User talk:Boleyn/Archive 20

Tags
There's no chance that people are going to start articles - hundreds and hundreds of MPs, often pre-19th century. Your tags are messy, to the point of vandalism, and I will be deleting them ALL

Regards

Dok doktorb wordsdeeds 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How incredibly rude, especially when I was careful to politely word my message to you! As to 'there's no chance that people are going to start articles', there certainly is - I myself have created hundreds, if not more, articles on pre-19th century MPs, directly inspired by Plucas adding these names to these pages. They are notable, and thus need wikilinks. An improvement tag does not make an article 'messy', it draws attentino to an issue, and once attention is drawn to it, it can then be resolved. I hope you don't decide to edit war over this, but if you remove wikify tags without adding the needed wikilinks, then that is what you will be doing. I hope you will reconsider your views on this. Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you have chosen a seemingly random group of constituencies for 'flagging' and vandalising with red links. Policy dissuades both over-linking and excessive red-links. If you wanted to flag up concerns, there's a project page for that purpose. Doing so on a number of constituency articles rather than all of them is messy, inconsistent and, to be frank, bonkers.

I've reverted everything doktorb wordsdeeds 14:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please think about whether what you are doing is helping WP. These notable politicians need articles, and I am spending hours every day trying to build this up, as are many other editors. These red links are very quickly turning blue, but without the links in place, there is often duplication. Many of these people are found to already have articles, as well, but haven't been linked - adding the links is the way to find these. The links are not 'excessive', all MPs should be linked in constituency articles. I don't want to flag up big concerns, merely highlight individual articles where wikilinks are needed (it's far from all - for instance Norfolk, Canterbury, Kent etc. have had all linked for a while). There is no inconsistency - I've gone through them alphabetically, added wikify tags where wikilinks are needed. It is not 'bonkers' to suggest that wikilinks are needed in these articles, and as you can see, I am spending a lot of time addressing this issue by creating links, articles and additions to disambiguation pages, not just adding wikify tags. Please reconsider your actions - you've reverted me now twice, please don't do it a third time.

I have also started a discussion at Talk:Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency), the first article you started edit warring on. Boleyn (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You are edit warring. Please see policy on over-linking and red-linking. It is not up to you to determine notability, for that matter. Maybe these people are not notable enough? I am reverting to the position these constituency articles have been for years, in some cases, before your low-level vandalism started. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You've reverted me 3 times on Nottinghamshire, and aren't stopping to think about this at all. I've reported you for edit warring, see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Right back at you. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring at constituency articles
Hello Boleyn. I've been reviewing the complaint at WP:AN3. If this were a fight on a single article, an admin would probably close the 3RR with full protection of the page. Since it's apparently running over a huge number of articles, the only option for an admin who thinks it has to be stopped is to block one or both parties. Will you consider a promise to stop reverting Doktorbuk for at least 24 hours? This might assist in closing the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. I agree, once this user went past 3RR, I left it, although I really want it dealt with, I didn't think I could achieve anything by trying to re-add the tags, so hoped someone else could help me. I haven't, as far as I'm aware, gone past 3RR myself. I'm just trying to concentrate on creating articles, hoping that he will then see why we need wikilinks. I have no intention of reverting. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If we combine together the various articles where you are in dispute with Doktorbuk, you have reverted on July 6 at 14:59, 15:00, 15:01, 15:02, 15:03, 15:04, 15:05, 15:16 and 15:17. That makes nine reverts within 24 hours, and I only just got started. Doktorbuk has now accepted the offer and has agreed not to revert you for a while, as he stated at WP:AN3. It would be helpful if you would do the same. If we see you continuing to revert Doktorbuk's changes after this discussion, it will place admins in an awkward spot. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated here and on the 3RR, I have not been reverting and as far as I'm aware, all of my hours of edits have been wiped by Doktorbuk - I haven't restored them, but I'm really upset about this, as I feel that he has bullied, gone past 3RR, not entered the discussion I tried to start at his talk page and Talk:Montgomeryshire (UK Parliament constituency) (the initial article in contention). He marked his initial reverts as minor, with no edit summary etc. I'm just trying to create articles on people seeing as inherently notable and am having this made far more difficult. I'm really upset that no action seems to be being taken to restore the edits, at least the ones where he went past 3RR, and I'm not sure I'll bother keep trying to continue this project, despite spending hours on Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency) so you could all see where the redlinks to MPs are heading. Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Massie move
You moved Thomas Massie to Thomas Massie (judge). I don't agree with the move and he's also not a judge. --Gyroid (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to change the title. It mentioned 'judge' in the first line, but if I've misinterpreted his occupation, please move the page, or tell me what would be more appropriate and I'll change it. As to my reasons for making the move, the page was a disambiguation page, and it was overwritten, effectively deleting it. I acted to save both the disambiguation page and the new article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I believe that Thomas Massie (judge) should be moved to Thomas Massie. The other articles, which are not as notable or significant, should be listed on Thomas Massie (disambiguation). Gage (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no particular objections to this - I only really object to the disambiguation page being overwritten, and thus it being difficult for people to find the other Thomas Massies. If you start a move discussion at Thomas Massie or Thomas Massie (judge), with reasons why he's the clear primary, I wouldn't object to that. Thanks for keeping me informed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

From Doktorbuk
I'm glad I've spotted this. In your breathless endeavours to red-link everything in sight, how confident are you (and by extension, how confident can the project be) that you're not making mistakes? I've seen the damage wrecked upon the Preston constituency page, which now looks like a table full of Microsoft Word spelling errors. Can you please reconsider this rush for kudos? If you want to start new articles for MPs, just do so and THEN (only then) create the link? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop using such language. There are no 'breathless endeavours to red-link everything in sight' nor is there a 'rush for kudos'; there are endeavours to redlink (and then make blue) people who are notable. I can see no damage to the Preston constituency page, nor have I made any spelling errors - I haven't added any spellings, so couldn't have made spelling errors - I've linked those already named. As their names are from several centuries before spelling was standardised, I expect they could look like 'spelling errors', but the spellings have presumably been taken from the reliable source they are attributed to. If you have concerns about the spellings, please double-check with the source or the editor who added them. The links on Preston constituency are completely valid redlinks and bluelinks, and linking them means that anybody can easily create the articles, not just me. It also greatly reduces the chance of duplication. Especially because of variations in spelling, duplicated articles are often created on pre-18th century notables. Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's deal with the mass of red links, then. Can you tell me when you estimate that you will have completed articles for all the red links on, say, the Preston constituency article? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not planning to commit to any timescale. The links are valid, they will be created by myself or other editors sooner or later. If you object to MPs being considered inherently notable, I suggest you start a discussion at the appropriate Wikiproject, and if you do, please let me know, I'd follow it with interest. I'm pretty sure that has happened before, but issues can always be discussed again. Boleyn (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, fine. So you could, then, just as easily create an article and THEN the link, yes? doktorb wordsdeeds 17:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it would take a lot longer, and would also mean other editors would find it very difficult to start an article on an MP. Boleyn (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's complete hokum. It's easy for me, you, or any other editor to put square brackets around a person's name. You are simply filling articles - I count potentially hundreds - with red links to give people the impression of productive work. You know how easy it is to create links, there's no benefit to the over-linking and redlinking vandalism you are committing. I am going now to remove every red link from the Preston page, and then take this issue up somewhere else, because I find your behaviour to be amongst the most disruptive I have ever seen. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest you start the discussion first, see how it goes, and if there is consensus, then remove the redlinks. Please bear in mind you agreed to stop reverting my edits. Boleyn (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, thinking there would be some kind of explanation. I notice you're carrying on putting tags everywhere as though nothing happened. I'll find the politics project page and ask there, and in the talk page of wherever we discuss over-linking, and see what can be salvaged doktorb wordsdeeds 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, please be careful about exaggerating. I have not been 'putting tags everywhere', I've tagged around seven articles as needing wikilinks, and added wikilinks to other articles, where there was a need but a lesser need. As MPs are considered notable, they should have a link, red or blue. It is also not easy to add accurate redlinks, because you have to find an accurate, disambiguated title, and for this, you need to check a reliable source for some basic info on the person, years of birth and death at least. You have to add their entry to a disambiguation page, to avoid duplication. It takes hours, but means that the redlink is then ready to go, and a basic stub can be created within minutes, especially as there are links to reliable sources in the constituency article. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"About seven" is not accurate, at all, I've seen your contributions history. I have asked at the politics project for assistance or opinion on this matter. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Today I have indeed tagged 7 articles as needing wikilinks, so it was very accurate. I've just checked my contributions. Please stop and think about all this. You're being unnecessarily personal and aggressive, and it really doesn't need to be like this. Boleyn (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish you had taken my advice and not starting reverting my edits before gaining consensus on the Wikiproject. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Specious edits
I would ask that you don't continue making specious 'redlinks'. Unless you have actually created an article, I don't see a legitimate rationale for making exhaustive numbers of links to nowhere. -- Avanu (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Avanu. As you can see from Lincoln (UK Parliament constituency), which was largely redlinks yesterday, redlinks very quickly become blue links. As MPs are considered to be inherently notable, they deserve a link in the constituency article, which doubles as a list of MPs. The link means an article can be easily created on them. I am currently working through the redlinks and turning them blue, but of course, this takes time to do properly. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Boleyn, you have tied yourself in knots. Why have you admitted to taking time and care with Lincoln, which many will say is fair enough, but in the meantime added hundreds of red-links across the project? You answered my question above "I have no timeframe" so this could go on for months or years. Can you tell me, for example, how much information you are going to gather about Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli, please?


 * In the meantime, I am looking to collect enough consensus across the project to ensure that all your currently dormant redlinks can be removed, as they should have been ages ago when your borderline vandalism began doktorb wordsdeeds 21:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, fair enough. Just keep Red link in mind. -- Avanu (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Avanu, I am, but having a link in the constituency article doesn't violate that. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, please be careful with your repeated use of inflammatory and exaggerated language. I have not committed 'borderline vandalism.' I have created redlinks to MPs within their constituency articles, MPs who are accepted as inherently notable. I have also created thousands of stubs on MPs, and continue to do so. I certainly have no objection to you starting a discussion and trying to build consensus on any issue. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu has been very helpful to my cause in this regard. Notability is not always automatic (whilst WP:POLITICIAN might suggest so, the case for pre-18th and especially pre-14th century members of Parliament is tenuous at best, there's also WP:IAR to remember in extreme cases). Creating hundreds and hundreds of red links with no timeframe for turning them blue is not constructive, especially as one cause of which might well be the setting up of a one-line paragraph article on Willielmus fil' (filius) Pauli that would be redirected to its base article causing hassle to all involved. I stand by my belief that your jaunts across the project creating red links has been disruptive to the point of vandalism, and as Avanu has provided in another place a very useful quote - ""Just because someone passes a notability criterion doesn't mean their name must automatically be given a link, especially when the link points to nothing" - I think a good case can be built against your actions. You say above that Lincoln has gone from red to blue, and I can't doubt or deny your work there. That doesn't resolve the issue or satisfy my concerns about the overall picture. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

An update
Use Avanu has asked Jimbo Wales on his talk page the issue of creating red links in the manner of your edits.

I have asked (here - ) a question which has started something of a wide ranging debate on the matter of your attitude and behaviour.

We'll get to some kind of resolution to this in time, no doubt. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was passing by to commend Boleyn on her disambiguation work when I saw... this. Just wanted to step in quick and say a few words. As Boleyn said, please refrain from using inflammatory and exaggerated language -- regardless of the outcome of this debate, it is very clear that he/she is acting in good faith. There is no such "borderline vandalism" evident here; if anything, it appears to be you who is toeing the line of incivility. The Village Pump discussion appears to be a further commentary on the use of redlinks, not Boleyn's conduct. --IShadowed 07:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, IShadowed, that's very much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you accept my removing all the red links from MPs prior to an agreed cut off point (say, pre-18th century)? doktorb wordsdeeds 07:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Those pre-18th century are also notable. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Prove it. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Politician. Done. --IShadowed 07:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't be so flippant. Does that mean that, for example, a 15th century nobleman chosen because they paid the right taxes or nodded the right way is the same as a US Presidential nominee? WP:POLITICIAN is not a free pass for every level of governance as you should well know.

As nobody is willing to prove it, I take it no proof exists. I will start deleting the red links today. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That wasn't flippancy. The notability guideline pertaining to politicians, as I've just linked above, does demonstrate notability for MPs. As this discussion here and at the Village Pump has clearly not reached resolution yet, I strongly advise you to take BWilkins' advice and refrain from removing the redlinks in question until the discussion has concluded. I refuse to engage in an edit war, and I hope you will respond in the same way. --IShadowed 08:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, several of the 'redlinks' you removed from Preston were blue links, MPs with their own articles. Please restore these. I am disappointed you haven't taken BWilkins, mine or IShadowed's advice. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Same with Radnorshire (UK Parliament constituency), and presumably with the other pages you've been removing links from. Blue links deleted. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this debate, and wanted to be clear, I wasn't really asking Jimbo. I was asking for a wider debate on it from a more well-known and wider group. Jimbo Wales page is watched by a lot more people I can imagine than the Village Pump policy page. -- Avanu (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I also tried to phrase it in a way that would be fairly neutral. I realize it wasn't perfect, but who is? I wanted a genuine weigh-in, not a echo chamber. Yes, I am clearly opposed on certain principles to empty redlinks that will serve no purpose, but I have no problem with redlinks that will soon turn blue and live happy, long, contented lives in the country with a bluelink spouse and rather blue children. -- Avanu (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, it appears a lot of people think that the work you have done is commendable, and while I'm going to say this somewhat out of ignorance, because I confess up front that I need to get a more long term perspective of your work, my reaction based on the MP stuff is that you're doing more harm than good. An endless cadre of minor stubs and red links that will likely never receive any more detail does not help improve the encyclopedia in an overall sense. It would be better and far more manageable to have a list of historical Montgomeryshire leaders, than several hundred tiny stubs. For the very few ancient leaders who need their own article, that can easily be done. But having endless redlinks and supernumary stubs doesn't serve us well. It is far easier to watch and maintain a single list article than a hundred stubs (or thousands, as you have likely created). I don't commend this, I condemn it as bad practice. I would suggest that you consider this further before continuing in the same vein. Again, this is not intended to be a blanket screed on your fitness or virtues in a larger sense, but on this issue and this situation, I find it to be wholly unacceptable. Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Avanu. I have to disagree over whether stubs on MPs are better than a simple constituency list. Once they have their own referenced, categorised article, it is brought to the attention of people who monitor these categories and have an interest in, e.g. 15th-century English people, and they then have the opportunity to read, and if they choose, add to the article. Also if I was looking someone up, I would much rather find a short article, with basic info on which constituencies they represented and when, whether they were also a mayor, etc. and a link to a reliable source where I could gain more information, than to get nothing. I regularly research Tudor politicians, and before the reference to the History of Parliament website was added to Wikipedia constituency articles, I didn't know of it, and found it much more difficult to research. Many of these MPs also served several constituencies, and that information is clearly given in the stubs, and so gives me a picture of the MP's area of influence, and direct access to further reliable information through the references section.

As to creating redlinks, as I wrote at the Village Pump, I am quite happy to concentrate on working through redlinks and developing both basic stubs and more detailed articles on these politicians, rather than creating further redlinks, as I don't feel that edit warring etc. is the best use of any of our time. I also feel strongly that these all will, over time, be created, and become much more detailed articles. Compare WP articles on MPs 10, and 5 years ago to now - there is clear, sustained and impressive improvements, and this will continue, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and it attracts editors who want to improve it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering the fact that every edit is logged and stored in Wikipedia, there's not really such a thing as 'losing hours of work' because someone reverted you. For the time being, I've reverted Doctorbuk's latest redlink removals pending a definitive resolution of some kind of consensus for this issue. Boleyn, my suggestion would be that you might also avoid the excessive redlinking that prompted his desire to undo it all, until we have a clear consensus one way or the other. It is not a rule or a command, of course, just a suggestion, so both you and he are free to do whatever you prefer. My reverts of his work were an effort at good faith on my part to preserve the focus of the discussion so that it would be about the merits and not about overly bold behavior by editors. I do not plan to become involved in this way again. Although my preference has been made clear in previous posts, this is hardly a field to die on, and so I will continue with reasonable comments, but little more. I think some interesting points have been raised on Jimbo Wales page regarding this issue, but no one has declared consensus yet, so I am content to simply wait and see. Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your message, Avanu. As I've said before, I won't be creating redlinks to MPs, not because I think this is wrong - I think it's very useful - but because I have no wish to be embroiled in edit warring and unpleasantness. Thank you for taking the time to look at this, and for showing that just because you disagree with another editor's way of looking at things, you can still be polite and engage in dialogue. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Charles Cole / Charles Coles
I created the Charles Cole disambiguation page this afternoon, when I noticed the number of people named "Charles Cole".

I thought, well, that list needs to be split up somehow. And there really ought to be another page for "Charles Coles". But I had other work to do.

Imagine my surprise when I came back to Wikipedia this evening and discovered that the work I had deferred had already been taken care of!

Many thanks and best wishes. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, and thanks for creating the page :) Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

your opinion please?
I recently moved a draft from userspace to Cherry Street (Toronto). Subsequently, I trimmed the disambiguation page, Cherry Street, as I think the current standard is "one blue link per disambiguation page entry".

I trimmed the entries for the Cherry Streets in Philadelphia and Seattle, as they each had two blue links. That was correct, wasn't it?

I then took at look at Hong Kong, Philadelphia or Seattle -- none of those articles have a link to their Cherry Street, or even mention it. Should I remove those entries from the disambiguation page?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Geo Swan, and thanks for improving the page. You're right, there should only be 1 blue link per line on a disambiguation page, and it should be to an article on Cherry Street, or mention Cherry Street. I looked at the incoming links, and found one for Hong Kong, and one for Seattle, but Cherry Street (Seattle) doesn't have an article and doesn't seem to be mentioned in any articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, thank you. Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Director (education) disambig page
This disambig page was created following a recent discussion. Hopefully the content of the discussion will allay your concerns about the page. Regards, --Viennese Waltz 15:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Central District (Iran)
Hi, you tagged this page as an incomplete DAB. What I did was move all of these out of the article on Central District (disambiguation). Per DDAB, doesn't this count as a double disambiguation instead? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Obi-Wan. A double disambiguation would usually be a page such as Central (disambiguation), with a link to Central District (disambiguation). In this case a district may be known sometimes as simply 'Central', but as that isn't its full name or its common name, it shouldn't be on the Central disambiguation page, which is for entries known simply as 'Central'. It therefore makes the 'see also' section. Here we have a list of those known as Central District, which all happen to be in Iran. The general idea is if it has a disambiguator in brackets, e.g. Iran, then it's an incomplete disambiguation. For this, I would have suggested a section in the Central District dab called Iran, and then set up Central District (Iran) to redirect to [Central District#Iran], so that if someone types in Central District (Iran), they get straight to the right section. However, you may want to check my interpretation with others at the WP:Disambiguation page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually how it used to be; however, it was so long that I felt moving it to it's own section was worth while. FWIW, I found this page b/c it had showed up on the list of longest DAB pages. Perhaps this is a case of IAR? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, it certainly is very long, even as it is. Personally, I still think an Iran section at the bottom of the Central District dab is best, especially as without the Iranian entries, the dab is pretty short. I don't feel strongly about it however. Thanks for your hard work on this, Boleyn (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See also on dab pages
Hi

Someone has removed a see also section from a DAB page, are they there for a particular reason?

If yes, then it should be re-instated, if not, then the corresponding page can have the see also removed. Chaosdruid (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Chaosdruid, and thanks for your message. As Jack is a common nickname for John, it's a valid see also. As for the merge, the backlog for merging pages was ridiculous last time I checked, so I think that would be the only reason. Best wishes and thanks for looking into these pages, Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

City of London (UK Parliament constituency)
Hi Boleyn! I did a minor touch-up behind your last edit here. Can you please revisit to make sure I left it the way you wanted it? Thanks  -- WikHead (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, it appeared as if there may have been information missing... and I was uncertain whether the supplied year made it to the correct column, but if it's fine by you, it's fine by me :). Have yourself a great day. Happy editing! -- WikHead (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Battishill
Hi. Thanks for fixing this page. Quis separabit? 19:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for creating it. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Leigh
Hi. Your last edit created a red-linked template at the above disamb page. I didn't undo it because I am not sure what you were trying to do. Yours, Quis separabit?  20:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind I see you fixed it. Quis separabit?  20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it, I've sorted the typo now. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Shapleigh, Maine
In regard to this article, I am not sure about the idea of just moving it to Shapleigh, because as stated in Naming conventions (geographic names), most U.S. towns have the state name in their article titles. If I misunderstood what you were trying to do, please let me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Varner, West Virginia
Could you please let me know why you feel that Varner is not notable? Its a GNIS populated place, people lived there, so, thats notableCoal town guy (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Coal town guy. I think your message was meant for User talk:98.92.163.134, who added the deletion tag. I removed the deletion tag, and wrote that I could see nothing to suggest it wasn't notable. This IP put deletion tags on several articles which seem clearly notable, so I removed all of them. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OOOOPS, my appreciation and hardy thanks. Sorry about thatCoal town guy (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts
Hello. Hope your having a nice evening. There is a discussion about page you had involvement with at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and your thoughts and expert opinion would be most appreciated. All the best, France 3470   ( talk ) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, France. I've commented at the discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Subcategory Category:Cavaliers
As you have added Category:Cavaliers as a subcategory to category:People of the Stuart period and category:17th-century English people, why add men like John Brooke, 1st Baron Cobham to those categories when they are already in the  subcategory category:Cavaliers? -- PBS (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, PBS, and thanks for contacting me. That was indeed an oversight. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ron Gould (disambiguation)
Hi there Boleyn. Sorry, but I declined the speedy deletion of Ron Gould (disambiguation) - judging from the recent edits to the page by Staszek Lem it looks like moving it could be controversial. I'd suggest using a requested move instead. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 21:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Thomas Dacres Disambiguation page
CSD states a disambiguation page may be subject to speedy deletion when it "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)" and Disambiguation states "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.". Or to put it another way, a person looking for either of the two individuals should have no problem finding the one they are looking for by going to the Thomas Dacres page.  Citi Cat   ♫ 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I know the guidelines well. I had tagged the page for consideration as to whether one was actually far more notable than the other. If that was found to be the case, then I don't object - my question is why was the creator not informed that a page they had taken the time and trouble to create had been nominated for deletion, so that I could see if the page could be improved, and/or offer my opinion? Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should perhaps have notified you - but I really don't see the point in creating a superfluous dab page because you have a concern about whether it should exist or not. Just make hatnotes, and do your investigations as to relative notability, and move the page away from base name if you decide it's justified. It does not seem useful to clutter the encyclopedia with unnecessary dab pages ready-tagged with "cleanup needed" to make work for someone else. (I came across this, and a similar page, because AWB was malfunctioning in not recognising disambiguation cleanup as indicating a dab page, and careless editors were tagging them with stub because they couldn't be bothered to look at the pages they were editing!). If I find another I'll AfD it as a controversial deletion. Pam D  17:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * All the information is now in a hatnote at Thomas Dacres, of course. Pam  D  17:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Was Moretta (disambiguation) one of yours too? Again, there seemed no point in creating a dab page for the existing article titles. If you decide that the village is not the primary usage, then move it and create a dab page, but while the village is at the base name there is no point in sending the reader who wants coffee through a dab page rather than just having a hatnote. Pam  D  17:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Pam, I appreciate the apology, it's not a case of 'perhaps' you should have notified me, you know to notify the creator when you nominate a page for deletion. As for the Thomas Dacres, people often get confused with these and say 'Dacre', both because it's the more prominent family of the time period and because it's easy to miss off an s in most surnames like this. I also strongly thought the two politicians weere roughly equally notable. With the amount of work I do on pages tagged for dab cleanup, and other work on dabs, to suggest I was making work for someone else is completely unfair - I was asking for a second opinion on the notability issue as I am less confident on this. As for Moretta (disambiguation), it's not on my watchlist and I don't think I created it, but it rings a vague bell, I think I may have removed a redlink from it. Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty neutral on this, I deleted the page as that was the correct thing to do according to the manual of style. However, it seems to me the real point here is to get readers to the page they are searching for. If, as you say "Dacre" is the more common spelling, the first issue would be with a search for Dacres which is incorrectly typed as Dacre. And "Thomas Dacre" does indeed go to a disambig page which lists the Dacres spelling (and both individuals). Searching for "Thomas Dacres" also brings you to a page in which both individuals are identified in the hat. So while I don't feel the disamb page is any great problem, I also don't see any great problem it solves.  Citi Cat   ♫ 18:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

.+

I've now realised what's happened: I always used to notify page creators manually when I CSDd or PRODded an article, carefully copying and pasting the message from the template. Then I discovered Twinkle, which does it automatically, and now always do any PROD or CSD via Twinkle because it leaves the message for me. It's become such second nature that I'd even forgotten that I'd been relying on it to leave the message. But I've now discovered, by checking my CSD log, that for certain categories Twinkle doesn't notify the creator - and "G6 unnecessary dab page" is one of those. This seems wrong to me, and I've left a comment at the Twinkle talk page to ask for this to be changed. Unless or until it gets fixed I'll try to remember to check that Twinkle is leaving a message in all cases where it seems appropriate, and do it myself where necessary. (It also excludes db-move, where a page, usually a redirect, is being deleted to allow for a page move: I can see arguments for and against notifying the page creator in those cases.) So it was not my intention not to notify you, and on reflection perhaps I should have taken them to AfD anyway as not non-controversial. (Or do dab pages go to a different XfD?). Pam D  06:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I know you are usually exceptionally thorough with these things. Yes, I would usually take a dab to AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Mosstodloch Primary School
It would be hard to keep this as a separate article, unless the building or the school is historic. Perhaps you might want to merge it into Milne's High School with a redirect?  DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DGG. I hope you are well. I thought all schools were condiered notable enough for articles? I tried to double-check, and the only mention I can find of schools in WP:NOTABILITY is if appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context.[7] FN 7 then says: For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located. However, this school has reliable sources available, so seems to me to meet the criteria. However, I know you're more experienced than me in this area - can you point me in the direction of other guidelines on this? Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

== Calling on your expertise ==

This should be a minor nothing of an issue, but ...one page involved is Lanai (disambiguation). I didn't create that page, just did some editing. You can see for yourself. I don't pretend to be an expert on dabs, but I think you are. The previous editor ENeville thinks I was wrong and has said so on my Talk Page. The page where I had the hatnote pointing to the dab is Lānai (Hawaiian language). To me, this is all about one itty bitty word in the Hawaiian language and not worth a fuss. ENeville is not someone I associate with dabs or anything else I've worked on. So, if you want to make any edits to that dab, I consider you the expert and won't challenge them. As far as leaving a hatnote on an article to point to a dab, maybe I'm missing something. I don't see what the big deal was. Best to you.Maile66 (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

John Gay{er,re}
Hello,

You're clearly providing a great service with your work on disambiguation, thanks for that. Following your change to John Gayer, I have a quick question - how come you created John Gayer (disambiguation) to link to from Gayer, but linked straight to John Gayre - which redirects to John Gayer - from Gayre? Is there a nuance of WP:INTDAB I'm missing?

Regards, — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Earle Martin, thankls for your message. No, no nuance, just an oversight when it came to the link on the 'Gayre' page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Walker (disambiguation)
Hello Boleyn. I was just having at look at trying to resolve Gregory Walker (disambiguation), but I'm puzzled as to why in March you moved the page from Greg Walker. Since the majority of the items on the list are 'Greg' as opposed to 'Gregory', wouldn't it be best located at 'Greg Walker'? France 3470  ( talk ) 22:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, France. I think I'll have moved it because all (or the majority, at least) are Gregorys, even if known as Greg, and so would belong on a Gregory dab, but some, e.g. the musical formula 'Gregory Walker' would not be Gregs. I tend to go by full given name unless the Gregs significantly outweighed the Gregorys, and here it's only 4-2. I've made some changes to the page today, but obviously feel free to change them if you think we should go down a different route. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops I forgot about this post. Much apologies. The cleanup looks excellent, thanks. I'd probably have a preference for the page being moved back to 'Greg Walker' as 4-2 is a majority, even if not a very large one. But it's not really much of an issue either way, and even less so as technically the subjects are known as Gregory too. France 3470   ( talk ) 19:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Farnham
"Thomas Cotton (by 1527-62), was an English politician." Did you mean Farnham? Apuldram (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did, and have now corrected it. Thanks for spotting it and letting me know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

John Long (c.1517-c.1600/2)
Hi Boleyn,

Re errors in the Reference article:

It should be noted that the reference article from The History of Parliament contains several errors, most notably the claim that his will was proved on 11 June 1602. In it he mentions his married sister and sole heir Clare Clary, therefore this was the will of his grandson John Long of Lymington (c.1571-1602) (visitation of Hampshire, Thomas Benolt).

John Long of Lymington, the son of Sir Henry Long - whom the HoP article incorrectly identifies as one and the same with the M.P of KNARESBOROUGH Apr. 1554, HEDON Nov. 1554, NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME 1563 and SHAFTESBURY, was mentioned in the will of Sir Henry's friend Richard Beauchamp, Lord St Armand in 1508, which would make him well over 100 years old in 1602. Extremely unlikely! The John Long who was Burgess of Lymington identified in 1574 and was later Mayor, apparently could not write, marking his name with a cross. This would preclude him from being the same John Long, writer of a still surviving account book as steward to the Earl of Pembroke.

There were several men named John Long living at the time of this M.P, and the HoP article is based on supposition that the subject is John Long of Draycot Cerne and later of Lymington, - not at all on any known fact. None of it adds up. There is no documentary evidence to support any of the author's assumptions regarding his identity, therefore the inclusion of this reference only perpetuates the error and should be removed.

It is unlikely that the John Long M.P of the article lived to the ripe old age of 85 at a time when the average lifespan of an adult male was 47 years, therefore no credibility can be given to the assumed date of death either. Brograve (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, it's the first time I've heard mention of errors in the HOP. If you have references for your information, please add info to the article. I wouldn't agree that the reference should be removed, but info from another source stating that they may not have been the same person would leave the reader knowing that there is a dispute. I'm glad to see you copied the info onto the Talk page of the article, maybe others will also have information. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Tudor people & Bevil Grenville
Thanks for the links etc on Somerset (UK Parliament constituency). I have been working through those which use Rayments on the Somerset wikiproject cleanup list & using the history of parliament sources, but it has little for 20th century. I noticed on your page User:Boleyn/Tudor people (which is neatly linked from your edit summaries) a red link to Sir Bernard Grenville would this be the same as Bevil Grenville?&mdash; Rod talk 18:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rod, and thanks for your message. They don't seem to be the same, Bernard lived slightly earlier - you've inspired me to make that my next article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Palmes family
Hi Boleyn,

I see you have created a page for Francis Palmes (died 1613). Any chance you could help improve the following article of the Palmes family?

Many thanks,

(Parl his-1500 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC))

Hello, and well done for creating the article. I don't know anything about this particular family, but have made some small edits. At the moment, it could still do with having some incoming links from related articles. It also reads a little bit like it's written by a descendant of the family. Also I wonder from the article if they meet the definition as aristocracy or of gentry? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Boleyn,

Thank you so much for the help. I don't know anyone from the family myself so I apologise if my contribution looks as though it was written as such! I am interested in documenting and noting longstanding political aristocratic families and their contribution in parliament. I note that the family is recorded in Walford's country families 'a guide to the titled and untitled aristocracy' so would suggest that they are aristocracy, though I believe depending on definition this is interchangeable with gentry!

I will add in the links as you have suggested. If you happen to come across any articles I would be so grateful if you could reference them.

Best wishes

(Parl his-1500 (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC))

The Comedians (film)
Hi. If you have time, please could you have a look at The Comedians (film) in case any entries are not as they should be (I copied the film-related entries from Comedians (disambiguation)? I will pay attention to any changes you make for the future... Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mirokado, and thanks for your message. You were right that the films were getting lost among the other entries on Comedians (disambiguation). However, we tend to avoid incomplete disambiguation pages like this, mainly because it can cause some confusion. E.g. if a new film was to be added, someone would probably add it to either The Comedians (film) or Comedians (disambiguation), or some users might find one dab but not the other. I have added sections in Comedians (disambiguation), which should make it easy to find the films without reading all the non-film entries. I've then suggested the two pages are merged into one, so anyone typing in Comedians (film) would go straight to the film section of Comedians (disambiguation), with the TV section directly below. Of course, feel free to disagree! Just comment on the merge proposal link. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I agree. I've tweaked the proposal since the plural link is a redirect to the singular dab page (typo in my original message), please see Talk:Comedian (disambiguation). --Mirokado (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack Fenton
Hi Boleyn. I'm a bit confused by your move request here, and wondered if you could clarify. At present, the tag is requesting that I move John Fenton (disambiguation), which is currently a redirect to Jack Fenton, to the page it redirects to, which would create a redirect loop and delete the content at Jack Fenton. Do you in fact want the content of Jack Fenton moved/renamed to John Fenton (disambiguation)? Or have I missed something here? Ping me on my talkpage and let me know, and I'll be happy to sort it out for you. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 07:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, message on your page. Boleyn (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have now nominated Margaret Curran (disambiguation) for deletion, not sure who else I should notify. PatGallacher (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I don't know offghand who should be informed other than the creator - who I saw you hadn't let know, so I did. I also put a message on the page of the editor who removed the speedy, as a courtesy. Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not entirely clear who the creator is in this case. PatGallacher (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Dyne


A tag has been placed on John Dyne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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 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. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Dyne


A tag has been placed on John Dyne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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 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. Harry the Dog WOOF  11:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Socken
Once again I request your opinion as a disambiguation expert. :) Could you please drop by the above link and take a peak at the back and forth that is happening.  Am I on solid ground here, or off base? - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TexasAndroid, I hope you're well. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you on this one. The subdivision does meet MOS:DABRL, or at least can easily be made to do so, i.e. *Socken (country subdivision), subdivision of Swedish Pomerania. It has about three incoming links. I think there's probably at least as good a chance someone typing in 'Socken' would be looking for the subdivision known simply as 'Socken', as they are to be looking up someone by their surname Socken. You're right that it wasn't hugely useful before without a blue link on the line leading to a mention of the topic. A look at containing:socken in the search box came up with quite a few mentions of the term, including in Parishes of Sweden. Let me know if you think there's something I overlooked in this though. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you immensely. I've rved myself, and gone the direction of cleaning up the page to my normal minimum level of disambiguation functionality. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You do a great job, thanks for working on this. The page will be more useful now than it was in the beginning. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

John Marshall (by 1515-54 or later)
I seem to have John Marshall (disambiguation) on my watch list ... why don't you just call this chap John Marshall (MP for New Romney), parallel to the various other JR MPs on that dab page? I'm sure you've got a reason, just curious! Pam D  14:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, Pam. I tend to use the years of birth and death when HOP has them, and MP for New Romney if it doesn't. I don't know if this is a better or worse way really when the years aren't definite, I think either seem OK. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see that when there are clear dates, but this one seems pretty horrendous - not really obvious whether he's born, or died, by 1515, or 1554 or ... "later"? Is it OK by you if I change the redlinks to John Marshall (MP for New Romney)?  Or perhaps use a (fl. 1535) or similar? ...


 * Though actually, thinking it through, surely we ought to have an epithet, rather than just years, for all these people, so John Marshall (1797–1836) is misnamed. WP:QUALIFIER tells us that "Years of birth and death are not normally used as disambiguators (readers are more likely to be seeking this information than to already know it) although this may be necessary when there are multiple people with the same name and tag, such as Andy Gray (footballer born 1955), Andy Gray (footballer born 1964), and Andy Gray (footballer born 1977).". I would rather see him as "John Marshall (MP born 1797)" or "...(MP for Leeds born 1797)", which seems more compliant with the rules. Dates alone don't help distinguish him from a composer or an explorer etc.


 * ....  Aaargh, on looking into it, I see that I created that article in 2008, and it hasn't been renamed, bar a change of hyphen, since then! I've learned a lot since then.  Too late at night to work on it now but I'll try and revisit it tomorrow.   Pam  D  22:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to this, or any other, being renamed. I like the (MP died x) suggestion, especially for common names like John Marshall. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Ashworth (preacher)


A tag has been placed on John Ashworth (preacher) 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. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Marking orphaned articles that have incoming links
Please not you have label articles, for example (You Were Made For) All My Love and Marianne Badrichani, as orphaned pages even though they have incoming links.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Traveler, and thank you for your message, although I'd have appreciated it if you'd worded it in a more friendly, assuming good faith manner. Sorry for adding those, I thought orphan tags were for when there were 0-2 links and you thought there could easily be more, e.g. song added to album it's on, songs from that year etc. I've looked over the guidelines now and realised my error - I'll remove these two tags. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It was changed in June, though I don't think I was aware of it either. There's a discussion at Template_talk:Orphan which seems to have ended up with consensus to revert to "few or" but which didn't then happen. (Personally I always take "links" in terms of orphans as meaning "links other than from dab pages or hatnotes" - not sure if that's general, it would be silly if someone now started de-orphaning pages on the basis that they have an incoming link from article space when it's only a navigational hatnote!)  Pam  D  09:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Pam, I was thinking I must have imagined it. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of William Child (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article William Child (disambiguation) 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/William Child (disambiguation) 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. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC)