User talk:Clarityfiend/2010

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Clarityfiend! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gigi Perreau -

Re: Bogart
I liked your edit summary here. Priceless. Keep up the good work. --- RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm puhleased you liked it. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer
Hi Clarityfiend, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who has been contributing articles since 2006 hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't even aware such a privilege existed. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Courtney Cox
Hello Clarityfiend. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Courtney Cox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not non-controversial for G6; Courteney Cox gets the most views, followed by the dab, the other two are pretty low; move discussion is possibly required. Thank you. - Spaceman  Spiff  09:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. Courtney Cox Cole is not a legitimate entry; middle names don't count. And Couteney Cox has that extra "e" in her name. So the dab page ought to look like this:

Courtney Cox may refer to:


 * Courtney Cox (musician), American guitarist

==See also==
 * Courteney Cox, American actor

Clarityfiend (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That may very well be the case, but it's not non-controversial, the edit before yours on the dab attests to that -- "Courteney Cox is the most important and should be first". Therefore this is not in the scope of a G6 deletion and has to go through a move discussion. cheers. - Spaceman  Spiff  02:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Afd it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia (film) Act I
The problem with the existing text is that it leaves the wrong impression:

Since no Howeitat can retaliate without sparking further bloodshed, Lawrence declares that he will execute the murderer himself.

This strongly suggests, without explicitly saying so, that the Arabs were inhibited by a concern about further bloodshed. They were not, in my view. It was Lawrence who feared further bloodshed, for two reasons: (in the movie at this point) he didn't like killing, but more important than that, he was more concerned about the alliance than were any of the Arab tribes. My rewrite of that para clarified this:

Since there is danger of the alliance being disrupted if any Howeitat retaliate, thereby angering Ali's followers and sparking further bloodshed, Lawrence declares that he will execute the murderer himself.

In my view, the reverted text was better. Richard Myers (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The current version merely states the situation, without any particular subtext. Even if it did suggest that the Arabs were "inhibited by a concern about further bloodshed", how is that wrong? If they weren't, why didn't they start fighting each other? Your version is a bit awkward and a good deal longer without any  advantage IMHO. If you want to emphasize the danger to the alliance, how about:
 * Since Howeitat retaliation would shatter the fragile alliance, Lawrence declares that he will execute the murderer himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like that better than the current text. Richard Myers (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Moses
Hi, I noticed you removed Rossini's opera Moses in Egypt from the Moses (disambiguation) page. This opera is often simply referred to as Moses, i.e., the full name is not always used, so I think that perhaps it should remain on the disambig page. Although there is a redirect page Moses (Rossini), unless someone knows to type in the extra characters " (R", it doesn't seem to show up in the search box. Also if someone just types in "Moses" and hits the return key, they will go directly to the Moses page. If the user then clicks the link for the Moses (disambiguation) page, the way it is now they will not find the opera listed. I don't know whether similar situations may also apply to some of the other items which you removed. It may be safer to add them back to the page, if you are uncertain. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an opera aficionado by any stretch of the imagination, but I can't find any ghits to back the shortened title. If you do decide to restore, I suggest it go in the See also section as Mosè in Egitto. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what does "ghits" mean? I can say that I ran across it in a book referred to simply as Moses (in English, not Mosè) and had to go through quite a few pages to find the correct article on the Wikipedia. (At this moment I cannot remember which book in my library refers to it that way, but I think it may have been in a letter that Busoni wrote to his wife that had been translated into English.) In any case, that is why I added the redirect and the entry on the disambig page. What about a listing as "Moses, an opera by Rossini" or "Moses (Rossini), an opera"? And would that be placed in the "See also"" section? --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I did a search on Google for the phrase "Moses by Rossini" and it turned up about 36,000 hits. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ghit = Google + hit. Okay, I'm convinced, but not through pipelining or as a redirect - both are frowned upon in disambiguation pages (WP:PIPING). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this may qualify as a redirect exception: "Moses in Egypt, an opera by Rossini", since this is an alternate name which includes the disambiguated term and is in (now) the article's lead sentence (as it should be). --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see you have already added it. I have no problem with the way you have done it, although the simpler English-only version might be preferred, but my experience with disambiguation issues is limited, so I'm happy to defer to your edit. Thanks for all the info and help, and for reinstating it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As symbol in American history
Per your removal from the disambiguation page, "Moses symbol American history" has 150,000 results, and the key terms, "Moses American history"returns over 1.3 million items. Can you explain why adding this to the page is not acceptable in your opinion? There are many other similar Moses-related articles listed; at least this one relates to the primary article. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read WP:DABNOT. Disambiguation pages are for those articles that a reader would be expected to find by typing "Moses", i.e. those that are synonymous with the term, and "Moses as symbol in American history" isn't even close. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Les Nessman and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Les Nessman, Jennifer Marlowe. 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 the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/Les Nessman for Les Nessman, Articles for deletion/Jennifer Marlowe for Jennifer Marlowe. 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) 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost Town (disambiguation)
Ghost Town in the Sky somehow got deleted. We around here often just call it "Ghost Town". We appreciate your efforts to fix what needed to be fixed, but you got a little too ambitious. You weren't the first, but the other person understood and let it stay. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No Country... revision
Some of your revision ideas I like. It's a bit much though. I hope you're open to discussion. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific if you want a response. What's a bit much? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Too much = too many changes on an established article all at once. Forgive me, I don't have the time to go over everything this minute. The biggest area for discussion would be eliminating the dreams. That's always been there, I believe, and I think it's part of the plot. But I'm thinking about it, too. Maybe you're right. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the dreams as an integral part of the plot. Maybe they could be mentioned (if somebody could explain their significance to me), but not to the point of describing them in such detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to explain them. Let's just say that they are there for a reason and no one else ever suggested taking them out that I can recall. The story isn't over when Chigurh walks down the street. --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 category
Hello... thanks for the note. The category typically isn't applied until the series actually ends, as until such time as that occurs we cannot guarantee it as being true. In a similar manner, we don't tag shows as debuting ahead of time as schedules can all too easily change. Unfortunately, the editor who applied the tag (repeatedly, at that) has a history of problematic edits. Hope this helps. --Ckatz chat spy  06:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill Forsyth
Hi Clarityfiend. Sorry about the edit conflicts while we are both working on Comfort and Joy. I got a region free DVD player awhile ago and one of the reason was to get C&J on DVD as my VHS tape was fading. I recently picked up his 1st film That Sinking Feeling. The wikiarticle mentions the differences between the original release and the US release regarding the dubbing of the voices. Do you know anything about the details of this? To me some of the voices sound like the original actors - in that they sound just like they do in Gregory's Girl. Other voices do sound like they have been dubbed by someone else. If you don't have any info no worries I was just curious. Now if we could only get someone to release Housekeeping on DVD. I adore this film and the British Columbia locations would look great on an HD TV. Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 19:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No idea about the dubbing. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Midway
As far as I can tell, the references say it was the most important, not that everyone thinks it was the most important. This is why I ask "how widely is widely"? Is it three references? Is it four? If we want to say it was the most important, and we can take it that the sources universally agree on that point, then "widely" is an unnecessary interpolation. If on the other hand one of the references is specifically saying that it is widely considered as such, then great. We can leave it in. Slac speak up! 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do the sources "universally agree" (and how would you prove it)? I sorta doubt it. I suspect there's at least one maverick historian who objects. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine, we don't have to give WP:Undue Weight. We can just say "the most important", and footnote the maverick. Slac speak up! 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ghân-buri-Ghân
Hello! I see that you posted a comment at Articles for deletion/Ghân-buri-Ghân. Since then, the article Ghân-buri-Ghân has been expanded and references added. Just in case you want to take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robin and "Robin the Boy Wonder
I see you reverted my change.

This needs to be changed back. A user searching Wikipedia for information on Robin-the-comic-character is GOING to search "Robin." They should not need to take the path Robin -> Robin (name) -> Robin (comics) -- this simply does not reflect a logical train of thought, however hierarchical it may appear. It's particularly unlikely a user will take this path given that the description for Robin (name) is "a common given name and a surname," as "Robin" in the context of the comic book character is neither.

More to the point, it's friggin' Robin for chrissakes.

Your wikipedantry is making Wikipedia less useful. Please consider this a formal request to make this change. I feel strongly enough about this that I will pursue it to arbitration.

And I will continue to edit Wikipedia anonymously, TYVM. As if it's even relevant. Please keep discussion to the topic at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.252.87 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion
Dear Cf,

I need a second opinion. I think the following addition is pretty worthless:


 * 05:43, 28 March 2010 -- 124.149.74.102

But, maybe I missing something. Please review and advise.

Thanks. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody got there first and correctly deleted it as useless trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the IP added it, Trekphiler removed it, IP added it, I removed it, IP added it, Trekphiler removed it. I have a feeling that the IP will be back. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "are romantically involved at one time." "Are" is present tense, "at one time" is past tense. Need more clarity on that one. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you expect for $0 a day, plus expenses? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion about Ventura Freeway
Hello! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.

Here's the background: The members of WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". Someone else reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are talking about a delete-and-merge again. Since you took part in the original discussion, I thought you might want to have some input at the relocated discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions on Carpenter (surname) page without adequate explanation
Hello,

On the Carpenter (surname) page you have twice deleted information which by consensus has been agreed upon. Instead of an edit war or other bad feelings, please explain your deletions on the discussion page. I have started the discussion there and I would welcome your explanations or observations. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Little ships of Dunkirk
Hello Clarityfiend

I notice that you have removed Sundowner that I had added to the “see also” list. I have put it back as I think it is worth listing there as it is one of only a few articles on Wikipedia about a vessel involved in the evacuation. I know that it has been wikfyed in the article but the “see also” is a more specific link and so worth included.  stavros1  ♣  22:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Roman Holiday edit...
Wanted to do it myself, but didn't have the stones. Thanks again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. WP:Be bold. The truth shall set you free (or at least get you lots of angry responses from misguided editors). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox
Just wanted to thank you for the bits of copyediting you've done on this article. I'm throwing it up at WP:FAC, and it's always beneficial to have someone who hasn't stared at the same text 40 times over to catch those little issues that I don't see anymore! Regards, Resolute 20:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IMDb quote
I noticed when as I was creating the talk page that I'd actually wound up using a source with alternate wording for both Get/Take and Damn/Damned. It may be a Southern California thing, but it just sounds so much more polite that way LOL. I'll go ahead change it back on Planet of the Apes (1968 film) too, (if you're really really sure). I hope they don't delete everything!—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how anybody could hear the difference between "damn" and "damned" (maybe it was written that way in the script), but this Youtube video makes it clear it's "take", not "get". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sound is much more clear on that one, "Take" for sure, (and probably "damn").—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Vivien Leigh surely
"Who is the Scarlet O'Hara mentioned in the "Franz Josef" escape? Clarityfiend 04:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)"


 * I have left a response to this comment on the talk page. Since you made your comment over three years ago, I thought it might be polite to leave a notice here ;) Qarnos (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sleeping position article...
Hope you don't mind, I took the liberty: Template_talk:Did_you_know. Cheers! -- Jayron  32  00:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Brau´s Casablanca
Thank you very much, Clarityfiend,for your suggestion about Brau´s Casablanca. At last somebody who doesn´t behave like a child. I just wanted to share the news about a book I consider very much related to the movie itself. But I don´t want to start any discussion, since I don´t know how to probe that something is notable.

Best regards,

MrsCinnamonMrsCinnamon (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll have to bear with us. We're just really really passionate about this film. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

ProBe
Sorry for not having answered before. But sometimes I need to sleep (my "proBe" proves the point).

I love Casablanca too, and everything connected with the movie.

Many thanks for your contribution.

Best

MrsCinnamon (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Alcoholism in Russia
Hi, I hope it's not me who is keeping your DYK from being accepted. In any case I have proposed an alternative hook for the reason explained at T:TDYK. Thanks for the interesting article! Hans Adler 12:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Casino Royale
Thank you much, I had been searching without success. -- Preceding unsigned  comment  12:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles
I noticed that you have revised either Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.

I intend to revise those articles following the WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have. It would be best if your comments were on the discussion pages of the two articles.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Midway
IT is only your opinion that the Sabaton song is "non-notable". It is a fact that the song is about this battle and you should not have removed the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.235.252 (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger
You recently suggested merging Alton Township, Madison County, Illinois with Alton, Illinois, but no reason was provided. Do you have some information that indicates that the articles should be merged? Omnedon (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They appear to me to be one and the same. They have the same population and location. The only reason I didn't just go ahead and merge them was the possibility that they are different governmental entities. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most likely they are separate entities; that's not uncommon. We would need a clear indication that the township no longer exists as a separate entity before we could merge these articles.  Omnedon (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * After a closer look, it does appear that they are distinct. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bristol Blenheim
Very nice edit - original (apart from being POV) had the look of having been "lifted" from source and really needed fixing - which you did perfectly! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * :-) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jean Arthur
Hi Clarityfiend. I just noticed. I updated the filmography yesterday to remove the colspans per Manual of Style (accessibility) and to make the table sortable. I know a lot of articles have filmographies with rowspans, and several variations of that basic style, but even if it's a majority, it's not necessarily a standard. When the rowspans were added back in, it rendered the table to be not sortable, and therefore no longer accessible - the sort button now causes the table to fragment. Cheers, Rossrs (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! :-)  Rossrs (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mills
It's obvious from watching Taken that Mills is pretty much a former operative highly trained in both armed and unarmed combat. If you know anything about the CIA, the average "CIA agent" is a case officer. Sure, they get very basic training in small arms and how to try to defend themselves (about the same as the average cop), but by no means are they ninja assassin James Bond action heroes who can kill a thousand different ways with their bare hands.

The Special Activities Division of the CIA, however, is where you would find the few agents who actually do the kind of things that Mills does in the movie. They all have some kind of military special forces background. Mills is obviously not some frat boy case officer recruited out of college. This is why I specified that he is in the Special Activities Division. Not that you or most people who make or watch movies know the difference anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upthera23 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Invitation for objective participation in discussion
As a trusted editor on WP, you're invited to look at the discussion at Articles for deletion/James Cagney, Jr. and comment. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Einstein cites
Thanks for sorting out those cites, I should have done it really. Best wishes, ValenShephard (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to do it. (Besides, it gets me one step further on The More-Important-Than-Life-Itself List.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look
You recently voted in a Articles for Deletion debate regarding the Staff Nurse Ella Kate Cooke article. Since your vote, I have completely re-worked the article and added reliable sources to it. In light of this, could you please reword your vote as a response that relates to the re-worked article (whether that be Keep or Delete)? Silver seren C 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Network disambiguation page
An editor is adding a lot of entries to Network which I thought were partial matches and therefore fail MOS:DAB. Could you, as a dab project member, take a look and give a comment, or better still, make some edits. Discussion here. Cheers,  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your assistance there, it's difficult to make progress when it's just two editors disagreeing.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  22:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

William Madison McDonald
Excellent article. Just wanted to let you know that the page Roger Williams University (Nashville, Tennessee) does exist, albeit in rudimentary form; I've taken the liberty of linking to it. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
As a respected WP editor, you are invited to participate in the following discussion: Articles for deletion/Clyde Lucas (2nd nomination)

/* a request */
Please don't forget that the deletion policies recommend leaving a good faith heads-up on the talk page of the article creators when you nominate an article for deletion. You didn't advise me when you nominated HMS Crab (fictional Hornblower vessel).

Please bear in mind that we are all supposed to assume good faith.

Please bear in mind that our ability to assume good faith is a limited resource.

When contributors needlessly skip steps, thinking their time is too important, they put an avoidable and needless burden on those on the receiving end.

Please try and understand that those of us on the receiving end of your step-skipping would rather reserve our store of good faith for real unavoidable misunderstandings. Geo Swan (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nickle
Ahhh. Thanks, that explains.. Outback the koala (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Red Dawn
Hi, I reverted your category edits on Red Dawn because it's certainly not a sci-fi film and is in Spanish and Russian as well as being a UA film. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think a film about World War III would constitute science fiction, but I'm not seeing much out there categorizing Red Dawn as such. I'll ponder this a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, World War III doesn't necessarily mean sci-fi... it could be considered alternate history though. Red Dawn has a lot more in common with Amerika or even The Day After rather than Star Wars, IMO. Markvs88 (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EarthShare


The article EarthShare has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * notability in doubt since 2008. no sources indicating notability at all and not solvable (or no one on the project capable of solving it)

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. L.tak (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback...
thanks for the feedback

... and link to the guidelines...

Q: will correct or should I take another try at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howard nyc (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already cleaned up Bujold's article. How about tackling Vorkosigan Saga? Note: you should only link the first instance of a word or phrase, unless they're very far apart. Also, avoid tagging things that are not likely to satisfy WP:Notability, e.g. fast-penta. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth McCarthy
This person has been in over 19 productions and recently was a main character in the plot line for fringe. As well was a guest star in Cold Squad. Exactly what is enough of an acting role do you require before they are acceptable to you as being notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.34.24 (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hubert Léonard and Hubert Leonard
I am sure you won't have any idea what I'm talking about; it's been more than a year since you made the edit to the Dutch Leonard article. I somehow always manage to talk with other editors about issues, long after the issues have expired.

Anyway, in that edit you removed the "hatnote" to Hubert Léonard, citing WP:NAMB. While at first glance, the bit about the tree seems to apply, actually what happens (and the reason I put the hatnote there in the first place) is that Dutch Leonard's name Hubert Leonard differs from Hubert Léonard only by an accent on the e. So if someone trying to find the violinist were to type, without accents, Hubert Leonard in the WP search box (that was especially true before suggestions popped up, but could still be true with javascript deactivated) they would get the baseball player and they wouldn't know what hit them. I don't think users of the English WP are in the habit of typing french (or any other) accents.

So, I am contending that the part of the rule that is actually applicable is: "A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it"

Alternatively, the Hubert Leonard article could stop being a redirection to Dutch Leonard (left-handed pitcher), and become and disambiguation page.

Cheers, --Atavi (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice that Hubert Leonard redirected to the pitcher because the type of hatnote wasn't quite right. It's a close call, but I don't think a dab page is warranted for two entries, even though IMO they are fairly close in importance. So I've just put a hatnote back in. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I actually just "checked in" again. I saw that you acted within a few hours of my initial message.
 * Well, thanks for the no fuss action, which you took the initiative to do yourself.
 * I realized from the beginning that this specific redirect is very difficult to spot, especially since the main articles have completely different titles. I don't think anyone would notice unless they type the name. That's actually how I "found out" about this.
 * Again, thanks -Atavi (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Thomas Howes (actor) (2nd nomination)
This article has been re-created. As you took part in the previous discussion, I'm letting you know that I have nominated it at AfD. (There's probably a template for this, but I can't find it. Sorry. Not often I do this.) Peridon (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Article has now been speedied. Peridon (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)