nikolay" dab page would link to "Nicholas" dab page, to the "list of people named Nikolay", and to the "list of people named Nicholas" in the "see also" section;
• "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology, with cross-links to related dabs and lists;
• Nicholas I would be listed in the list of people named Nicholas;
• he would also be listed in the list of people named Nikolay, with a note stating that while "Nicholas" variant is more common in English, "Nikolay" is also used;

The reason why I prefer keeping both Nicholases on the "Nikolay" dab page is the same MOSDAB provision I cited above. They both are very frequently referred to simply by their single name, be it "Nicholas" or "Nikolay".

I understand that the original way you proposed is cleaner and simpler, but unfortunately it may not serve the best interests of readers (the "needless repetition" you mentioned is in fact not needless—in this particular case it serves a useful purpose). If you have other suggestions regarding how to improve this (admittedly quite complicated!) situation, I'll be more than happy to hear them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I've never had such an in-depth conversation with someone on Wikipedia before. I do think we're getting somewhere.

I can understand why you want to list "Nicholas I of Russia" on so many different list pages and disambiguation pages, so I will go along with it. There are, however, a few things in the scheme you outlined which still seem to constitute "needless repitition":

You have suggested that "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology. Should not the origins and etimology of the name Nikolay and Nicholas both be explained on the Nicholas page as they are both derivatives of Nikolaos? The majority of this information should be the same. I would suggest that "Nikolay" be a redirect to "Nicholas" as that is where links to "List of people named derivative of Nikolaos" could be located. It is currently where the list of derivatives are located. If you feel that this location is biased towards the common English spelling, perhaps this information (derivatives along with their "List of people named..." links) could be located on the "Nikolaos" page and all its derivatives could redirect there (or link there in the case that a disambiguation page for a derivative is necessary).

It is important to develop a scheme which could be followed for all the derivatives of "Nikolaos" rather than just "Nikolay" and "Nikolai". Thank you for persisting with me in developing this scheme.

Neelix 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, I sure hope you are enjoying this discussion of ours, because I can go like that all day :) Thanks for bearing with me and for your patience.

To address your issues: first of all, just to clarify, I don't want to include these Russian tsars into every page related to "Nicholas", only to "Nicholas" itself and to "Nikolay" (and into two corresponding lists of people), so there are just four pages, not many.

Second, you are absolutely correct that the information about name origins and etimology should be (and already is) included in "Nicholas", not in "Nikolay". It was an oversight on my part—thanks for catching this inconsistency in my logic.

I wouldn't, however, make "Nikolay" a redirect to "Nicholas". From what I understand, you said above that you do not object to including Russian tsars to the "Nikolay" dab page. With the prince and the Alaskan town, there are four entries, which well justifies existence of a separate dab page. Same goes for all other variants of Nicholas—if there is a sufficient number of entries for a dab page, there should be a said dab; if the number of entries is two or less, then a redirect to "Nicholas" would suffice.

The dab pages, in turn, would point to "Nicholas" as the main article about the name, list entries which comply with MOSDAB, and provide links to applicable lists (such as "list of people named Nikolay" on "Nikolay" dab page) in the "see also" section.

As for minor name variations ("Nikolai" vs. "Nikolay"), this phenomenon is extremely common for Russian names. I would simply make "Nikolai" a redirect to "Nikolay" dab (not to "Nicholas"!) where all Nikolais and Nikolays would be bundled together. For a similar solution, check out Sovetsky, which lists all three forms (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of the Russian adjective, all of which redirect to that dab. "See also" also provides a link to Soviet (disambiguation) as well as a link to the derivative form Sovetsk.

I think such system covers all contingencies. Let me know if you see anything that wouldn't work if applied to the situation in question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I do believe we have come to some conclusion. The scheme you have outlined sounds like it would work very well. I do not see any problems with it. Would you mind reformatting "Nikolai", "Nikolay", "List of people named Nikolai", and "List of people named Nikolay" as you have suggested? I would like to view your edits in order to make sure I understand your method. If I still have no concerns, I will gladly use your formatting as a template for the other derivatives of "Nicholas", and possibly for other names after that.

I'm so glad we have worked this out. It has been good conversing with you.

Neelix 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you too, Neelix. I will make an effort to work on Nicholas-related lists/dabs tomorrow; if nothing urgent comes up, that is. Let me know if you need anything else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On lists

Hi, Neelix! Me again.

I must admit it's been quite a while since I last took interest in lists of people by first name. It seems that current convention is to add all "lists of people named SO-AND-SO" to an appropriate location in the list of people by name (see, for example, how "Nicholas" is already taken care of. I'd have to dig up appropriate guidelines regarding who should and who should not be included, if we are to start a new "Nikolay as given name" subsection, and whether or not separate lists of people named so-and-so are allowed any more (I couldn't find any for first names, only for last names, although admittedly I didn't look all that hard). Would you know anything about current conventions? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

After doing some research into the subject, I believe the current convention is to do away with as many individual lists as possible, replacing them with categories. The rest are to be compiled by linking them all together, as in List of people by name or Lists of office-holders. The only guideline I have been able to find about who should not be included in "List of people by name" states that fictional people should not be included. In the case of people named Nikolai or Nikolay, it is probably best to simply list them in "List of people by name". Thank you for pointing this out. I could have wasted a lot of time compiling unconventional lists.

Neelix 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - After looking into the matter a little more, I find that people are not listed on the "List of people by name" by their given name(s) if they have a surname. I am unsure of whether these people should be listed on a "List of people named..." page, although this would be my best guess. If you find out anything about this, please let me know.

Red lks on LoPbN

_ _ Please don't remove entries from LoPbN simply bcz the corresponding articles don't exist (as apparently on List of people by name: Para-Parj. Research a few years ago suggested a high rate of creation of articles corresponding to such lks; even if their presence on LoPbN was not what stimulated their creation (hard to measure!), keeping them saves the effort of re-entering them. (Especially to the point, in light of high rate of Category:Living people articles that don't appear on LoPbN.) I remove them when

• the content inherantly suggest non-notability (description focusing on relationship to an unspecified person, e.g. "husband and father"; hyperbolic description, e.g. "world's greatest ..."; young subject in areas where notability normally requires extended study and/or experience, i.e. most areas except acting and pop music)
• there is evidence of obscurity (usually a Google-test; especially relevant for actors -- check IMDb -- or musicians -- i dunno where to check, but you may)
• an article has existed but been deleted (other than for copyvio) -- AfD page included on "what links here" listing; deletion-log entry

Also, occasionally, something motivates me to do a Google test even in the absence of a justified presumption.
_ _ BTW, i mention after glancing at the discussion in the preceding sections, that i think you'll find a thrust to replace lists with Categories, but not in cases (e.g. holders of specific offices, MacArthur fellows, Academy Award winners) where complete lists can be assembled. (And LoPbN is an exception, tho never completable, because of the value of the single alpha list for "eye-ball search" where the searcher lacks the complete name or its exact spelling.) And lower nobility, pre-Renaissance commoners (mostly scholars), and stage names (Madonna, Rose Marie, Fabian, Fabio, Ann-Margret) are additional reasons for given-name instances.
--Jerzy•t 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Moor

Hi, I wonder if you could explain this edit? You say "Reformatted according to disambiguation page guidelines", but an important part of those guidelines is that you shouldn't add links to articles that merely incorporate the name of the disambiguation page, unless those things are commonly known simply by that name. Bodmin Moor, Curry and Hay Moors, Emley Moor etc. are just arbitrary examples of the many hundreds of moors with articles. Moreover, you relegated moorland to the "see also" section when it should be at or near the top of the page, since one of the main meanings of "moor" is as a synonym for "moorland". Or to put it another way, someone looking for information about Bodmin Moor would type "Bodmin Moor" into the search box, not "moor"; but someone writing about Bodmin Moor might well write "Bodmin Moor is a [[moor]]", and a reader following the link would want be able to find the correct meaning easily. --Blisco 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blisco,

I understand your concerns about my edit of the Moor page. I mostly agree with you. As you may read in the "Nikolay" section of my talk page, I spent most of the year reformatting disambiguation pages according to WP:MOSDAB as it existed at the beginning of the year. These guidelines have changed since then and I did not check back until Ezhiki pointed out my mistake. Since then, I have been reformatting according to the current version of WP:MOSDAB.

With regard to your edit, however, I would question your deletion of the "See also" section, which is an important part of any disambiguation page, as is still written on WP:MOSDAB. I would also question your deletion of the Moors (race), Enchanted moors, and Moors murders entries, which still seem appropriate for the Moor disambiguation page.

I appreciate your concern for this disambiguation page and hope we will be able to come to an agreeable solution.

Neelix 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I did take the lazy option in reverting, for which apologies. I'll put back Moors (race) (which really ought to be merged into Moors, but does belong on the dab page for now), and any of the "see also" links that could conceivably be confused with "moor" (i.e. not Moorefield, Moorestown etc.). However, I'd disagree with including Enchanted moors and Moors murderers, since they're very much names in their own right: no one looking for information on those topics is likely to look under "Moor", and no editor referring to them is likely to link to "Moor". Hope that makes sense, and please edit the page further if you think I've missed something. --Blisco 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blisco,

That all sounds reasonable. My last concern remains that enchanted moors is not included on the disambiguation page. They are supernatural beings in Portuguese folklore, and are often refered to as "moors"; not always "enchanted moors". I see it as being very likely that someone looking for the "enchanted moors" page would simply know of them as "moors" and expect to find it with that word only. Still, I'll leave it up to your judgement.

Neelix 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know...

...scanning the "new pages created" as I have been doing all week, seeing your "Long-haired", "Red-haired", "Chestnut-collared", etc disambig pages flying by brings a certain normality to the procedings. "Violet-chested" is a particular favourite of mine, I must admit. ;) Bubba hotep 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bubba,

I'm glad you're enjoying my disambiguation pages. It's good to know that someone appreciates my edits.

Neelix 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do enjoy the break from the monotony of obvious vanity, spam, defamation, and nonsense pages, yes. In fact, I do often find myself chuckling as another Neelix page goes by. Keep it up! :) Bubba hotep 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Giant disambiguation page (in both senses)

Hi, me again! A related gripe I'm afraid. I had occasion to use the Giant disambiguation page today, and spent some time (well, ten seconds or so, but it felt longer than it should have done) searching for the meaning I wanted, Giant (mythology). (I was rewriting and wikifying the legend of The Wrekin if you're interested.) Now your recent reformatting of that page is all very neat and logical (sections in alphabetical order, with entries in each section also in alphabetical order), but it seems to me that it's obscuring the main function of a disambiguation page: to quote from WP:MOSDAB, "to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."

Now, what might you be looking for if you typed 'giant' in the search box and hit 'Go'? In terms of encyclopedia articles, I would have thought the mythological meaning is the most common. Or you might be looking for information about gigantism, or giant stars (in general), or maybe the film or the magazine. But if you wanted to know about red giants, giant hogweed, Giant Eagle, Little Giants, Mary and the Giant, or the Bacharach Giants, would you type just "giant" in the box and expect to find it? It's more likely that 99.9% of readers would search for the full term, or something approximating it, certainly not just "giant". It's just conceivable that someone looking for one of the better-known sports teams might search for "Giants" (which redirects here), but it's unlikely.

With the current state of the page, someone looking for almost any of these meanings will have to scroll though reams of irrelevant material to find it. The previous version of the page, meanwhile, put the primary meaning -- giant (mythology) -- at the top, with the other main meanings also fairly easy to find. The page was certainly not perfect, but that's mainly because it contained too many links. Andre the Giant might belong at Andre, and Andre the Giant Has a Posse should be linked from AtG's own article, but neither belong here. As I hinted at above, and as I think WP:MOSDAB makes reasonably clear (but perhaps it could be clearer), dab pages are not places to list every possible article that contains the word in question: their sole purpose is to distinguish between articles that would otherwise have the same or very similar titles, and help readers and editors find the right article quickly. To this end, the more common a meaning is, the further up the page it should come. "For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common." (My italics.) Using proper headings may look nice, but ease of navigation is much more important.

Sorry to write such a long essay, but with the amount of dab page reformatting you're doing I thought you ought to hear the views of one concerned Wikipedian. --Blisco 20:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blisco,

Thank you for voicing your concern about my edits of the Giant disambiguation page. I understand your reasoning. I have been reading and updating disambiguation pages for quite a while now, and still have difficulty in determining what should and should not be listed on a disambiguation page. When I began editing this specific page, I looked at the entries that were listed at that time. They included both Andre the Giant and Andre the Giant Has a Posse. As I have found it difficult to determine what entries are not valid for a disambiguation page, I have generally determined not to remove entries that seem like they could be appropriate, therefore I did not remove either of these. I also used the entries that were existing at the time as a guide to what should be added. If Belfast Giants should be listed on the Giant page, so should every other sports team named "Giants". Feel free to edit this page as you see fit. My only intentions for reformatting disambiguation pages are to make Wikipedia easier to navigate. I would appreciate any comments or concerns you would like to share with me and I will not be offended if you make changes to my edits.

Thanks again,

Neelix 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand the difficulty. I think a good rule of thumb is to err on the side of removing entries from dab pages rather than adding them, for two reasons: firstly it makes them clearer and easier to navigate, and secondly because people are always adding inappropriate entries. (Andre the Giant Has a Posse is an extreme example!) I've reverted your edit and removed a couple more, but left the sports teams that were already there - not an ideal situation, since, as you say, why shouldn't others be added? - but these seem to be the best known ones, and I was uneasy about removing them all. I wondered about suggesting creating a List of sports teams using the name Giants or similar title, but on reflection that might open the floodgates for many more lists based on team suffixes. In any case, if there are any entries (in any category) you really think should be re-added then please do. Cheers, Blisco 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Clone Wars Volume 9: Endgame

That wasn't vandalism. I created the article, and I reconsidered and realized an article on a trade paperback with no real information wasn't needed, so i redirected. —Skope (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skope,

I'm sorry to have called your edit vandalism. Normally when I see an article's information completely removed without explanation, I assume vandalism. That type of thing is fairly common. That being said, I do feel the article has value. There are plenty of articles about trade paperbacks, as evidenced by Category:Graphic novels. As I look through the Star Wars: Republic article and follow its links, I'm impressed at the depth of detail and the breadth of information you have provided about the series. I would recommend that the "Endgame" article stand, but as you're the resident expert on the series, I won't revert your edit again if you feel that it should be redirected.

Neelix 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just that a lot of people are for as few articles as possible in the Category:Star Wars comics, and I felt the trade paperbacks weren't really needed, since all they really told was what comics they included. The only info they could have is about the comics themselves, and those comics have their own articles. I admit I should have added a comment on why I redirected. This is where a good bit of the chatter about all of the merges and whatnot: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars#Star Wars comics problem still. —Skope (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Resistance page.

Just so you know, I mostly rolled back your changes to the Resistance disambig page. I'd already made the Resistance page compliant with MoS:DAB, and I feel that most of your changes were in the wrong direction- some very common uses like electrical resistance were pushed towards the bottom, and some common meanings were left off entirely. Since this is more a disambig style issue than something specific to Resistance, I figured I'd drop this off on your talk page as opposed to the Resistance talk page. Notably, some items I would like to register a polite disagreement with concerning your style:

• In descriptions, I strongly prefer to use proper English. By this I mean that you should be able to make a complete sentence stringing the headers and entry together: "Resistance can refer to, in politics, Resistance (socialist youth organisation), an Australian Marxist organisation." Removing "an" makes this a fragment, and sounds odd even on its own- very clipped. That style would work as a long parenthetical note, but not with the comma. It's the same for the section headers- you wouldn't say "Divisions can refer to in military to organizations of troops;" "in military affairs" or "in the military" would be grammatical.

• You avoided indenting any items. I cannot see why as this often makes something much easier to read, and is a very common practice on disambig pages. This is doubly true when something is a subset of another meaning; Drag is a specific kind of Friction (which is also referred to as resistance in many contexts, so should definitely be on the page), so it should go beneath it. Same with Thermal Resistance & friends (Thermal Conductivity is on the page because, if you look at the pages, you'll see that the Resistance article is tiny and it's all actually at conductivity, which makes sense because it's the same exact topic. Perhaps an argument for making Thermal resistance a redirect, but until that happens...).

• While not hugely common, it is entirely possible for articles without the magic word to be valid disambig topics, especially if there's a redirect to them. Many people entering in resistance mean (human) (disease) resistance. Hence, the link to the immune system. Frankly, if it's an issue, I'll drop a redirect off at Disease resistance to immune system and that can be the link instead, but this is a MAJOR usage, and one where Wikipedia has a wealth of articles on the topic. To leave it out would be silly.

• Lastly, as a minor nitpicky note, bands or people are not typically italicized.

That said, you did come up with a more succinct explanation for Resistance (technical analysis), so thanks on that. SnowFire 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

--

Thank you for the reply. Sorry I misinterpreted you on indenting; certainly keeping the number of entries on a disambig page low is a reasonable goal. Also, the art of when to link directly to the article as opposed to linking to a redirect (containing the name) is certainly an uneven one; I can't articulate any guidelines for my own preferences, and are probably likely to trust other's judgment on it if it's already been decided.

Also, while I wholeheartedly agree that entries on a disambig page should not be "let's free associate with the word and see what we come up with!," a disambig page should ultimately be based around intent and meaning, not the actual word itself. There are many times when articles containing the word in its title will be inappropriate, and there are a few times where articles that don't contain that word and don't have redirects with that word will still be an appropriate link.

As other notes:

Bands should always be italicized. People should not. It does not make sense to unitalicize V, Voyager, and Battlestar Galactica in the links but not in the descriptions. They should always be italicised. See italic type for when to use italics.

Er, bands aren't mentioned anywhere on the italic type page. I was going off of MoS:T, which does not list bands under the things that need to be italicized. To be honest, I don't know the actual rule on bands, so it's possible MoS:T has made an omission, but I really haven't seen bands italicized in standard reading.

As for internal parenthetical links... To prevent going insane, I usually don't italicize parenthetical disambiguators (even when they "should") under the theory of "too much work, too little return." Since they are used for internal Wikipedia use, I figured that WP can italicize them or not italicize them as it will, just like the iPod article is at IPod. That said, this is an interesting question. I think I shall go raise it on MoS:T and ask them if it's worth putting in an example with this.

"politics and the military" is not a field unto itself. Only the third entry in that section is political, and the other three are military. These are two separate fields. Also, adding the word the before military suggests that there is only one military, but the entries refer to more than one.

In that case, military affairs would work, but I think "the military" is clear enough. And I didn't mean to imply that they were one field, but rather two connected fields; I've done topics like "in film and theatre" before when appropriate, as an example. I felt that a resistance movement was not necessarily only in the military; it can be a political thing as well. The article there is pretty bad and short as it stands, but it does indicate in the header that nonviolence counts too, which would seem to make it an uneasy fit to a pure "military" category. That may change if the article was rewritten to only be about violent resistance.

PS - Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the name "SnowFire"? I like the image it conjures.

Thank you. When I was a wee lad (9?), I played Scorched Earth at a neighbor's house; the neighbor's daughter chose "Snowball" as her name, when choosing a computer name (other than my real name) was a rather new thing for me. Fast forward 5-6 years, and I'm registering an account on bungie.net for playing Myth: The Fallen Lords. "Snowball" is taken (and good thing, too, since it's an uncreative name in retrospect). I like the snow part, though, and I have a certain affection for Oxymorons, so I came up with SnowFire on the spot (blue & red colors, natch). It worked out well, and I've kept it ever since (though when it's been taken, Snowflame has risen to the occasion). SnowFire 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article titles, etc.

Hi Neelix, I noticed you are doing a great job of making things consistent and have been creating a lot of useful redirects. You might be interested that titles of articles for a single television episode should only have the series name in parentheses if necessary, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), i.e. Doctor Bashir, I Presume? instead of Doctor Bashir, I Presume? (DS9 episode). (Note that this guideline is currently under debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-11-21 00:00Z

Hi Quarl,

Thanks for the encouragement on my redirects. I also appreciate the advice about the television episode naming conventions. I'll attempt to follow that guideline in the future.

Neelix 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Equilibrium

Hi Neelix,

It seems that when you reformatted Equilibrium, something went wrong - most of the page content is gone. Only some pop culture references are left - chemical equilibrium, for example, is no longer there. Was this intentional? If not, maybe it would be easier to revert the page and then reformat it, rather than copying and pasting the content into the reformat. What do you think? 124.148.124.68 13:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

My removal of the majority of the entries on equilibrium was intentional. I began reformatting the page by adding all the different types of equilibrium to the page - dynamic equilibrium, partition equilibrium, solubility equilibrium - but there are so many pages about different types of equilibrium in physical science, economics, and other fields that the revision I was creating became exceedingly lengthy. I assumed all these types of equilibrium should not be included on the page, so I removed all the ones that had the same meaning; the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced. The four that are left are the ones that refer to something else.

I do, however, understand your concern. The more common uses of the term "equilibrium" are the science-related ones. I hope I have explained myself in a sufficiently clear manner. I really do not know which entries should be added to this page as someone searching for "equilibrium" could be looking for any of dozens of articles. What do you think of having a separate disambiguation page for each field?

Ex: Equilibrium (chemistry), Equilibrium (physics), Equilibrium (economics), etc.

This would allow all the types of equilibrium to be listed without making any one page exceedingly long. Let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Neelix 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I agree with you that someone could be searching for any of those articles. However, if there was a separate page for chemistry, another one for economics etc, wouldn't that be a bit messy – i.e. to have two levels of disambig? It seems to me, at least for the first half the page (using version 86455614 as a reference) it might be difficult to split up anyway. Although the uses are similar, there are enough differences to warrant a separate article for each one. So, I'd suggest leaving all the content on it – like the Aurora example in the manual of style and perhaps rearrange the actual entries. For example, the page starts off with physical sciences, then continues on to mathematical usage, before jumping back science again! This could definitely be improved. How does this sound?

124.148.124.68 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

Sounds good to me. It will be a long page, but Aurora is of a similar length and that's ratified by the manual of style, so let's go for it. I'll start adding entries as soon as possible.

Neelix 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

Looking really good! Much better than the old page, for sure! Just a few things that don't seem to have been transferred over from version 86455614:

Sense of balance (a redirect to equilibrioception)

Equilibrium point

Shouldn't these be added as well? Or should they go somewhere else?

124.148.124.68 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

Thank you for the encouragement. I agree that Equilibrium point should be added. I'll put it in the 'other' section. What do you think of putting Equilibrioception in a 'see also' section?

Neelix 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I agree with the Other section for Equilibrium point, but I'm not sure that the See Also section is right for Equilibrioception. My dictionaries seem to define "equilibrium" as "sense of balance (or words to that effect) - noun", and then go on to some of the other science definitions, but with the entires tagged as Chemistry or Physics. So I think it should probably be nearer the top, as it seems to be closest to a "standard" definition. How about something like this:

Equilibrium is a common term for Equilibrioception, the sense of balance present in humans and animals. It may also refer to:

...

My thinking is that before studying higher-level maths and science, I only knew equilibrium as the sense of balance. It seems to me that equilibrioception is the proper, more scientific name for this (much like sodium bicarbonate is a more scientific term for baking soda) and thus we should redirect people looking for this straight on to the correct page. Those looking for other meanings will be more prepared to scroll down the list, most likely being more aware of the different meanings. So, how does this sound?

124.148.124.68 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

If you feel that Equilibrioception is the most common usage of the term Equilibrium, it should be fine to have it at the top. To be consistant with disambiguation page formatting, let's write it like this:

Equilibrium is the sense of balance present in humans and animals.

Equilibrium may also refer to:

If we are to do this, I think it important to switch the first sentence of the Equilibrioception article to read:

Equilibrioception, also called sense of balance or equilibrium, is one of the physiological senses.

We would also need to make Equilibrium (balance) a redirect page to Equilibrioception. Let me know your thoughts on these suggestions. It's good to be able to work this out with you.

Neelix 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I think it's good to work this out too. It's what Wikipedia is all about! And your suggestion sounds great! My only question is, why not link directly to the equilibrioception page and omit the Equilibrium (balance) redirect page?

124.148.124.68 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

My reasoning behind linking to the redirect page is because of this guideline on WP:MOSDAB:

... 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.

Since equilibrium is another name for equilibrioception, it would make sense to have a redirect page with equilibrium as the title. It's best to avoid entries on disambiguation pages that do not contain the disambiguation title. Although links to redirect pages should be avoided on most articles, disambiguation pages seem to defy the normal rules of Wikipedia in a bunch of ways.

I'd like to wait until I hear from you again before the change is made. I don't want to jump the gun without you jumping on the bandwagon.

Neelix 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

That's nice of you. Yes, including equilibrium in the title makes sense – I definately agree with that. I'm on the bandwagon!

124.148.124.68 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle (1911 film)

Hi Neelix, the lists of years in film (like 1911 in film) are meant to link to articles about films, not the other way round. Also red links are used by film project members to monitor the creation of new film articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article). Please, do not create film articles by simply placing a redirect, as this turn their title to blue and may be very confusing. Thanks. Hoverfish 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) To clarify one point: if a film article does exist under "Film title", you can surely edid "Title of film" (a notable aka name of the same film) and place a redirect to "Film title". Hoverfish 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hoverfish,

I apologize for creating a confusing redirect. I did so for the Battle (disambiguation) page according to WP:MOSDAB guideline stating that 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. I had not realized that I was interfering with WikiProject Films. In the future, I will attempt to avoid this misunderstanding.

Neelix 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No serious problem. I see you have deleted the entry from the disambiguation. D. W. Griffith's given selected filmography doesn't include the film and as I see in IMDb , it's a 19 min. war drama. It may well be that the film is not considered notable enough to have its own article, although I am not a specialist in old films. I would say that it wouldn't hurt the disambiguation to contain the item in unlinked text with a short description (1911 short film, war drama). After all I learned about this film's existence from this entry :) Guidelines are good to keep Wikipedia consistent, but they do leave freedom for individual decisions. For the moment I am collecting all red links I find on film titles in the forementioned list, so that at one future point it may be determined which of these are notable enough to deserve a red link and which should be turned to simple text. If in doubt on any further issues concerning films, feel at home to ask in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Hoverfish 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

page Anomaly

Hello Neelix, may I ask, why you deleted the part on anomaly and software testing? As you can see it is a known term from IEEE 1044-1993: Standard Classification for Software Anomalies.
Or is it moved somewhere appropriate? --Erkan Yilmaz 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erkan,

I removed the software testing entry from the Anomaly disambiguation page because of how a disambiguation page is defined on WP:MOSDAB. According to these guidelines, a disambiguation page exists soley to help a user find the article they are looking for. The IEEE 1044-1993 and testobject pages do not exist. I tried all the other links in the entry, but neither of the resulting pages mentioned anomalies at all.

Another guideline on WP:MOSDAB states that there should only be one link per entry, whereas the software testing entry had eight. When creating an entry on a disambiguation page, one should start with a link to a page discussing the term (in this case, anomaly), and this should be directly followed by a short description of that use of the term.

Also, there should never be reason for a "References" section on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not introduce new information that does not exist on the articles to which it links, therefore any information that needs to be referenced should be referenced on its respective article.

If you feel that software testing anomalies deserves its own article, feel free to create one. Once the article has been created, it would then be appropriate to create a short entry on the Anomaly disambiguation page linking to it.

Neelix 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Neelix, after such a good explanation, I only can say: you are fully correct. I will create such a page then. --Erkan Yilmaz 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I added here now a link. I am still updating the article itself, but I guess so far this works ok? --Erkan Yilmaz 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erkan,

I like how the new Anomaly in software page is coming. It's good to see you putting the effort into making it. It definitely makes sense to have a link on the Anomaly disambiguation page now. I would like to make two minor formatting suggestions for the article you've created:

1. Wiktionary links usually only go on disambiguation pages, unless there is no disambiguation page for a specific word. Since the link is on the disambiguation page, it's not really necessary here.
2. To conform to the standard format of naming articles, Software anomaly or Anomaly (software) might be a more appropriate title.

Like any new article, I'm sure there is a lot of expanding that can be done, but you've laid the foundations for a great page. I'm starting to run into a busy spell for the next while, but if I get a chance, I'll try to contribute to the article you've started.

Neelix 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I kiss you

for creating a placeholder page for Author! Author! by the Scars that redirects to the band article. Thank you. I'd been meaning to do that but never got around to it, so the fact that you did it is superb. I will get to work on the actual article as soon as possible, thanks to you. You are the kick in the (American) pants I needed to get my butt into gear. (Krushsister 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi Krush Sister,

Thank you for the encouragement! It's always good to hear that my edits are appreciated, and I love it when my edits encourage others to contribute. Thanks for the virtual kiss!

Neelix 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PAC edits

Sorry about that last change, I read the WP:MOSDAB#People:

• For people: Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role.

too fast, and didn't notice it was restricted to people's occupation only. You are right...

Your edit: [1]

Regards, 202.63.40.179 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tuotu,

No harm done. Thank you for letting me know why you made the switch. I hadn't realized that a's, an's, and the's should not be used in the descriptions of people entries, so it was a learning experience for both of us!

Neelix 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

:-) 202.63.40.179 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy

An editor has nominated the article Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BCC

It was getting cluttered, so unfortunately I had to remove the bits of info you added. If there is any problem, I'm open for discussion. I know that you've put plenty of work into the article. I am hoping that you will understand that my intentions were not at all undermining your contributions, but rather, saving a little old disambig. page from snowballing into featured list. Jay(Talk) 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read your comments and you're absolutely right. I re-instated most of your info (trimmed down a bit.) Keeping with the international approach, I'm not entirely sure about what to do with the place names - for example, what is Brooklyn and where is New York to someone reading this in Brisbane? I dunno - by all means tweak it until you feel it is just right. Thanks Jay(Talk) 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Giant squid (disambiguation)

Hello Neelix,

I've put Giant squid (disambiguation), started by you, up for proposed deletion. There are only two articles in the disambiguation page and I deemed it better to the {{otheruses4}} template, which I have on both.

Just wanted to let you know.

Happy editting! JackSparrow Ninja 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Thanks for letting me know. As the Atlantic Giant Squid page has been merged with the Giant Squid page, it completely makes sense to switch the band link to an otheruses template.

Neelix 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Argentia vs. Argentia, Newfoundland and Labrador

Please read this section. There is no need to do the replacement of Argentia, Newfoundland and Labrador with Argentia as you have been doing. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi LaTondre,

Thanks for letting me know about that policy. I had not come accross it before. I will keep it in mind in the future.

Neelix 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John Russell dab page

Thanks for your attention to John Russell. I had some thoughts about your recent edits there, and figured that the talk page was a better place to discuss it than ping-ponging on our user talk pages. Matchups 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador communities

I've noticed you have been shortening some article names by removing the Newfoundland and Labrador qualifier... I'm aware that the names are lengthy but thus far they have been consistent with all communities in the province. Not to discourage you but there are much larger centres such as Boston or Detroit which have official article titles as Boston, Massachusetts and Detroit, Michigan, so is it really necessary?Plasma east 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plasma,

I'm glad you noticed my edits. I was hoping that someone would start a dialogue about the geographical name shortenings. Hopefully I can provide a proper explanation of why I have been proceeding with them.

Normally, an article is simply named what it is most commonly called. If there are multiple articles that are each most commonly called the same thing, then a disambiguation page is created and the articles are provided with qualifiers. These qualifiers normally come either in the form of a bracket, such as in the case of Mr. Big (chocolate), or in the form of a comma, such as in the two cases you have mentioned (Boston and Detroit). In the case of an article whose title is not ambiguous (ie. there are no other articles that could be called by that name) or the article is the most likely to be referred to by that title, then the qualifier is unnecessary and usually omitted.

There are many articles about cities and towns that have titles without qualifiers, including Philadelphia, Toronto, London, Paris, Melbourne, Rome, and Harare. Currently, many of the articles about communities in Newfoundland and Labrador include the qualifier ", Newfoundland and Labrador" in their title. I have been removing the qualifiers (only from articles whose titles are unique) for two reasons. Firstly, the qualifier ", Newfoundland and Labrador" is excessively long, especially in the case of communities whose names are already lengthy, such as in Rose Blanche-Harbour le Cou, Newfoundland and Labrador and Harbour Main-Chapel's Cove-Lakeview, Newfoundland and Labrador. These titles currently take up two lines on some resolutions. Secondly, the majority of these articles do not have corresponding redirect pages whose titles are without the qualifier, therefore it is just as much work to move the articles to those titles as it is to redirect those titles to the current articles.

I hope I have explained myself clearly. Please let me know if you have any persisting concerns or questions regarding my treatment of geographical titles. I would appreciate any advice or discussion you can provide.

Neelix 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand the lengthy province name and community naming issues, particularly with certain screen resolutions. I was just wondering if there has been any formal move to shorten smaller, less-known, community names in Canadian provinces, aside from these articles in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in isolated cases like Toronto, Vancouver, Moncton, Fredericton, etc?

Every community name that I have come across for U.S. articles, except for New York City, has the state name qualifier added and makes for marvelous consistency in categorization, etc. Since our provincial geopolitical divisions in Canada are organized along similar lines to the U.S. state model, should there not be a Canadian community naming standard?Plasma east 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plasma,

I agree that there should be a Canadian community naming standard, however I do not know of any such formal standard currently in existance. If you become aware of one, please let me know. My current understanding, as explained above, is that the qualifier (province in this case) should only be included as part of the title when the name of the community is not unique. If a formal standard is created that is in contradiction with my current practice, I will gladly leave my reservations behind and follow that standard.

Thank you again for the helpful conversation. I hope that it will lead to more specific standards of practice on Wikipedia in this area.

Neelix 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll do some searching and let you know if I'm successful. Cheers,Plasma east 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

La Romaine

You shouldn't switch a redirect from one article to another like that, especially since almost all the links to the page refer to the La Romaine in TT (and none of them to Quebec) - it could have been quite confusing to anyone clicking on the link. It's much better to turn it into a disambiguation page in a case like this. Guettarda 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda,

I do apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The reason I switched the redirect to La Romaine, Quebec was because "La Romaine" was not even mentioned on the Trinidad and Tobago page, therefore there was no way to verify whether or not a place called "La Romaine" existed in that country. If this place does exist, I agree wholeheartedly that "La Romaine" should be a disambiguation page.

Neelix 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Places in Newfoundland and Labrador

The rule for moving an article from "Place, Province" to "Place" is not that you can do it arbitrarily just because there isn't already another article at the plain title; a discussion, linked to from the Canadian noticeboard must take place on the talk page first. It simply isn't safe to assume that there isn't anything else in the world called Alderburn just because there isn't already another article at that title; we're required to solicit discussion first to ensure that that's the case. Until those discussions have taken place, the communities do have to be moved back to "Place, Newfoundland and Labrador". Bearcat 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And there is a formal convention already spelled out, by the way; it's at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Bearcat 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat,

Thank you for providing me with a link to the formal convention I had been looking for. I assume you read "Newfoundland and Labrador Communities" above. It is good to know that this has already been decided and layed out. In the future, I will abide by these conventions.

Neelix 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Malkowitz

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Malkowitz, by Shoeofdeath (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Malkowitz fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Malkowitz, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcowice

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Marcowice, by Shoeofdeath (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Marcowice fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Marcowice, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovitch

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Markovitch, by Shoeofdeath (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Markovitch fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Markovitch, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovics

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Markovics, by Shoeofdeath (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Markovics fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Markovics, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Bite messup

Someone has put all the towns of the TB area in a page called Trinity Bite which in itself is fine, BUT, they have redirected all of those little towns to Trinity Bite and we cannot put individual town histories on them, they are useless now. Also it should be Trinity Bite, Newfoundland and Labrador because it is part of the Newfoundland and Labrador project and all the villages and towns are listed that way for continuity and because Labrador is on the coast and Newfoundland is an island. How can we put them back as individual towns and just have the links in the Trinity Bite article??? HELP WayneRay 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Hi Wayne,

Sorry I couldn't help sooner. I've been in an area of Africa that doesn't have proper Internet access for a while. It looks like the problem you have presented me with has already been taken care of. If it has not, do not hesitate to contact me again. I would be glad to help out if I am able.

All the best,

Neelix 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Catwoman.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Catwoman.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi After Midnight,

I really appreciate your explanation of how to add fair use rationale to images. I plan on adding more such images to Wikipedia, and it is helpful to understand this information prior to doing so. I will attempt to add rationale to other images I have already uploaded in the near future.

Thanks again,

Neelix 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouattara

Welcome back. I have changed the categories on this page. Mos:DP states: "Pages only listing people with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply. In such cases, do not use {{disambig}} or {{hndis}}, but {{given name}} or {{surname}} instead." Chris the speller 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Thanks for pointing this out to me. These types of pages are what I create and edit most, so I appreciate the advice. I'll be sure to use the appropriate categories in the future.

Neelix 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the wikiproject

It needs a lot of help so please feel free to join in and take charge of anything that peaks your interest. Remember 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jae (disambiguation)

I agree, the first sentance was redundant, and did not realize that the standard was not to seperate the different classes of people. I have no issues with switching back to it's original format, however I think the See Also section should be incorporated into the "other people" section.--Kelapstick 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kelapstick,

It would make sense to incorporate the "See also" section into the "people" section, as you have suggested. I'm glad we have been able to come to an agreement. I will make the change promptly.

Neelix 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given name articles

Given name articles, such as Marie-Françoise and Jean Marie, are not disambiguation pages, and should be treated much like Dupin, but using {{given name}} instead of {{surname}}. The former template has been added relatively recently. If you have any questions, please toss them on my talk page. Happy editing! Chris the speller 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I hadn't realized that the {{given name}} template was used for articles that included two given names, although it makes sense now that you point it out. I'll attempt to remember to use this template properly from now on.

Neelix 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Time and Time Again

Time and Time Again, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Time and Time Again satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time and Time Again and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Time and Time Again during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Crumple-horned

A tag has been placed on Crumple-horned, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Commissioner.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Commissioner.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 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. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Videmus,

Thank you for letting me know about the missing rationale template on Image:Commissioner.jpg. I have added the fair use rationale. Please let me know if you believe it to be inadequate.

Thanks again,

Neelix 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Valedictorian / Valediction Proposed Merge

Hello. Where exactly is the discussion page to discuss your proposed merge for the two articles, Valedictorian and Valediction? I can't seem to find it. I would like to weigh in with my opinion. Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi Joseph, Thanks for your interest in the merge! The reason you couldn't find the discussion is that I hadn't yet created one. I have now done so, and you may view and contribute to it by following this link. Neelix 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will weigh in at the link you provided. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Problematic recasting of Aristo and Ariston

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)

General issues pertaining to redirect/disambiguation work

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)

George Kerr (footballer)

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)

Abdiel Colberg disambiguation page

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)

'Lapetus', 'Lafeth'

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

Disambiguation pages

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)

Smile

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.

Firefly CfD

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

Marcela Agoncillo

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)

Redirect of Lost Soul (Doom)

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)

Possibly unfree Image:Winfrey.JPG

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)

Picture on Knowledge page

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)

Pioneering

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)

Change Islands, Newfoundland and Labrador to Change Islands (Newfoundland and Labrador)

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)

Flower Island

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)

Just cos

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.

Re: Tomson

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)

Coffer (disambiguation)

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

NL communities

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)

Disabiguation page formalism

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)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Schmidlapp.jpg

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)

Urine

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)

Mr. Neelix

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

City Light News

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)

Och[er|yor|re]

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)

Barnstar

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

dablink?

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)

Image:Spirit_of_Freedom.JPG listed for deletion

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)

Disambig

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)

List of rivers of Chile

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

American River (disambiguation)

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)

Foxtrap

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)

Template:African topic

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)

Nav templates for Indonesia...

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

Cuisine template

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)

Resignation (disambiguation)

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)

re: Specious

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)

Request to move article Statistical Science (journal) incomplete

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)

Request to move article Waking Up (album) incomplete

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Beatts.jpg

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gals.jpg

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gottlieb.jpg

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)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Grandfalls.JPG)

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)

Speedy deletion of Image:Hedley.jpg

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)

Speedy deletion of Mateo

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:HSM2.JPG

Image Copyright problem

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Quote.JPG

Image Copyright problem

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)

Re:Kerry McCluggage

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)

Speedy deletion of Christoph Walton

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)

Line

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)

Ranked

The reason is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it can be unhelpful to populate Wikipedia with redirects from one dictionary word to another related word, as for example it discourages the creation of encyclopedia articles on a blue link. In this specific case, "ranked" is not relevant to the articles, all nouns, in the disambiguation page Rank. —Centrx→talk • 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense redirects

Please stop adding nonsensical redirects. They will be deleted. Nakon 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation See also sections

Hi, I noticed that, on pages such as Red Hawk, you added items to the See also section which don't seem to me to belong (your edit [2]). This doesn't appear to fit the manual of style, as there is no way anyone would mistake "black hawk" for "red hawk", no one would be typing "red hawk" into the search when they really wanted "black hawk". Am I misunderstanding something here? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NL unincorporated communities

Hi Neelix, sorry didn't get back to sooner, been busy at work. Good work, I have noticed over this past few weeks your effort to get the incorporated communities finished. I kind of like the grouping of communities based upon current and historical status. A number of the communities in the List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador includes many communities which are very small fishing villages that are populated certain times of the year and then there are others that are abandoned and still others that are re-settled (forced or otherwise). Should we take this discussion to the WikiProject page for Newfoundland and seek suggestions and opinions from other wikipedians? It would be a shame to start something and then someone change it mid-stream. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Night of Joy.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Night of Joy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Heed (disambiguation)

A tag has been placed on Heed (disambiguation) 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, 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 musical topics.

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. M173627 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Purvey

Redirected to where, and for what reason? It is listed as being used on a island in Scotland and in germany but with no reference to back that up. There is no reasoning as to why it is a french word being used in those two regions for this rather drastic difference, and the only references to it even being used are on a few blogs ("I was at a purvey" and such) or in paragraphs about pricing at a funeral home (and only in the sence of "a purvey would be an additional fee"). It certainly does not seem to be commonly used in this manner, and Wiki is the only source I can find that defines the french word as this. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Species names disambiguation pages

Hello, I noticed that you created the disambiguation page for Miserabilis to direct folks looking for the spider, the bee, or the butterfly. A scientific name consists of two parts, at bare minimum, the genus and the specific epithet. The generic name is a noun and is limited to a single word. The same generic name can be shared by a plant and an animal. Within each kingdom, however, a genus is unique. The second part is an adjetive (by decree) and, with the generic name, gives each species a unique binomial name. In the case of "miserabilis" you have used only a part of the species' name, and have opened a Pandora's box. What will happen, for example, if we disambiguate the species of plants and animals that have the epithet "brasilensis" or "sinensis" as part of their scientific names? It would be much like having a page for all the people with "John" as a first name. All best wishes, --Wloveral (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You have your work cut out for you. Good luck. --Wloveral (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arnoldscove.JPG}

Thank you for uploading Image:Arnoldscove.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFD Nomination

On 20 May, you tagged Why The Reds Won The Civil War with {{rfd}}. However, you did not list this redirect at WP:RFD. Nominating a redirect for deletion is a two step process. If you still wish to see it deleted, please complete the second step of the nomination instructions. If you do not list it in a reasonable time, I will assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the tag. Let me know if you have any questions or need assistance. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your redirect of Vizard (disambiguation)

FWIW, I respect your edit but did you glance at the conversation between me and Natalya? The dab has potential, I just couldn't come up with a proper layout. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru,

Talk:Vizard (disambiguation) consists solely of a WikiProject Disambiguation notice. To what conversation are you referring? If there are valid entries other than the fictional group in Bleach and people with the surname "Vizard", then a disambiguation page would be appropriate. Otherwise, the surname link is sufficient.

Neelix (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the wiktionary box count as an entry? In this discussion, nor I or the other editor could decide on using Vizard (Shakespearean English) or Visard in the place of Visor. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru,

The Wiktionary box would not normally constitute an entry. Why do you want this disambiguation page to exist? The surname link seems suitable as it stands.

Neelix (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Discounting the box, we have three entries: Vizard, Vizard (surname) and Vizard (Shakespearean English) (or Visard?). This would be a "stub", like Devilman (disambiguation) is. Make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru,

Vizard (Shakespearean English) is not a proper entry, because the term "vizard" does not exist on the visor article, nor should it. "Shakespearean English" is not a proper title qualifier, nor is the term specific to a visor in any way, as it could refer to any mask or disguise. It is very unlikely that anyone typing "vizard" into the search bar would be looking for the visor article. You referenced Devilman (disambiguation); that page should not exist. There is no such thing as a "disambiguation stub". Disambiguation pages come into existance when there are too many entries to neatly place as hatnotes on the main article.

Most importantly, you have not answered my question: why do you want this disambiguation page to exist?

Neelix (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Vizard (disambiguation) should not remain a redirect because I think there are enough items to make it a dab page. Does the MoS give a set number of items for a dab to exist? FAIK, it does not. If you believe Vizard (Shakespearean English) and Visard should be deleted then by all means tag them as such. Visor, on the other hand, can remain in the "See also" section. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sesshomaru,

Please read WP:MOSDAB. In order for a disambiguation page to exist, it must list more than one article (a minimum of two articles) other than the primary article, the Wiktionary link, and the "See also" section. If there is only one other article, such as in this case, a simple link as a hatnote on the main article is entirely sufficient. Creating a disambiguation page makes users go through unneeded effort in order to find the page they are looking for. I am not suggesting that Vizard (Shakespearean English) should be deleted (though I may at some point), but I am suggesting that Vizard (Shakespearean English) is not a proper entry on a disambiguation page. We have carried on this conversation in private long enough. If you have further concerns, start a conversation on Talk:Vizard (disambiguation) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. I'm sure the members of the Disambiguation WikiProject would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding Wikipedia's disambiguation policies.

Neelix (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tongue of Fire

Hi there! I see you moved Phaseolus vulgaris 'Tongue of Fire' to Tongue of Fire. I'm not familiar with the cultivar; is it a well-known one? The members of WP:PLANTS had been working toward a cultivar naming convention on the talk page of WP:NC (flora). The general format of the convention would be that the cultivar name, e.g. "Tongue of Fire", should only stand alone if it's very widespread or used in agriculture, e.g. Granny Smith. Otherwise it should include its full cultivar name: Phaseolus vulgaris 'Tongue of Fire'. Of course this is still open to debate! I'd like to hear your thoughts. Perhaps this may even stimulate another round of discussion and further refining of the proposed convention. Cheers! --Rkitko ^(talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ryan,

I know very little about this particular cultivar. I simply stumbled across the article and noticed that it seemed to have two different titles, a practice that is normally discouraged. I generally support the use of titles that are as short as possible while uniquely identifying the article, as per Wikipedia:Official names. As there are no other articles called "Tongue of Fire", that seems like the most appropriate title for the article. If there was, for example, a novel called "Tongue of Fire" that was more notable than the cultivar, I would suggest renaming the cultivar article Tongue of Fire (cultivar) rather than including the scientific name before the cultivar name. It may be confusing for people unfamiliar with the subject to have both names in the title. As the policy on official names says, common names are generally preferred to official names. Good luck sorting this issue out with WP:PLANTS. I hope this helps!

Neelix (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. Your thoughts on it are appreciated and I tend to agree with you when no disambiguation is required, especially for well-known cultivars. For others, though, like Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111', the "scientific name" as laid out by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants is usually preferred. Already in our regular naming convention we reject in some fashion Wikipedia:Official names. Common names for plants are rarely common and individual plants, unlike birds and other subsets of all life, can have many different common names that vary regionally. For example, one of the catalysts for the convention was Cytisus scoparius, called "common broom" or just "broom" in the UK, it's native range, but called "Scotch broom" in its invasive range in the US. Round after round of discussion resulted in the scientific name convention. Likewise, while the convention hasn't been agreed upon formally, cultivar names in the format presented by the ICNCP are usually preferred over just the truncated cultivar name. Well, it's moot anyway. I think the title Tongue of Fire is ok for now. I'd prefer the full cultivar name, but I have no policy to cite for that since the discussion at WT:NC (flora) was never resolved, so I'll leave it for now. Also, interesting idea for a novel! The sci-fi genre might be a good fit for the title. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

European Robin

I reverted your edit because:

1) Refs you added were not formated in same style as all others in this article i.e. using cite xxx templates. In addition you added bare weblinks without author, publisher, title, date and other relevant information.

2) The notes you added stated that "An English robin differs greatly from the American one" and "The English robin is not the bird we call robin redbreast in the United States. Our robin is a big, lordly chap about ten inches long, but the English robin is not more than five and a half inches long; that is, it is smaller than an English sparrow". However much of this infromation is already in the article. American robins are mentioned in 'Other robins' subsection as species that "are not closely related" to European robin. The dimensions of European robins are mentioned in the next section. The short description of the American robin that was provided in the second note is not, in my opinion, relevant for this article. There is a separate article for the American robin.

3) You violated WP:lead. The lead is a summary of the article. If you want add new information to the article, add it to the main text first and then, if it is of real importance, it can be added to the lead. I am not sure that this information is so important to justify its presence in the lead. English robin is merely an American name of the British subspecies of the European robin and it is not a scientific term.

Ruslik (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm all for redirects, but I hope you have some sort of criterion for creating ones such as "P nivalis". A redirect to a disambig, one based on a punctuation error compounded with the abbreviation of the generic name, seems unlikely to be useful, especially since other search options are available to the users. The "G. species" disambigs themselves I have no argument with. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is; a punctuation redirect to a disambig (a disambig that itself is based on a user misunderstanding thing one about looking species up) is overkill. It is almost a double redirect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "G. species" disambiguation pages

Talking about taxonomic abbreviations is a good idea, but it is late in my time zone. Until tomorrow.--Wloveral (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see comment on my talk page. I have no stars to give, but I do know taxonomy. Let's talk and invite Bob, too. --Wloveral (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		I commend your actions in taking this bold step in disambiguating abbreviated binomial names. Keep up the good work. Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Neelix, When Linnaeus finally settled on (disambiguous) binomial nomenclature (in 1758, for animals, in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae), he did not have computers, and he could hardly realize how necessary computers would be for sorting out the more than 1.5 million species of plants and animals that his intellectual descendants would name by the end of the twentieth century. Let us see how far you get with the G. species_epithet model you propose. If all species had correctly filled taxoboxes, a bot might be able to help you. There are authoritative systematic catalogs on the internet that could help you, such as Don Wilson's catalog of the mammals of the world on the Smithsonian Institution's website. This database includes about 5500 currently valid or "accessable" binomials and about as many binomials in synonymy and homonymy. (Yes, these out-of-use "ghost" names also are remembered in taxonomy, sort of like previous edits of a wikipedia article.) I, myself, have a database of about 5000 species names for neotropical butterflies, but it is not yet a finished product that I can use to bot-generate wikipedia butterfly species pages. It was suggested humorously some years ago that Linnaeus himself must be considered the type specimen of Homo sapiens and should be dug up to assume his rightful place in a natural history museum. He has had his way for the past 260 years. Good luck to you. --Wloveral (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)--Wloveral (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise known as daffodils

Hi. Regarding possible plurals of "narcissus", I'm happy to know there's a fourth possibility but am having trouble verifying it. A Google search using the spelling in question turns up nothing credible—e.g., a garden store page with a typo (the words "narcissus" and "is" run together), a passage from The Secret Garden employing a child's dialect (elsewhere in this work it is spelled "narcissuses"), some fairly weird stuff that doesn't seem to relate to the plant, and so on. If you know of a credible source, preferably a dictionary or botanical reference work, could you please cite it (or let me know and I'll cite it)? Otherwise, I'm inclined to tag it. Thanks for your good work with the article! Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Migratorius

An article that you have been involved in editing, Migratorius, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Migratorius. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Deor (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Terryturner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Terryturner.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. BJBot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD

I placed {{db-author}} templates on Migratorius, Monogyna, Rubecula, and Oblonga since you requested deletion of them in the Migratorius AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

a shiny

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		Great work creating all those disambig pages. Thanks for your contributions! J.delanoygabsanalyze 02:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Rennies

You're right that I was wrong, and John Rennie does not redirect to either article. But I think you're being a bit harsh in your evaluation of the hatnotes, specifically between the two Rennies young & old - my reading of the notes suggests that it may be appropriate to have hatnotes in that situation - the sentence However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator). refers. I should be interested to know why you think it does not.

I think I probably - separately - have issues with the policy. Whether I have the energy to argue a case in that forum is open to question. FWIW, th4e hatnote policy appears to be predicated on the unsound assumption that users are entering the article from a wikipedia search or link, rather than google, for instance, which is as likely to pitch you into the Younger as the Elder. It seems pointless and counterproductive to remove hatnotes which will be of use to people who for whatever reason have ended up on the wrong page. In retrospect I'd point a hatnote for all John Rennies at the JR disambig page.

Unless I'm missing the point - which is possible - then I despair of policy which "tidies" articles at the cost of removing functionality. What on earth is the point of that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am, for the time being, going to confine myself to asserting that there is legitimate scope for confusing JR the Elder with JR the Younger ... the suffixes of Elder & Younger are by no means universally used. Under the comics / illustrator argument cited in the policy, an argument can be made for the hatnotes. (Equally, the Younger article points to the Elder article on line one, so a counterargument can instantly be made).

I need longer than perhaps I'm prepared to give it to make up my mind on the policy in general, as it might apply to a group of people sharing the same name. I'm very unhappy at the crappy wikipedia search bar being the arbiter of how people might get to articles, rather than google, but that is an argument for some other time & place. And I reject a great deal of your John Joseph Smith reasoning as specious ... there was no suggestion in JR that we would have pointers to John or to Rennie.

So, conclusion. I don't entirely buy into the policy in general, but acknowledge that for me it needs more thought. I do not agree with the removal of hatnotes from the two JRs, but equally I'm not wound up enough about it to revert your edits. If, on consideration, you wish to revert, then you will. And if you do not, then you will not. Either is fine with me. I do agree that There is no case in which a person looking for the clockmaker, whose middle name is not Joseph, would type "John Joseph Smith" into the search bar, if that helps. And so I suppose I must agree that no-one will type in JRtheE when seeking JRtheY ... it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that I'm just being reactionary, and that with time I'll come around to the removal of hatnotes per the policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mergism

Neelix, thanks again for pointing out my misuse of merge tags when I found out that ovum and egg (biology) were actually two different articles about the same thing. It led me into a reinvestigation of the mergist philosophy, which I posted about on my talk page. arkuat (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifying users of TfD - Kudos

Hi Neelix, what rationale did you use for notifying all those people about your TfD nom of the creationism2 template? Only people who had contributed to the template? I noticed because you even notified User:Vanished user, who has left Wikipedia under RtV. Did you intend to notify them anyway when you made the nom, or decide to do it after the keep comments were registered? Avruch^T * ^ER 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talkpage. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for notifying everyone about the TfD - I really appreciated the heads up. And good job covering everyone involved. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that - I wish more people would do it. I'm changing the header to this section to reflect that, as it seems clear Avruch was in error. Well done, the extra effort was both ethical and I am sure time consuming, and is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Camden

MBK004 is currently on vacation, and he likely won't reply to your question promptly, so I'll stick my nose in :) The guideline he spoke of can be found here. Both examples make use of the {{otherships}} template. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad I could help. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags

There is a large backlog of mergers proposed and it is hard to evaluate these if the tags aren't dated. No opinion on your merger, but please date the tag. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outcome / Upshot

Hi--I've never heard "upshot" used in a formal way in game theory, and informally, it's frequently (usually?) used to mean something else. Can you provide references?Cretog8 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I gotcha on "outcome"/"upshot". I don't think it's appropriate for game theory, though, so I'm going to revert that change to the article. Not sure what should be done about the redirects. My feeling is that someone searching for "upshot" won't be looking for game theory information. Cretog8 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(many lags later due to locked database) The wiktionary definition may work in common speak, but like Cretog8, I've never heard it used in game theory. I'll revert, pending a reliable source from game theory. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rocketeer.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rocketeer.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. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I got mixed up between Image:Rocketeer.JPG and Image:Rocketeer.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, I have marked it as keep, would you add to the description, where you took the photo. The other images on the article were marked as uncopyrighted DVD screenshots, which is unlikely, I must have gone into automatic mode nominating this one. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrest

Hello. I note you added "also called nab" to the start of this article. To me (in the UK) "nab" is a purely informal, colloquial term and so I was inclined to remove it, especially as the word "nab" is used nowhere else in the article. However, I stopped short of doing so because I wanted to ask you why you'd added it; for example, whether there was somewhere in the world where "nab" had at least semi-formal status. Thanks in advance. Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, and my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. If I'm honest, I don't see that the term needs to me mentioned anywhere on the arrest article at all. After all, a British police colloquialism for "you're under arrest" is "you're nicked", yet "nick" is not mentioned in arrest. Using "nab" as a noun is something I've never come across before, and "being nabbed" (say) would be something I would consider a simple dictionary definition in BrEng; hence my query about the possible use of "nab" in other types of English.

If it is the case that an arrest is commonly called "a nab" in such-and-such a variety of English, then I think the best answer would be to edit the first sentence to read "An arrest (known as a nab in Examplevariety English) is the act of..." and to leave the rest unchanged. If, however, "nab" is no more than a colloquialism anywhere, then I don't think it deserves to be in the lead at all, and you could change the line on the disambiguation page to "A colloquial word for an arrest". Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Voltairianism

Don't you think Voltairianism and Voltaire are different? Voltaire is a person while the other is abstract. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Chimera

Whoops, sorry about that. I add dab links like that b/c I always like to read about topics with the same title. I wasn't aware of the guideline but I'll keep it in mind int he future. Thanks for taking care of it for me. Naufana : talk 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Intrepidity"

A page you created, Intrepidity, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Revilement

A tag has been placed on Revilement, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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. Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)