User talk:BRG/Archive 2003-5

textbook proposal
Hey, I am starting up a textbook site here on Wikipedia and noticed that you seem to be a science person also (thanks for updating one of my pages!). If you are interested in working on any of the science textbook pages please feel free, assuming they open up http://textbook.wikipedia.org there will be shortly parts of an organic chemistry book and then college physics. Best of luck, --- Karlwick

Fort Washington
Thanks for the Fort Washington page, I've partially updated iy I wanted to let you know what I'm up to before I move it. We eventually need a real article describing Fort Washington capture by the British (Nov 1776), so I'm going to move yours to a (disambiguatioon) subtitle and cerate at least a stub for the battle. Lou I 16:35 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

disambiguation
Please stop creating broken links to MAJOR British towns and cities. Where one placename is principally associated with one location we use placename (disambiguation) to list the others and add a disambiguation notice at the top of the page with the ambiguous name, as per London, Paris, Durham, Sydney and Boston. You edited Paddington, London, England creating broken links for Cardiff and Swansea. These are the two principal cities in Wales with populations of over 200,000. Similarly you edited British Road Numbering Scheme placing Holyhead in England, when it is in fact in Wales. Also Exeter is an ancient city, nearly two thousand years old with a population of over 100,000 unlike the one-horse truck stops you have listed on the Exeter pages. Mintguy 07:37 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Exeter has 2000 years of history, a cathedral, a university and an international airport associated with it, as well as a population at least 10 times larger than and of those on "Exeter (disambiguation)" it is not "jerkwater town in England.". A quick google search shows that 35 of the first 50 hits refer to the English Exeter. Wikipedia is an international resource and should take an international perspective, not a purely North American one. As such Exeter in Devon is by far the most commonly referred to use of the word. My main point was that you created broken links with Cardiff and Swansea. Mintguy

The point, that you don't seem to be grasping, is that in the majority of cases when people want to look up Exeter they want the city in Britain. With nearly 2000 years of history it comes up quite a lot in various subjects, whereas the other Exeters do not. The long established convention is that where a place is significantly more well known than the others it takes precedence. Whether it is significantly large or not is not nearly as important. For example Cambridge in Britain is significantly more well known to people throughout the world than the other Cambridges and its population in 2001 was 108,863. Please learn the conventions. Mintguy 18:13 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your use of the term "jerkwater town" is extremely insulting and I have tried to ignore it, but you persist. What you are saying is that YOU have never heard of Exeter. This is your problem. Perhaps you should read and enlighten yourself. Whatever, my point remains that the word Exeter is most associated with Exeter in Britain, and this is the convention. Mintguy

Stop it with your blanket reversions and read Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names) Mintguy

BRG this isn't how we do things around here. We don't just blunder in and make blanket reversions. We discuss things and reach a reasonable consensus. At the moment the consensus of opinion agreed some time ago over Durham is that where a place is significantly associated with one particular place it takes precedence, now if you would be so kind as to cease making arbitary changes and discuss it. There is no need to get so uncooperative and make statments like revert (once again, until you darned well give up, Mintguy!)). this is not very constructive or helpful. Mintguy 14:51 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Saint" vs. "St."
What the hell are you doing renaming towns and cities with St. to Saint. Wiki policy is to use St. for urban centres and buildings, saint for people, though with individual exceptions. Please read the naming conventions and follow them. FearÉIREANN 18:22 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Not according to the maps I have. Whether the US government uses St. or Saint doesn't matter a damn. If the official map says St. then things go in as St, PERIOD. You have been mucking up names of cities all over the place and breaking links all over the place with renamings that go against the agreed conventions that hundreds of wiki users use. If you want to change a convention, propose it and have it debated first. Don't unilaterally change things to the way you want. FearÉIREANN 18:33 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have to agree with JT here. Not only does "St. Paul" MN yield 5 times as many google hits as "Saint Paul" MN, even the Saint Paul, Minnesota official website uses the abbreviation... it is located at http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/ --Dante Alighieri 18:48 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * There is such a thing as the Board of Geographic Names in this country. It has official status. We really need to reflect that in our articles. - BRG


 * Perhaps I'm confused, but based on their own web page, the BGN deals with standardizing naming practices within the federal government. What does that have to do with local towns? --Dante Alighieri 19:14 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * As the webpage says, "Although established to serve the Federal Government as a central authority to which all name problems, name inquiries, and new name proposals can be directed, the Board also plays a similar role for the general public." Thus the BGN's policies are the official authority for all names in the USA. BRG July 21


 * Check the naming conventions talk page, I actually TALKED to the BGN on the issue. --Dante Alighieri 16:30 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should also think that "St" is better than "St.", on account of this general convention: when the final letter is present, this contracted form does not need a full stop (or period, depending on which side of the Atlantic you originate).

Marble Hill
Re: Marble Hill map. Thanks. Some articles just cry out for a explanatory image. That was one.--Iseeaboar 13:19, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arlington City and County
Look at Juneau City and Borough, Alaska. The city and county have the SAME borders, therefore, they ARE the same. More significant cities like Tokyo, San Francisco, and Philadelphia are able to get away with having just the city name represent both the city and county (or in the case of Tokyo, city and prefecture)

However, Arlington VA and its county are the same, and Arlington just isn't that significant of a city. Therefore, I'm reverting it to "Arlington City and County" in the style of the Alaska article. However, you are welcome to discuss this with me. WhisperToMe 07:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Braunschweig" vs. "Brunswick"
Several days ago you joined the discussion of whether Brunswick or Braunschweig should be the home of the article on the German city. After a brief discussion, the question was moved from the Votes for deletion page to Talk:Brunswick. Quite a bit of fact-finding occurred after that, but the decision appears to have reached an impasse. I am asking each of the participants to take a few minutes to review the facts presented on Talk:Brunswick and share their current thoughts. Thanks. Rossami 22:34, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another "disambiguation" discussion
Please read Disambiguation. Links should only be added to disambig pages if they would otherwise appear under the title of that page. Arguably, neither Epsom Derby nor Kentucky Derby would be expected under the title Derby. These links are better placed, and the differences discussed, in Sports derby.&mdash;Eloquence


 * The same goes for placenames -- disambiguation pages are not supposed to be "lists of places with X in the title" but only of those which have this exact name, or one very close to it.&mdash;Eloquence


 * Obviously, the person who set up the line in Boilerplate text that says
 * "_" is also a part of the name of:
 * thought otherwise. These seems to be some disagreement as to how similar a name should be to be mentioned; your ideas do not gibe with what's been done in the past. - BRG 15:19, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * You are quite correct - I have updated the boilerplate text. Once we allow some free association, there is no reason not to allow all free association, making disambiguation pages rather useless. The Derby case has made this very clear: Because we allowed the Epsom Derby to be listed, you felt justified in adding the Kentucky Derby. Before long, the page would turn into a List of Derbys, which is not the point of disambiguation pages.&mdash;Eloquence

Bloomfield Michigan
As far as I can tell, there is no 'official' Bloomfield, Michigan. There is a Charter Township of Bloomfield, which I think is often labeled on maps as simply Bloomfield. There is also the city of Bloomfield Hills and West Bloomfield Township, which are separate entities. Bkonrad 16:57, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

http://www.placesnamed.com/b/l/bloomfield.asp appears to grab information from the GNIS, which is not entirely reliable. http://www.co.oakland.mi.us/communities/ lists the communities in Oakland County. I think that people may use Bloomfield to refer to the Charter Township of Bloomfield I suggest linking the entry on the Bloomfield dab page to the township article.

categories
Just noticed you added the category "Traditional pop music singers" to a bunch articles, however the way you did it the are sorted by firstname rather than lastname on the page category. If you are going to add categories, do it correctly, otherwise someone will have to do it over again. Personally, I am not thrilled with the label "Traditional pop music singer" but that is another matter. -- Viajero 15:17, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * You need to add the name after the category, like this: . -- Viajero 13:46, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * This isn't intended as a criticism directed at you personally, but please look at this page: . Half the singers are listed by last name, half by first. Kinda ridiculous, no? -- Viajero 20:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ceqli language
If you think that this article was inappropriately deleted, re-listing it on VfD isn't the place to discuss it. You should take it to Votes for undeletion. RickK 19:34, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that says (although I think it's stupid) with a link to the Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion heading for the article.. The link you included was to the VfD discussion. RickK 18:33, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hey BRG, it's up for undeletion right now! Be sure to voice your vote to undelete it!

You're welcome. I don't understand why it could be so important to some people that a conlang (other than a conlang that gets like five Google hits) stay deleted. Wiwaxia 13:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bernie Williams
How you doing BRG? I read the edit you made to the page and I think it's alright to point out that there is a difference between the two William's, even though I think that by reading the first version it's pretty clear. However, I reverted the title back to its original title because in the very first sentence of the article it states very clearly that "this " Bernie Williams was born on Sept. 13, 1968, in San Juan, Puerto Rico. It doesn't seem proper norm to include the date of birth in the main title. Are you a Yankees fan? When I was a kid and lived in New York I got to meet the old yankee great ones. Recently I spent some time with Bernie and Joe Torre. Well take care, your friend in Wikipedia. User:Marine 69-71

BRG, Now I understand and you're right. Hey, whenever you want to talk about baseball, especially about them Yanks, drop me a line. User:Marine 69-71

I'd recommend putting the article back under Bernie Williams, with a stub on the same page for the earlier player. I'm not sure the previous Bernie Williams would merit a separate article, but if there were one it could be included in the same way as you'll find on the page for Frank Baker. In cases where both players are more prominent, I'd have separate pages (see Frank Thomas), but I'm not aware of any notable accomplishments for the first one (at least not in the majors). MisfitToys 13:11, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship
Recently I did some analysis of contribution history for Wikipedia, the fruits of which are at Another list of Wikipedians in order of arrival. As I reviewed the list, I noted that there are about a dozen longtime contributors who have not been made administrators. You are one of them. Accordingly, I would like to nominate you for adminship, with your permission. If you would appreciate such a nomination, please let me know on my talk page. If you do wish to decline, a note so saying would also be appreciated, though not necessary. Kindest regards, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hello, BRG. As you can see above, you have been proposed as an admin, and the vote is now in progress. You MUST formally accept or reject this nomination under your entry on the voting page. If you do not indicate your choice, and the nomination is otherwise successful, it must nevertheless fail without your acceptance. You may also choose to answer the generic questions at the bottom of your nomination panel to give voters extra huidance. Thanks for taking care of this. Cordially, -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to... using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
 * 1) ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
 * 2) ...all articles...


 * Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff.  So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the   template (or    for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace   with   . If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Dolly!
I noticed you renamed Hello, Dolly! to Hello, Dolly! (play/movie). Keep in mind you should only do that if there is another subject called "Hello, Dolly!" and you also intend to create a disambiguation page. Thanks. 10qwerty 14:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it is hard to tell looking at the RC list exactly what your intentions are. So as a rule of thumb, you might want to create Hello, Dolly! (song) first before you do any moving or creating disambig pages. Thanks. 10qwerty 15:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comunleng
Arrghhh! People are voting to delete Comunleng! Yes, Comunleng! Come and save it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Comunleng 24.4.127.164 11:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you're saying you would decline a nomination, then don't star your name (in fact, you could remove it from this list if you'd like). I read through your RFA and I find the outcome, let's say, puzzling.  Star, remove - totally up to you.  -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is not what I think. The point is only what you think.  Again - this is totally up to you. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wha...
Why did you just move Blue Monday to Blue Monday (New Order song)? It is by far the most notable -anything- of that name, let alone song of that name, and tbh, I can't see the Fats Waller track needing its own page any time soon. --Kiand 19:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Next time you put a message which comes close to if not breaks the now-official No Personal Attacks, could you put it on the right half the User: page system, mkay?
 * Right. New Order are one of the biggest selling bands in Europe. Blue Monday is the biggest selling 12" vinyl of all time. It defined modern dance music. Fats Domino, on the other hand, is basically unknown outside of the United States, to the point that I, who DJ and hence have to know quite a lot about music, got his name wrong. There is also currently no article on his track of the same name, or indeed any album that it is on. The New Order track far exceeds it in fame outside the US, and probably in the US among those under the age of around 40.
 * I'm going to put a WP:RM on this, as I don't see how a basically unknown to many, barely charting outside the US single can deserve more than a disambiguation link at the top of the page, let alone rights to the main article page, or the Blue Monday (song) page. --Kiand 19:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The song was released 4 years -before- I was born, so I'd say its safe to say people 20 years older than me at least have heard of it. The vast majority of the current internet using population would have heard of New Order, or at least heard of the song if not the band; particularly those in Europe.
 * Is there likely to be an article on the Fats Domino track of the same name? If there is, I'd have to say that Blue Monday (Fats Domino song) would be a more suitable title, disambiguated by a disabmig template and not a full page; as as a number 23 (and later re-entry at number 30) song is less likely to be known than a number 12 song, that re-entered at 9, then again at 3, then again at 17; over a 12 year period... (UK figures). Because currently, theres no mention of the Domino track -anywhere- on the Wikipedia. --Kiand 14:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Heres the problem. The term isn't in common use, and can't have more than a dict-def written on it, which would be transwikied. And in the case of two, and only two, things having the same name, its policy to leave the best known one, and the first one with an article, which is obviously the New Order track on both counts, at the original location, and use a disambig template message. Even when there are more than two things with the same name, and one has significant fame over the others, which is true again is this case; the same is done. See Windows for example. We're comparing a 1957 something-or-other genre track (I can't even find this out on the web, its that unknown) to the biggest selling 12 inch vinyl of all time - theres a pretty obvious fame margin there. --Kiand 15:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Biggest selling 12 inch vinyl of all time. Sold more than any previous 12" albums, althougn that was helped by albums being available on 8track or cassette a lot earlier than singles.
 * My tastes don't cover one kind of music - they cover a huge variety of music, just not 50 year old R and B (of the original meaning of that phrase, obviously).
 * Also, 25,000 hits versus 150,000 hits kind of shows the notability. The Fats Domino track, if, when and ever it gets an article (because its not got one now, meaning theres no need for any disambig), deserves no more than a dab link, not a full disambiguation page. --Kiand 13:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What you're not getting here is that the 'weird group' you keep referring to are FAR better know than Fats Domino. I get not a differential of '5 times' as many hits, but FIVE MILLION more hits on Google for 'blue monday new order' than 'blue mog nday fats domino'.
 * Also, there are no links to Blue Monday which refer to anything other than the New Order track.
 * I feel this is like arguing with a brick wall, or an old man with alzheimers in a wheelchair in a nursing home that can't accept its not 1958 anymore. --Kiand 13:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats not meant to be a personal insult to you, your age, whatever; by the way, its just thats what it feels like - the 'weird group' track has a far higher notability, and you won't accept it. --Kiand 13:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And I've given it a dab header, which is what it would have got anyway. Most people looking for Blue Monday will be looking for the newer, more notable, bigger selling song anyway; and if not, the Domino track is still exactly the same number of clicks (one) away as it would have been if theres a full disambiguation page. --Kiand 18:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks, but I really didn't do that much. I only look at the Requested moves page every couple of weeks usually, especially since disputes have died down tremendously since they started moving the discussions onto the article Talk pages instead of having them all on the WP:RM page. Still, when I saw the requested move for Blue Monday my first reaction was WTF. Sure New Order is a fairly big music group and their song "Blue Monday" may have been a big seller, but for me, everything that fits under the modern label of "Dance music" is just updated Disco, whereas the Fats Domino song is pretty timeless (at least in its B.B. King incarnation).

The best thing this dispute did was force me to look through my reference books. It turns out that I will have a little more to add on the Gershwin operetta, plus a bunch more info to add to the Porgy and Bess and George Gershwin articles that I didn't even know that I had. I'll also try to go back to the Rolling Stone link and a couple of other resources on the 'net and then add a list of cover versions to the Blue Monday (Fats Domino song) article. Plus I ended up finding out that Gershwin's Summertime is the 2nd most popular cover song (after the Beatles "Yesterday", so I added that to the Cover version and Porgy and Bess articles.

I added Kiand's Blue Monday requested move to Requests for comments and to Current Surveys, so hopefully that will bring more people into the title dispute, rather than just having the debate mostly with New Order fan(atic)s. Blank Verse  &empty;  08:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Songs
Might I suggest that you add links to songs after you create articles for them. Seas of redlinks aren't generally desireable. If you look through wikipedia you'll see most songs mentioned in articles are not linked, and if they are it is usually because they have an article. The Perry Como page really needs its unweildy list trimmed down anyway. I don't think any other singer gets that treatment, and his article is about 80% list, which also isn't really desireable for an encyclopedia. I'd also recommend more emphasis on quality of article and less on quantity. I'm sure there is something of substance that you could add to alot of these stubs you've been writing beyond who wrote them and a list of performers. Something about the lyrics, the story behind them, their special significance, something that explains why they deserve mention in an encyclopedia. There are many good articles on songs in wikipedia, but a simple template plus sentence isn't doing much to add to them. -R. fiend 17:56, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree that listing writer, year, and performer is somewhat useful, I'm sure there is more useful information on most songs (and if there isn't I need to question how encyclopedic they actually are). And I still maintain that redlinks are useful only when an article is needed or very likely to be written. Most songs do not fall in to this category. You'll find most songs mentioned in articles are not linked. This is largely because the sheer number of songs out there (millions?) are larger than the current wikipedia, and wikipedia is never likely to have them all. Pick the most important ones and link them, and link the ones that already have articles, but, especially if you have no interest in writing "articles" on the songs, please don't turn them into links, because I doubt anyone else is going to write them. Now is there any chance I can convince you to stop using that awful template? Not only is its phrasing stiff and awkward, it makes it painfully obvious that these articles were written by computer rather than by hand, and, most importantly, it makes it difficult for others to expand and clean up. One must remove the template in order to alter any part of the exisiting article. -R. fiend 17:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

La Mer
Well that's extraordinary&hellip; I was just working up to doing the same move and disambiguation! Best regards. --RobertG &#9836; talk 30 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)


 * Nope, not thankless in this case! Good work!  :-) --RobertG &#9836; talk 1 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)

Communlang VFD
You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article Comunleng. As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments. The Literate Engineer 01:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

songs
I fear we do differ on what we think wikipedia should be. I think it should be an encyclopedia (that key policy #1 is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" seems to indicate I am not alone in this). If you literally mean that you think it should be "anything that anyone might conceivably want to look up" then you're going well beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. Sounds a bit like an indiscriminate collection of information, something Wikipedia specifically is not. It is entirely conceivable that I may want to look up who currently sits at the desk I sat at in the 5th grade, if that same desk is still in the classroom, and if the stuff I wrote on it is still legible. Should wikipedia strive to contain such information, or did not not quite mean "anyone" and "conceivably" qutie so literally?

As for songs, while I still think the template is a bad idea, wikipedia should strive for articles of substance, and quality is often better than quality, you can feel free to disagree. The automaton approach to article creation does not make for good reading. Though I find Rambot's articles dry as hell, at least they have information that goes beyond what we used to have in out lists of songs. As I said before, the template makes it more work for people to make the articles better and more readable, and any one-size-fits-all approach always has problems. Jambalaya (On the Bayou) is described as a pop song, when a country song is a much better description. "Popular" is much to generic of a category to be terribly useful, and is sometimes confused with "pop". (I also wonder why you are so certain that Stafford's recording of the song is more popular than the original. I had never heard of Stafford's version (not that that's terribly relevant) and googling jambalaya williams gets me ten times as many hits as jambalaya stafford. I realize that as the author Williams is likely to be mentioned in the hits relevant to Stafford, and not vice versa, but it still seems quite a descepency. This is another issue, however.)

As for VfD's, I make no promises. Indeed a nomination for deletion is probably the only thing likely to turn some of these substubs into actual articles, or at least expand them ever so slightly. -R. fiend 20:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

USPS misspellings of place names
Hi, I found that you wrote (at Lagrange and La Grange, long ago) that the names of certain towns are misspelled by the U.S. Postal Service. I have some questions. I've watchlisted your talk page, so you can reply right here. --Smack (talk) 03:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you know this?
 * 2) What is the "official" name of a place if not its USPS name?
 * 3) Are there other towns with this problem?
 * 4) Do you think it's worthwhile to make a Template message for this situation?
 * I assumed that the US Geological Survey place name database is the correct one, when it disagreed with the USPS name. (In fact, I used the information at http://www.placesnamed.com and did not check it against the official USGS site. However, I assume that they checked their information.)
 * In fact, the "official name" for unincorporated places is a matter of some question, and I've gotten into some discussions about that. (see the discussions about "St." and "Saint" higher on this page!) For incorporated municipalities, I think the charter issued by the state is accepted as official by everyone.
 * As to whether there are other towns with this problem, I'm sure there are. But I don't actually remember whether I've found any, and it's been a while since I've been working on this particular area of the Wikipedia. -- BRG 13:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Jambalaya
I'm sorry, but the article is not about the song "in 1952", it is about the song then, today, and in the fifty-odd years in between. I'll grant you that more than fifty years ago Stafford's version might have outsold Williams', but that is hardly relevant today. Since then, Williams has become one of the most legendary country musicians ever, while Stafford has somewhat faded into more obscurity. While I cannot, at the moment, prove it, I'd be willing to wager that when you mention the song to 100 random people today, a much larger portion of them will associate it with Williams than Stafford (google, if nothing else, seems to support this). Indeed your assertion that Stafford's is "more popular" is much like insisting that Leave Her to Heaven is a much more popular film than It's a Wonderful Life, because the former did much better at the box office. Or that Tobacco Road is more popular than Citizen Kane. Furthermore, it is your responsibility to prove that Stafford's is more popular, as you made that assertion in the article. I made no claim of what the most popular version was, so I need prove nothing. I'll be removing that statement again. -R. fiend 14:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I will (somewhat reluctantly) agree to the current phrasing, although I feel it gives some undue prominence that version. Actual sales figures would be nice to see as well. As for the divorcing sales from popularity, well, I thought my movie examples were a pretty good indication of how the two can be out of sync. Specifically concerning Jambalaya, I think airplay, appearances in other media, and the song's appearance on all varieties of Greatest Hits albums (both Williams' and country music in general) speak well of it's popularity even though I suspect very few vinyl 45s of the song have been sold in 50 years. -R. fiend 17:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not that it matters much, as we seem to have worked out a decent compromise, but I think if we were to take the sales of Hank Williams greatest hits albums (of which there are many), and compare them to Jo Stafford's, we'd find Hank would take the cake. Likewise I cannot speak for country radio, as I've never listened to country radio in my life, but in terms of coming across one version or another in daily life, I, at least, have heard Hank's much more, though I can only speak for the past few decades. -R. fiend 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

subst
In Templates for deletion you wrote: ''Please explain to me why you feel that there's a necessity to use subst with this type of template. I see no advantage to using subst here, and I've never used subst. (In fact, I don't know how to!) I can certainly fully document the parameters, though I think they're self-explanatory. -- BRG 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)''
 * subst is easy to use. To simply call (trasclude) template foo, I type . To substitute foo, I type  . That is all there is to it, predcede the template name with "subst:". everything else is the same, including alll parameters.
 * The effect of subst is to make a copy of the template result and place it on the page as if it had been typed there. Future editors don't see the template, they see the text that the template has produced. This mens that they can edit and customize the text. It also means that when the page is viewed in future, it will be dispalyed faster. When a template is on a page, a separate server call must be made to retrive the template, and then further work must be done to render the template. This must be done every time the page is viewed. When subst is used, all this is done only once, when the edit is saved. But the main reason for using subst on these templates, IMO, is that it leaves a fully editable article. Main article text should normally be fully editable. DES (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You can use the syntax, (for example ) just as well with a user page as with a template. So if you want personal editing tools, you can copy the templates into your own user space. If you do, it would be mildly discourteous not to use subst, but you were going to do that anyway. Septentrionalis 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

adminship
I was just reading over unsuccesful campaigns today and came across yours. I can not believe that with your considerable skill, expertise, and rational that you have been rejected for one article! However, I am nuetral over the inclusion of conlangs I still don't think you should be denied adminship over this one thing (one thing to my knowledge at least0 Jaberwocky6669 21:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

recording dates
I have a database of recording dates. It draws on many of the standard references listed in discography but also liner notes.

You can find the post 1942 material at:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/johnhrogers/

Additions or corrections are welcome at johnhrogersAToptusnet.com.au (replace the AT with the symbol).

Keep up the good work.

JohnRogers

Songwriters Hall of Fame

 * Can you post a link to the original source of the list?

There are many names on the list that aren't found at the official site. Thanks


 * Whoever asked this, I wish would sign it so I could contact them. Anyway, anything that I put there came from the official site. Those names you saw that were not on the official site were put there by someone else, and I can't help you. -- BRG 15:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. Is there any way to reset the list? I only checked a couple- Nick Cave and Elliott Smith- but it looks like someone's been really messing with that list. --Still.life 05:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Harvey Weinstein
Hi, can you use film not movie when you do disambigs (Naming_conventions)? Thanks Arniep 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

harold arlen
i dont tend to bracket song writers that have been menmtioned more than once what is the proper procedure on this? its like this on most of the songbook and frank albums Gareth E Kegg 15:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)