User talk:Boleyn/Archive 19

Thanks for the feedback
Yo, I've restored Ranger to it's pre split state and nom'd the split articles for deletion per G-7. Thanks for the advice. GimliDotNet ( Speak to me, Stuff I've done )  19:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and thanks for your hard work on these disambiguation pages. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DAB question
Hi,

Is this edit correct, even though William Graham is a DAB page? It's not a direct link to a specific person, the William Graham page itself is a DAB. MOS:DAB gives me a headache.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And judging by the barnstars you know a lot about DABs, so I might as well ask this too. Should this redirect feed to this DAB page, or vice-versa because the redirect has (disambiguation) in the title?
 * Have I mentioned DAB pages give me a headache? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, WLU, thanks for your message. Dab pages are quite different to articles, so I understand why they give you a headache. Rading WP:DDD might help (it's very easy reading) or MOS:D or WP:DAB for more info. In the cases you've linked to, yes, they're correct per WP:INTDABLINK. The basic reason is to make it 100% clear that the person is going to a disambiguation page rather than an article. It's not hugely important, but it can be helpful. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Chakravyuha disambiguate
Do you think there is no need for disambiguation....page needed for chakravyuha? always the pages gets directed to padmavyuha and not the film so such a disambiguate...page is neededOnceshook1 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Onceshook1. I agree that disambiguation is needed, but through a hatnote rather than a disambiguation page. If you look at the guidelines, i.e. WP:TWODABS, this is clear. However, if you disagree, then you can remove the template. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

okay then why dont you create that page then so that user gets access to chakrvyuha the film easily....Onceshook1 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what page you think I should create? Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Douglas Lynch
I've deleted this per SandyGeorgia's request, have at it, and please don't hesitate to let me know if I've mucked it up, or can be of other assistance. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 19:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I mucked it up ... so I put a deletion template on it for you ... what is the fix? The dab page belongs there?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages. It's all sorted now, I just moved Douglas Lynch (disambiguation) to the now available Douglas Lynch. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * thank you ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Thanks, responded there. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the help with the Arthur Capell (disambiguation) page, this was my first disambiguation from scratch. --The frood (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for creating it, it's a useful page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Wesley ☀ Mouse 17:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, responded there. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of George Stobart


A tag has been placed on George Stobart, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

It may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under CSD : disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. --Edcolins (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I can see why it's been nominated, but I think it meets the guidelines and have removed the tag. I think it's a useful page, but if you disagree, then please take it to AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! MOS:DABRL seems to contradict Template:db-disambig... But I suppose the guidelines prevail over the template. Anyway, I now agree that it makes sense to keep the disambig. Indeed useful. Happy editing! --Edcolins (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page
Hi, the reason I deleted the page was because the two people were already disambiguated by a note at the top of the musician's page, so there wasn't a need for the disambiguation page. Did I screw something up? (That happens sometimes.) Keilana | Parlez ici 13:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I just realized that the 3rd entry actually had a section of the article, which I clearly didn't notice the first time around. Sorry for the trouble - I've restored it now and routed that link to Regenesis so there's no confusion. Thanks for the note! :) Keilana | Parlez ici 13:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, just drop a note on his talk, if he doesn't communicate and keeps doing it, you can always stick a note on the admins' noticeboard. And of course, you can always drop me a note if you need anything. Keilana | Parlez ici 16:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Joyce Kim


A tag has been placed on Joyce Kim 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 important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Syrthiss (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Bleh, stupid twinkle. I know you only created the redirect that this other person replaced, but I don't want to remove text from your talk page (even if I am the person who put it there).  Feel free to delete this section. :) Syrthiss (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's fine, I've suggested it revert to the redirect I created it as. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Carlos Serrano
The page has two entries with articles. A:-)Brunuś (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, two entries with articles and one entry which meets MOS:DABMENTION. There are no guidelines suggesting the deletion of such a page. And why did you add no edit summary, not inform creator, and twice nominate the same page for speedy deletion when you knew it should have gone to PROD or AfD? Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bernadotte
Hi-would you please check the dab page Bernadotte to see if I got that right? I came across it wheb I started the Bernadotte, Minnesota article. Also I am not familiar with the Swedish Royal Family the House of Bernadotte to add more names. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. It looks good. More names may be added in time, but there's now a place that can easily be added to. Good work! Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Just wanted to thank you for helping populate Koogle (disambiguation) and especially for including tne excellent link in your Edit summary. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Thanks for creating the page, Boleyn (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

 * Sorry for the talkback spam. I will assume you are watching my talk page nowDkriegls (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dark Shadows (Return to Collingwood) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dark Shadows (Return to Collingwood). Since you had some involvement with the Dark Shadows (Return to Collingwood) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Terry McBride
1.) Most of the inbounds were due to a template linking to it. I fixed the template, but the edit apparently hasn't processed yet. 2.) I've put in a request at AWB to fix the remainder. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry Lake
I am wondering if Henry Lake shouldn't be moved to Henry Lake (Halifax County), or is Henry Lake more well known than the other Lakes listed on Henry Lake (disambiguation)? V85 (talk) 06:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look, and couldn't find anything to suggest that the lake in Halifax County meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Sounds like a good idea to move them; I'll look at doing that now. Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! V85 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners)


The article Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I'd cut the ref off, sorted now. Thanks for highlighting it. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Joseph Gordon
What would wp do without us you? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It'd cope, I'm sure :) Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lol! Yes, I'm pretty sure it would ... Pdfpdf (talk) 23:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of George Pearse


The article George Pearse has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Nothing encyclopedic here.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PatGallacher (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me. I have removed the prod, as both entries are valid (see MOS:DABMENTION) and the 2 see alsos are not just similar, but have the exact same pronunciation. Of course, if you look at the guidelines and think I'm wrong, please take it to AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eric Benhamou (Pricing Partners) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I didn't create the article, I just moved it, so I don't have any opinion on its notability, but thanks for keeping me informed. I'll let the creator know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you had already let the creator know too, thanks for being so thorough. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dragan Kovačević
Actually, no, the two Croatian politics articles linking to the name refer to the two listed politicians. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood me. I'm trying to save this page, but don't have the knowledge. Can you make these entries meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION? Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

All three people are generally notable and will get the articles; I'll link them unambiguously from other articles. The fourth person, the football coach, I'm not sure of. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Robert L. Sumwalt, Jr.
Please reconsider your conversion of the Dab to a Rdr to the related Dab. My choice was not an oversight, and in fact it did occur to me that the logic of wp:INCDAB could be cited as an analogy justifying precisely the disposition you made. Despite that, the difference between the two Dabs was not simply that one had an entry for a third person. Please tolerate some excruciating detail: IMO the source of the confusion is the morgue file discipline of journalism, which establishes a file for at least each person likely to be mentioned a 2nd time in a given pub, and probably makes it routine for any reporter encountering a personally unfamiliar name to check for such a file. The probably lesser significance of RLS II may have led to some morgues lacking any info pertaining to him, and others failing to recognize that news on the entrepreneur referred to a person distinct from the academic. Either of these could easily result in the NTSB guy's file having "Jr." included on its label. Our routine IncDab cases are worth merging because the ambiguities that the "incomplete" Dab resolves are strictly a subset of those that the "complete" Dab has to resolve: one is strictly redundant to the other, and the IncDab is almost never worth the duplication of maintenance effort that would be needed to properly serve any users of the "incomplete" one. But the problem we are discussing, of ensuring that a user who types or pastes "Robert L. Sumwalt, Jr." or "Robert Sumwalt, Jr." gets to the article they need, is not part of the corresponding problem where the user specifies no generational suffix. Specifically, your Rdr to Robert L. Sumwalt (disambiguation) is likely to prolong the misleading of "Jr."-supplying users who have done nothing stupider than trusting usually reliable sources: even if they know a date or an occupation, they'll probably follow common sense and select the presumably unambiguously distinctive "Jr" entry w/o reading the rest of that entry. (And we should not consider, for the sake of the relatively few users who want RLS III but read "Jr." somewhere, avoiding that by expanding Robert L. Sumwalt (disambiguation) with information dealing with the fact that RLS III is occasionally miscalled "Robert Sumwalt, Jr.": Standing alone as a non sequitur, it is not just clutter to most users but a cryptic distraction; and adding wording to keep it from feeling out of place would be obnoxiously distracting to all but a small fraction of users of the RLS Dab(s).) I'm not claiming that my initial approach is the only acceptable one, and if objections to it persist, i'd like to consider a third approach (which i don't recall considering long enuf to realize how well it could have served the same ends):
 * I ran across at least two reliable-looking refs to the person in Robert L. Sumwalt (NTSB) as "Robert L. Sumwalt, Jr." or "Robert Sumwalt, Jr.", and the confusion it caused me was the primary factor in my undertaking the research needed to understand, and the further research and writing needed to dispel, the confusion between RLS II and RLS III.
 * We could eliminate the Dab you eliminated, but by making Robert Sumwalt, Jr. and Robert L. Sumwalt, Jr. Rdrs to Robert L. Sumwalt (entrepreneur), and on that article, using a confuse-like HatNote-Dab along the lines of

If i can't satisfy your objections, perhaps we should collaborate in starting a discussion at Talk:Disambiguation. --Jerzy•t 06:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jerzy, sorry that I didn't see this was a page created by you, or I'd have sent you a message. I think your last suggestion is probably best, but I have no objections to you reverting my edit and making it a dab if you think it's needed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Franklin J. Phillips / Harry Fischer
Hi Boleyn, you changed Franklin J. Phillips from Harry Fisher to Harry Fischer. But in the article only "Harry Fisher" ist mentioned. -- Jesi (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I should have checked that. On the Harry Fisher dab, it said Harry Fischer next to Phillips. I'll amend it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, your are right, it was my mistake. Thx for the correction. -- Jesi (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth, Australia
Please - it would be helpful to know why - rather than just a tag - what is the issue exactly? SatuSuro 10:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I did add an edit summary with a link to the relevant guidelines, which led me to apply the tag (WP:INCOMPDAB). Essentially the dab is at Perth, disambiguating further, e.g. adding (Australia) is a sub or incomplete disambiguation. I tagged it so it could be looked at how best to resolve this, or is there was a reason for WP:IAR on this page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Solved - redirect to Perth - there is an amazingly time wasting idiocy occuring over the word Perth at the moment and there are some very geographicall challenged web user who think perth australia is automaticall perth western australia - so felt the need to try to rectify - thanks for your explanation SatuSuro 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories
I know this has been mentioned to you before, so I'd just like to reiterate: it really is not helpful for you to add an uncategorized article to a very general category like or  while switching the tag from uncat to cat improve. If you can't be bothered to find the "improved" category right off the bat, then it really is better to just leave the article alone for someone else to work on than it is to add a category that you know isn't really the best choice that could be made. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Bearcat, and I'd like to start by thanking you for your hard work on Wikipedia. I'm disappointed by the tone of your mesaage, which I felt was dismissive and rude. Please take care when addressing other editors. As to 'if you can't be bothered', that's unfairly judgemental. I have looked carefully for categories, before putting the best option I can find. If I have added something to Cat:Actors, then it would be because no nationality was stated. As to me adding 'a category that you know isn't really the best choice that could be made', this isn't fair either. It's the best that I can find, and I have looked. I haven't done a great amount of categorisation, so am learning and improving as I go along. Sometimes, if I can't find much at all, I leave the uncat tag. If I can find some, but I feel an editor more experienced in categorisation could improve it, then adding a 'catimprove' tag is accurate.

I think the best way for you to have expressed your concerns would have been for you to thank me for my work, but suggest that I look at the relevant guidelines (adding a link) and keep the uncat rather than catimprove tag if I'm struggling for a specific category> I wouldn't necessarily agree, especially as the actors one is unusual, and I'm pretty sure on an article where I'd added several other categories, and where nationality couldn't be added due to lack of information.

Again, this is an area I'm still learning about and I am looking carefully for the best I can find. I'm sure as time goes on, I'll learn how to do this better. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Joyce Kim for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joyce Kim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Otterathome (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I created this as a redirect to The Big Bang Theory characters, not the article that is there now, and I've recommended it returns to its original form. Thanks for keeping me informed, Boleyn (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Edward Coke
Boleyn, you've added a pair of DAB tags to Edward Coke, which is understandable given that there are a pair of disambiguations. Given that you generated both disambiguations, in future could you please make sure the links resolve correctly yourself, instead of generating work for others? Ironholds (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ironholds, I don't know where it should be targeted, and thus I added the {dn} rather than leave it. I found your message a bit rude - after all, I've been working hard creating these articles to avoid confusion, and I could hardly be said not to disambiguate enough - I spend an hour or more every day doing that. We're all volunteers, and should appreciate each other's contributions, rather than insist others should do more. Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the first case, I created the article it was pointing to - that would be a hint. In the second, it only pointed to one of the three William Paxtons now there (and the fact that I chose to turn it into a link when it was pointing at that Paxton would be another hint). I'm sorry if my message came off as rude; I agree, we're all volunteers, and nobody can be forced or demanded to do work. But I think of it as collegial to avoid generating work for other people when at all possible. Ironholds (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So long as you understand that messages like this make me think 'why do I bother?' When I've spent hours upon hours all week trying to improve Wikipedia, and someone sends me a message saying I should have done more in a certain area ... to be collegial is to try to encourage others, in a positive way, and appreciate what people bring, even if it's not how you'd do it yourself or you think you could have done a better job, but to look at their overall contribution. Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point; I'm sorry for not examining the wider picture :). I apologise if I've made you question your efforts - they're certainly appreciated. I probably just shouldn't be allowed near my keyboard before the first coffee of the day ;p. Ironholds (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

"general improvements neded plus links"
I've noticed some articles that have this commented out next to the Wikify tag, and I noticed you have added it in when you created the article. It's a good idea, but consider placing "general improvements neded plus links" in the "|reason=" parameter of the wikify tag. That might be more helpful to readers who may become editors. You can also use other tags like cleanup or expand. Just some thoughts. Jesse V. (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories for MPs
Hi Boleyn, you seem to be working systematically through Bossiney's MPs - just come across a second one to stub-sort. It would be great if you could add the MP categories while you do this, as you would have them at your fingertips and it takes other editors much longer to find them one by one. I also think it's helpful to the reader if we specify which Parliament people were member of, especially in a multinational case like this where he was Irish but representing Cornwall. Pam D  20:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I created two outwith the timeframe I know the categories for, so for these I added those I knew (i.e. years of birth and death) and tagged for further categorisation for those where I don't know appropriate categories. Pretty much all others I've created I know the categories for, and have several categories. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Gosse
Oops! Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, easily done :) Boleyn (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

MEBO (disambiguation)
You're the closest person to a "diambiguation expert" that I regularly encounter. There has been a bit of back and forth reverting at the above link. Could you take a peak and let me know which of us (if either) has policy/standards behind our position? And is the answer plainly expressed somewhere as to whether (or not) external URLs should be included for entities that do not have Wikipedia pages? - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And I think I found the appropriate guideline here. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your message. You're clearly right, no external links, and redlink didn't meet MOS:DABRL. I'll watchlist it, and if there are any further issues, feel free to contact me. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

?
I notice you removed the reference and footnote from the DAB for Noel Fisher. I am curious, why exactly would we not want references in place for a potentially notable subject? StringdaBrokeda (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Disambiguation explains the guidelines here, but essentially it's because disambiguation pages are there as an index of Wikipedia articles, and are just a WP navigational tool. There are a couple of ways an entry can be added without having its own article - bascially when it has a mention in another article, and a blue link to that mention is added to the disambiguation page (see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION.) Please let me know if you have further questions. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are red links not appropriate for a dab page at all? Are red link's preferably removed in general? And until they become a stand alone article, where should references and sources be marshaled? Thank you for sharing this with me. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 07:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Red links on disambiguation pages aren't popular with all editors, but they are valid according to the guidelines, as long as a blue link is also added, and that link takes you to an article which gives some information on the person. As to where should the references and sources go, there's often an article they can be added to, which deals with similar subject matter, e.g. for a politician, adding a link in their constituency article, or a mention in their predecessor and successor's articles. The best route is often to create a stub (a short but referenced article).

I've copied from MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION below:

Shortcut: MOS:DABRL

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page. If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, do one of the following: Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term. Start a new article for the red link, using the description on the disambiguation page. Make a redirect to a page where the item is described (see Piping and redirects above). In the following (made-up) example, the architectural motif is judged to be appropriate for a future article, but the noodle is not; therefore, only the entry for the architectural motif includes a red link (and this assumes that the fictitious "flibbygibby" entries are described in their respective linked articles): Flibbygibby may refer to: Flibbygibby (architecture), a flamingo motif used on cornices Flibbygibby, a type of noodle

Shortcut: MOS:DABMENTION

If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink. For example:

Maggie Anderson may also refer to: Maggie Anderson, actress in Corpus Callosum (2007 film) Maggie Anderson, a character in Brigadoon

It is often useful to link to the relevant section of the target page (using the #anchor notation) and conceal that by making it a piped link. For examples, see "Where piping may be appropriate" under Exceptions, above

Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

William Woodhouse (MP)
You added a red category - it's always worth having a quick check for typos. Pam D  17:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Pam, please don't contact me over making one typo. I make dozens of typos a day on here, and pick up the vast majority. Occasionally one will slip past me. Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I told you in case you'd got the wrong version stored in your mind and might add it to other articles, and as a gentle reminder that we should all cast a quick eye over our edits, even scrolling down to check that the categories aren't showing in red. Pam  D  18:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Pam, it's the second time in a week you've contacted me to complain about something really tiny. It makes me feel very uncomfortable. Please don't continue this. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Shawe
Hi Boleyn. I'm not sure what exactly do you want to do with Shawe (disambiguation), but I've unprotected the title Shawe, as it is a searchable term. Hope that helps, let me know if you need further assistance. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

.. now fixed, I guess. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I'd created Shawe (dab) and asked it to be moved to Shawe, because of the protection on Shawe. Thank you, Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Electoral districts in Hong Kong
Category:Electoral districts in Hong Kong, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Quest for Truth (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up. I have commented on the discussion, and support the merge. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019


This year's Reviewer of the Year is. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.
 * Reviewer of the Year

Special commendation again goes to who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to and  who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by.
 * Redirect autopatrol

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.
 * Source Guide Discussion

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag. Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This month's refresher course

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, and the same to you! Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Robert Swinburne (born c.1376)
Hallo, please watch out for redlinked categories - just cast a quick eye over the stub once it's done. Have corrected to Category:People from Newcastle upon Tyne without hyphens. I moved the page too: I don't think "b." in a title is very clear. Thanks. Pam D  09:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , if I create one red-linked category by accident, among creating many thousands of articles with all blue-linked categories, I don't think you need to send a message criticising that. As for the title, I went with what it was already redlinked as, but I like the change. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Samuel Hannay (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Samuel Hannay (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sarah Harrop (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Sarah Harrop (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rebecca Thorn (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Rebecca Thorn (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, I should have noticed there was a redirect that needed deleting too. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

William Gower (MP)
Thank you for William Gower (MP)! Since the only other William Gower is a minor character in a lost film, I've moved the MP to the base name and added a hatnote. Cheers! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, that looks like the right call. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck
 豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune. このミラPはBoleynたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP 02:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, :) Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Mayors of Reading


A tag has been placed on Category:Mayors of Reading requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This should be as a disambiguation category, but I'm not sure if I've formatted it right? . Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not responding right away. I've never seen, nor can I find any guidance regarding the creation of, disambiguation categories - I don't think they are something that exist / are used. On a different note - I'm always so impressed by all the new content you add - thank you! Jmertel23 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Must have been my confusion,, thanks for helping sort it. Thank you for the compliment :) Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Jepson Prairie
Hi. I'm not clear what exactly it is you want me to say? Thmazing (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, thanks for getting back to me. A summary of my messages is: 'Please add your references [to Jepson Prairie among others]...I wasn't sure if you understood about references and external links or not; happy to help if you have any questions...can you please respond to messages...you know how to edit your talk page, you have done so many times, so please work with me'. Are you clear on how to reference and if not, would you like help? What sources did you use in the writing of the article? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem was that although you had provided several External Links you had not used any of them as a footnoted reference to support the content of the article. All the content seems well supported by your first EL so I have converted it to a reference (roughly - could be better formatted), and added a References section and Reflist. You could have done this yourself in response to Boleyn's first comments of June 2019. Another time, please remember to add actual references, not just external links, to save this sort of to and fro bother. External links sections are for additional material, not for the sources which support the text. Thanks. Pam  D  12:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And I've now tidied it up further: making a proper reference with access-date, which is important for any online source as they can change over time, and reinstating the "Official website" using a template. Now looks good, but could do with third-party sourcing. Pam  D  12:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Pam . Thmazing (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

This
was gracious [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garnet Jex].NotButtigieg (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Kevin Hale" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kevin Hale. Since you had some involvement with the Kevin Hale redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rykard Jenkins


The article Rykard Jenkins has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Minimal evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows only tabloid and deprecated sources, no RS coverage that I could find."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rykard Jenkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Rykard_Jenkins check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Rykard_Jenkins?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Ralph Cohn in draftspace
References are added.--وسام زقوت (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello,, thanks for your work on this draft. Unfortunately, imdb is not a reliable source and isn't allowed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia - there may be other sources out there though. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)