User talk:Canuckian89/Archive 2

Proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Brazil by longevity


The article List of Presidents of Brazil by longevity has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable ordering of persons -- why not list presidents by height, blood type, or longevity of their wives?

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 03:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity


The article List of Presidents of Mexico by longevity has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable ordering of persons -- why not list presidents by height, blood type, or longevity of their wives?

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 03:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Year linking and group-think
Actually some articles, including Calment's, have had year links in the past (and some still do). Please think outside the box. It makes sense that someone noted for longevity to have a link to the year of birth, especially when they were the "oldest" or "last" person from something. Ryoung 122 20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

By looking through your talk page, I was able to find sections relating to this exact matter. It has been pointed out that according to Linking, years of birth and death should not be linked, which states that "little, if any, content is germane to the article...". There seems to be nothing stating that we should link years in articles simply because that person is noted for being old.Bcperson89 (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be a fairly-new editor. I'm going to say this: Wikipedia policies, for the most part, are subject to change. When Wikipedia began, ALL dates were linked. Now they're not. However, there is a debate regarding whether exceptions to the guidelines (not rules) should be allowed. From this statement:

unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter—

Are years of birth germane and topical to the subject matter? If, in fact, the argument is that a person is noted for their connection to the past, then the answer may very well be "yes." In addition, Wikipedia editing is supposed to follow outside sources.

For example:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article752512.ece

In the year Elizabeth Bolden was born, Bram Stoker began writing Dracula, America had fewer than 45 states, and Wilhelm II — Kaiser Bill — had just become Emperor of Germany.

On Monday, Mrs Bolden, the world’s oldest person, died in a US nursing home at the age of 116 and 118 days, leaving behind a very different world to the one she was born into on August 15, 1890.

Clearly, the OUTSIDE SOURCE LINKS Ms. Bolden to the year 1890..."the year Elizabeth Bolden was born."

Not only that, while it may be true that Philip Johnson was primarily noted for architecture and his age was just a sidenote, when persons reach the outer limits of longevity, they may become famous FOR their age. In these cases, based on outside sources, again such as this:

Oldest Person in the World Dead Maria Esther de Capovilla, the world's oldest person has died two days after ... She was born in the same year as Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin, 1889 on ... www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58924 - Cached

Clearly, it should become obvious that:

A. Outside sources have a clear tradition that the year of birth is important for "oldest persons" articles

B. Therefore, based on the "germane to the topic" discussion, an exception should be made for these examples.

In short, there is a very logical reason to have LINKS somewhere in the article to what is most-important. No one is advocating for a "sea of blue" overlinking.

I think you should re-consider your edits: are you simply banally applying "policy," or are you thinking about when and when not to apply policy?

Ryoung 122 09:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ryoung122, I'm glad that even fairly new editors have picked up on your apparently fundamentalist insistence in linking years of birth. I'm afraid your saying "You seem to be a fairly-new editor..." sounded very patronising. Just because someone is new to WP, it doesn't mean he/she is a complete airhead or a dick, or incapable of exercising independent thought. You are absolutely correct in that policies and guidelines are subject to change, but you seem to ignore that that is it is YOU who is stuck in the consensus backwater. Linking to birth years was a neolithic practice, before people realised that indiscriminate linking is actually value destroying; the consensus has got on a rocketship since then. The prevailing view is that years of birth and death are not germane to the subject, and that links should be sparing to have the desired effect in adding value to the reader. Indeed, your justification is so remarkably close to the "in living memory rule" some editors proposed at the mammoth RfC but was rejected in a resounding manner. You will know that WP:BLP has a notability exception for people known for only one thing. Articles of these folks you are so fond of following are usually known for nothing else; some are pathetic stubs and will ever remain so because the subjects' lives are so utterly devoid of achievement. Yet it does not mean birth years ought to be linked because there is precious little else to link to - that just smacks of clutching at straws. Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the handful of people who are interested in what happened in 1890 can enter "1890" in the search box and click "Go". Ryoung122 knows very well that linking dates related to "old" people leads to logical extension problems that will result in the floodgates opening for date linking. (e.g. if you link birth years for 110-year-olds, then why not 109, 108, 107,...99,...89, etc.?). HWV258 . 22:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an e-mail account on Wikipedia?
As Wikipedia policy involves "assuming good faith," I would like to discuss some issues with you. Do you have an off-Wiki e-mail address? Ryoung 122 10:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Birth Year
As each "Year in Baseball" section has a list of players born that year, it has always been my understanding that we were supposed to with Baseball players. Make certain that you are correct about unlinking them, because I believe you are incorrect. That said, I'm certain that you are not supposed to remove birthplaces from the opening of the article.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree emphatically that you should not remove birthplaces from the article opening. That practice has been deprecated.  2) As to the use of baseball years, there is an ongoing discussion at the baseball wikiproject page on that subject right now.  I believe it is leading towards no linking of dates by "by date" in prose, but yes in templates -- for reasons baseball aficionados hold dear.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion on the matter is as stated above: as long as there is a "Births" section in each "Year in baseball" article, why wouldn't it be linked in the player's article? This really makes no sense to me.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That baseball wikiproject page may be a good place to discuss. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of centenarians
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of centenarians. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of centenarians (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Stanley Cup
Hey, I just wanted to say that it looks like you and a few others are doing yeoman's work in beating back constant premature edits to the 2010 bracket. I was involved in the debate over how to (re)design it, and I think we really hit upon a design that does as good a job as can be done of visually showing how the concept of re-seeding works. It gets thrown off when people fiddle with it, though, and Wikipedia is better off for dedicated editors who are willing to do that work. MrArticleOne (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates in Literature by age until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Captain Beefheart
Thankyou, and hello. I notice that you have just replaced this: – on the Captain Beefheart page with this: –. I have seen people do this before, and wondered why. They look exactly the same to me. Rothorpe (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Replied on my page, Rothorpe (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)