User talk:Neelix/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! DS 18:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

CMC
Hi Neelix, I really like the organization you've applied to the CMC abbreviation article. I'm wondering, however, about the placement of CMC of Irish Dance. I think it might be a better fit under the Music category, if it were to be entitled Music & Entertainment. I didn't want to just jump straight in and switch your excellent reformatting around, but am interested in what you think.--Kelly Kohnen 05:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kelly,


 * Thank you for your polite suggestion. I always enjoy good communication among Wikipedians.


 * I had placed Cosa Meara Company of Irish Dance in the "Education" section of CMC because it is a college network. I try to avoid mixed categories such as "Music & Entertainment" simply because they combine separate fields.  If you feel that the entry should be moved to the "Music" section, perhaps the title of that section could be switched to "Entertainment" as the other entries in that category are also in that field.


 * I'm glad you approve of my reformat of the CMC page. I'm on a character combination stint, going around to all the 3 and 4-character combination pages I can find to reformat them.  It's good to receive encouragement and helpful criticism as I do so.


 * Neelix 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Katherine/Catherine
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I was wondering why you chose to undo my merger of Catherine and Katherine without any explanation. In general, it is good practice to leave an edit summary so people know what you're up to. I suggested a merger more than a week ago, and since no one responded, I performed it. I thought it was unrealistic to have two different pages for two spellings of the same name. Thanks, Lesgles ( talk ) 20:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Neelix. Don't worry about it, and I'll be sure to keep Catherine Booth in there! Lesgles ( talk ) 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Qor
Hi, Neelix. Please be careful when you make edits to redirects, such as what you did with "Qor". It redirects to the acronym/word QOR, which disambiguates to (now) three links. I added Kor to the disambig page, which I suggest is probably what you intended to do in the first place. Cheers. SigPig 20:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Manual of Style
I recently edited a disambiguation page you created, Big Game (disambiguation). Please read the Manual of Style before proceeding to make any more disambiguation pages. Thanks for your contributions, and if you have any questions, please go to my talk page. Happy editing! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Phage
Thankyou for establishing a disambiguation page, and I hope you don't mind that I flipped it around a bit. Considering "phage" is by far more used as a shortened form of "bacteriophage" I created a Phage (disambiguation) page, redirected Phage to Bacteriophage and added a disambiguation link in Bacteriophage. Thanks again for creating the disambig page - I think it works much better than my former plain redirect. Also, Neelix from Voyager was my favourite character ;-) -- Serephine / talk - 02:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Chain
Nice job on reformatting chain! Gregorydavid 10:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing Five and Nine
To answer the question you asked on my talk page, here's what I would do:
 * If it's a number in the name of a proper noun (e.g., Seven of Nine, 2 + 2 = 5, etc.) and it has its own article, it goes in disambiguation.
 * If it's the number itself in the context of something else (e.g., starfish usually have five arms, nine is often considered a lucky number) and it does not have its own article, it goes in the main number article. --DryaUnda 06:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Big Game James
Yes, the dropping of this entry was intentional - knowing people could restore it if they believed I was wrong. My thinking: Disambiguation pages are for sorting out which of several pages the user wants to get to when they enter the keyword. It didn't make sense to me that someone would enter "Game" expecting to find Mr. Worthy. Perhaps Big Game - and he would find it. But just "Game" didn't seem a likely thing for someone looking for him to type in. I feel strongly enough about it to suggest you don't put it back in, but not enough to revert it if you decide to do so. John (Jwy) 22:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind and insightful response. From your explanation, I must agree.  I will not put it back in.
 * Neelix 15:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

dabbing
Glad you are into dabbing as well. But, as you might notice, I made a change to Game (disambiguation) after yours. You might want to double check WP:MOSDAB, especially WP:MOSDAB and the usual practise is not to alphabetize, but to put the most likely target toward the top. Makes fixing the pages more fun, actually. None of these problems are major problems, but if you are going to be doing a lot of this, its worth checking. . . Have fun. John (Jwy) 04:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I always appreciate helpful suggestions from more experienced Wikipedia editors.  I'll try to remember to keep the primary target at the top from now on.
 * Neelix 15:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mention it except you plan to do a lot of dab stuff. And thanks for correcting my Grammar. . .  John (Jwy) 20:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Red Links are adored
I had searched out names of people named Jones and created a passel of Red Links which have been destroyed. I had intended to create articles for each of the Red Links. Your name is conspicuously present on the Jones "History" page. If you destroyed my Red Links at Jones, you harmed my work. Wikipedia adores Red Links, therefore, removing them should be avoided. Superslum 06:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Superslum,
 * I'm sorry to have upset you about the Jones page. I hadn't realized that the broken links had been inserted there on purpose.  Normally, disambiguation pages collect broken links over time due to articles being deleted or random additions from passers-by.


 * As a general rule of thumb, I agree with your assertion that links to pages that have not yet been made are valid, however I would find that most true of articles and stubs rather than disambiguation pages. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct people quickly to the page they are looking for.  Broken links stand in the way of that.


 * As to my "name being conspicuously present on the Jones 'History' page", I kept a summary of my edits which is found on that page. I made no attempt to keep people from knowing that I "deleted broken links".


 * I would suggest that you write the articles for people named Jones before you link to them on the disambiguation page. I have not destroyed your work as the entries are still saved in the history of the page.  In creating your new articles, you can use that as your reference.
 * Neelix 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Narnia
Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in The Chronicles of Narnia. I thought you may be interested in knowing that there is a WikiProject working to improve articles about Narnia, your help would be greatly appreciated. Please consider joining the WikiProject Narnia. Thank you! Bornagain4 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clovis/Ludwig
I saw your article List of names derived from Clovis and I would like to ask you what your source is, because as far as I know the information there is wrong. Clovis is not the root of all these names, it is Hludwig.

BehindTheName.com explicitely states that:


 * Ludwig comes from the Germanic name Hludwig which meant "famous warrior", composed of the elements hlud "fame" and wig "warrior". This was the name of three Merovingian kings of the Franks, though their names are usually spelled in the Latinized form Clovis, and three kings of Bavaria.

It seems that you misinterpreted this and concluded that ALL names derived from clovis, which is wrong. Clovis is only a latinized form of the name and does NOT have frankish roots. Although some names may derive from it, they do not all trace their roots back to Clovis (The name Ludwig is not related to Clovis at all). Unless you don't mind, I will try to change some of your pages, but please check your sources in future references. --Ludvig 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for picking up on my onomastical error. I did not find the information on "Behind The Name" but on a Wikipedia disambiguation page.  As information not contained in entries should not be contained on the respective disambiguation page, I moved this information to List of names derived from Clovis.  I proceeded to add given names and surnames that were listed in entries on that page as being derived from each other or from the same source.  Do you believe "Behind The Name" a credible source?


 * If you feel confident that Hludwig is the proper root, the easiest way to fix this problem is probably to simply rename the article "List of names derived from Hludwig". Almost all of the entries have respective disambiguation pages, and most of these have a link to "List of names derived from Clovis" in their "See also" section.  Although each of these would need to be changed individually, I see this as the best way of clearing things up.


 * Neelix 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Madge disambiguation page
Hi! I just added Madonna back on the Madge disambiguation page, and thought it'd be polite to explain why. If you still disagree with me, feel free to change it back; I don't normally spend much time on disambiguation. I added it back in because I believe that the purpose of a disambiguation page is ultimately to help someone find what they're looking for. As long as the page is clear and easy to understand, I think that adding additional meanings helps the users who can now find what they're looking for, while not really affecting users who were looking for one of the other meanings. Madge is a commonly-used nickname for Madonna, particularly within the press, and I think that a reasonable person may type it in, looking for Madonna. That it's not detailed in the Madonna article is irrelevant, to my mind. (I could have added it there, I suppose, but the article is really long as it is.) The single nickname "Jacko" isn't in Michael Jackson, either ("Wacko Jacko" is, but it's unique enough to not need a disambiguation page), but it's a legitimate disambiguation, in my opinion, for much the same reason. Anyways, cheers! --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Baby,
 * I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reason for adding Madonna to the Madge disambiguation page. I agree with your ideas about disambiguation pages; that their purpose is to help people locate a specific article, that not only the most common entries should be found there, and that it is reasonable to have Madonna on the Madge page considering it is her nickname.  I also believe that disambiguation pages should not include pictures, citations, or new information.  If an entry's article does not include information that is contained on the disambiguation description, then either important information is missing from the article or obscure information is used on the disambiguation page.  Because Madge is not mentioned as a nickname for Madonna on her article, I took it off the disambiguation page.  Still, I understand your reasons for wanting to keep it there and I won't remove it again.
 * Neelix 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nikolay
Hi, Neelix! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. In the edit summary, you specified that you reformatted the page "according to disambiguation page guidelines" (I assume you mean WP:MOSDAB). You also restored most of the entries dealing with people whose first name is Nikolay (e.g., Nikolay Kharitonov and Nikolay Zimyatov). However, MOSDAB specifically mentions that [p]eople who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name. With Russians, it means that listing people with the last name matching the title of the dab page is fine, but listing people with the first name matching the title of the dab page is not. In spirit of disambiguation guidelines, only royalties and non-human entities should remain on this particular dab page, and all people with the first name of Nikolay should go to currently non-existing List of people named Nikolay, a link to which should be provided at the bottom of the dab page.

Furthermore, I wonder if Nikolay itself should either be a redirect to Nicholas (with the disambiguation page located at Nikolay (disambiguation)) or if the information about Russian human name should be put to Nikolay (name) (in which case the dab page will stay at "Nikolay").

Your comments on this will be much appreciated.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ezhiki,


 * Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was, however, referring to WP:MOSDAB.  I have been reformatting disambiguation pages since January, at which time I read through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages very thoroughly.  I have not referred back to it very often since then.  Apparently the guidelines have changed.  Now having read the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", I agree with your assessment that the people named "Nikolay" or "Nikolai" should not be mixed with other entries.  The entries should be moved to List of people named Nikolay.


 * If this change is made, the only entries left on Nikolay will be Nikolai, Alaska and Prince Nikolai of Denmark. I would suggest that Nikolai be switched from a redirect page to a short disambiguation page with these two entries and a "See also" section with a link to Nicholas and List of people named Nikolai.  Nikolay could then be switched to a redirect page to List of people named Nikolay.  Let me know what you think.


 * Neelix 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neelix, thank you for your thorough explanation. Unannounced changes in the guidelines hit everyone every once in a while, so no problem there.
 * I have several comments regarding your response above. First of all, creating separate lists of people named "Nikolay" and "Nikolai" is really unnecessary.  Both spellings refer to the same Russian name of "Николай"; the only difference is the transliteration method.  Second, Prince Nikolai of Denmark wouldn't be the only one left.  Both Nicholas I and II should stay, because they are well-known as either Nicholases or Nikola[y/i]s.  Nikolai, Alaska, of course, is a definite keep.  Alwin Nikolais should probably go, or he may be mentioned in the "see also" section.
 * Finally, about the list of people named Nikolay. Would you like to compile this list yourself, or would you prefer me doing it?  For starters, it can include over sixty Nikolays listed in the list of Russians; others will surely follow.
 * Again, thanks for taking time to respond to this. Best,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ezhiki,


 * I'm glad we're working this out together. The reason I have been editing pages relating to "Nicholas" is that all of its varients are listed on that page.  I would like to use that page as a hub, each varient linked to a list of people with that name.  That way, the etymology and origin of the names need only be recorded on the "Nicholas" page.  A page called List of people named Nicholas could be linked as well.  This would eliminate the need to have the "Famous persons with the name Nicholas" on the "Nicholas" page.  I would also suggest that a person should be listed on only one of the "List of people named..." pages linked from "Nicholas".  This would avoid needless repetition.


 * For this reason, I would not leave "Nicholas I of Russia" and "Nicholas II of Russia" on "Nikolay" as they could be listed on "List of people named Nicholas". As to who should make the changes, I would like to try, but there are so many varients that any help you could provide would be much appreciated.  Let's solidify our solution before we start in.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts.


 * Neelix 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Neelix, the problem with listing people in only one list has merit insofar as navigation is facilitated, but it may be a problem if it's the only approach we consider. Although "Nicholas XX" is the prevailing usage, it is not at all uncommon when these two emperors are referred to as Nikola[y/i] XX in English, and it is impossible to tell which of these titles a reader would expect to find.  We, of course, should provide for both contingencies.
 * Considering how I handled similar situations in the past, here is how I would do it for Nicholas I (just an example):
 * he would be listed as Nicholas I on the "Nicholas" dab page;
 * "Nicholas" dab page would link to "Nikolay" dab page, to the "list of people named Nicholas", and to the "list of people named Nikolay" in the "see also" section;
 * Nicholas I would be listed on "Nikolay" disambiguation page, with a note that while "Nicholas" is prevailing usage, "Nikolay" is also common (aka clause)
 * "Nikolay" dab page would link to "Nicholas" dab page, to the "list of people named Nikolay", and to the "list of people named Nicholas" in the "see also" section;
 * "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology, with cross-links to related dabs and lists;
 * Nicholas I would be listed in the list of people named Nicholas;
 * he would also be listed in the list of people named Nikolay, with a note stating that while "Nicholas" variant is more common in English, "Nikolay" is also used;
 * The reason why I prefer keeping both Nicholases on the "Nikolay" dab page is the same MOSDAB provision I cited above. They both are very frequently referred to simply by their single name, be it "Nicholas" or "Nikolay".
 * I understand that the original way you proposed is cleaner and simpler, but unfortunately it may not serve the best interests of readers (the "needless repetition" you mentioned is in fact not needless&mdash;in this particular case it serves a useful purpose). If you have other suggestions regarding how to improve this (admittedly quite complicated!) situation, I'll be more than happy to hear them out.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ezhiki,


 * I've never had such an in-depth conversation with someone on Wikipedia before. I do think we're getting somewhere.


 * I can understand why you want to list "Nicholas I of Russia" on so many different list pages and disambiguation pages, so I will go along with it. There are, however, a few things in the scheme you outlined which still seem to constitute "needless repitition":


 * You have suggested that "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology. Should not the origins and etimology of the name Nikolay and Nicholas both be explained on the Nicholas page as they are both derivatives of Nikolaos?  The majority of this information should be the same.  I would suggest that "Nikolay" be a redirect to "Nicholas" as that is where links to "List of people named derivative of Nikolaos" could be located.  It is currently where the list of derivatives are located.  If you feel that this location is biased towards the common English spelling, perhaps this information (derivatives along with their "List of people named..." links) could be located on the "Nikolaos" page and all its derivatives could redirect there (or link there in the case that a disambiguation page for a derivative is necessary).


 * It is important to develop a scheme which could be followed for all the derivatives of "Nikolaos" rather than just "Nikolay" and "Nikolai". Thank you for persisting with me in developing this scheme.


 * Neelix 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Neelix, I sure hope you are enjoying this discussion of ours, because I can go like that all day :) Thanks for bearing with me and for your patience.
 * To address your issues: first of all, just to clarify, I don't want to include these Russian tsars into every page related to "Nicholas", only to "Nicholas" itself and to "Nikolay" (and into two corresponding lists of people), so there are just four pages, not many.
 * Second, you are absolutely correct that the information about name origins and etimology should be (and already is) included in "Nicholas", not in "Nikolay". It was an oversight on my part&mdash;thanks for catching this inconsistency in my logic.
 * I wouldn't, however, make "Nikolay" a redirect to "Nicholas". From what I understand, you said above that you do not object to including Russian tsars to the "Nikolay" dab page.  With the prince and the Alaskan town, there are four entries, which well justifies existence of a separate dab page.  Same goes for all other variants of Nicholas&mdash;if there is a sufficient number of entries for a dab page, there should be a said dab; if the number of entries is two or less, then a redirect to "Nicholas" would suffice.
 * The dab pages, in turn, would point to "Nicholas" as the main article about the name, list entries which comply with MOSDAB, and provide links to applicable lists (such as "list of people named Nikolay" on "Nikolay" dab page) in the "see also" section.
 * As for minor name variations ("Nikolai" vs. "Nikolay"), this phenomenon is extremely common for Russian names. I would simply make "Nikolai" a redirect to "Nikolay" dab (not to "Nicholas"!) where all Nikolais and Nikolays would be bundled together.  For a similar solution, check out Sovetsky, which lists all three forms (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of the Russian adjective, all of which redirect to that dab.  "See also" also provides a link to Soviet (disambiguation) as well as a link to the derivative form Sovetsk.
 * I think such system covers all contingencies. Let me know if you see anything that wouldn't work if applied to the situation in question.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ezhiki,


 * I do believe we have come to some conclusion. The scheme you have outlined sounds like it would work very well.  I do not see any problems with it.  Would you mind reformatting "Nikolai", "Nikolay", "List of people named Nikolai", and "List of people named Nikolay" as you have suggested?  I would like to view your edits in order to make sure I understand your method.  If I still have no concerns, I will gladly use your formatting as a template for the other derivatives of "Nicholas", and possibly for other names after that.


 * I'm so glad we have worked this out. It has been good conversing with you.


 * Neelix 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure working with you too, Neelix. I will make an effort to work on Nicholas-related lists/dabs tomorrow; if nothing urgent comes up, that is.  Let me know if you need anything else.  Best,&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On lists
Hi, Neelix! Me again.

I must admit it's been quite a while since I last took interest in lists of people by first name. It seems that current convention is to add all "lists of people named SO-AND-SO" to an appropriate location in the list of people by name (see, for example, how "Nicholas" is already taken care of. I'd have to dig up appropriate guidelines regarding who should and who should not be included, if we are to start a new "Nikolay as given name" subsection, and whether or not separate lists of people named so-and-so are allowed any more (I couldn't find any for first names, only for last names, although admittedly I didn't look all that hard).  Would you know anything about current conventions?  Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again,


 * After doing some research into the subject, I believe the current convention is to do away with as many individual lists as possible, replacing them with categories. The rest are to be compiled by linking them all together, as in List of people by name or Lists of office-holders.  The only guideline I have been able to find about who should not be included in "List of people by name" states that fictional people should not be included.  In the case of people named Nikolai or Nikolay, it is probably best to simply list them in "List of people by name".  Thank you for pointing this out.  I could have wasted a lot of time compiling unconventional lists.


 * Neelix 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * PS - After looking into the matter a little more, I find that people are not listed on the "List of people by name" by their given name(s) if they have a surname. I am unsure of whether these people should be listed on a "List of people named..." page, although this would be my best guess. If you find out anything about this, please let me know.

Red lks on LoPbN
_ _ Please don't remove entries from LoPbN simply bcz the corresponding articles don't exist (as apparently on List of people by name: Para-Parj. Research a few years ago suggested a high rate of creation of articles corresponding to such lks; even if their presence on LoPbN was not what stimulated their creation (hard to measure!), keeping them saves the effort of re-entering them. (Especially to the point, in light of high rate of Category:Living people articles that don't appear on LoPbN.) I remove them when Also, occasionally, something motivates me to do a Google test even in the absence of a justified presumption. _ _ BTW, i mention after glancing at the discussion in the preceding sections, that i think you'll find a thrust to replace lists with Categories, but not in cases (e.g. holders of specific offices, MacArthur fellows, Academy Award winners) where complete lists can be assembled. (And LoPbN is an exception, tho never completable, because of the value of the single alpha list for "eye-ball search" where the searcher lacks the complete name or its exact spelling.) And lower nobility, pre-Renaissance commoners (mostly scholars), and stage names (Madonna, Rose Marie, Fabian, Fabio, Ann-Margret) are additional reasons for given-name instances. --Jerzy•t 05:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the content inherantly suggest non-notability (description focusing on relationship to an unspecified person, e.g. "husband and father"; hyperbolic description, e.g. "world's greatest ..."; young subject in areas where notability normally requires extended study and/or experience, i.e. most areas except acting and pop music)
 * there is evidence of obscurity (usually a Google-test; especially relevant for actors -- check IMDb -- or musicians -- i dunno where to check, but you may)
 * an article has existed but been deleted (other than for copyvio) -- AfD page included on "what links here" listing; deletion-log entry

Changes to Moor
Hi, I wonder if you could explain this edit? You say "Reformatted according to disambiguation page guidelines", but an important part of those guidelines is that you shouldn't add links to articles that merely incorporate the name of the disambiguation page, unless those things are commonly known simply by that name. Bodmin Moor, Curry and Hay Moors, Emley Moor etc. are just arbitrary examples of the many hundreds of moors with articles. Moreover, you relegated moorland to the "see also" section when it should be at or near the top of the page, since one of the main meanings of "moor" is as a synonym for "moorland". Or to put it another way, someone looking for information about Bodmin Moor would type "Bodmin Moor" into the search box, not "moor"; but someone writing about Bodmin Moor might well write "Bodmin Moor is a moor ", and a reader following the link would want be able to find the correct meaning easily. --Blisco 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Blisco,


 * I understand your concerns about my edit of the Moor page. I mostly agree with you.  As you may read in the "Nikolay" section of my talk page, I spent most of the year reformatting disambiguation pages according to WP:MOSDAB as it existed at the beginning of the year.  These guidelines have changed since then and I did not check back until Ezhiki pointed out my mistake.  Since then, I have been reformatting according to the current version of WP:MOSDAB.


 * With regard to your edit, however, I would question your deletion of the "See also" section, which is an important part of any disambiguation page, as is still written on WP:MOSDAB. I would also question your deletion of the Moors (race), Enchanted moors, and Moors murders entries, which still seem appropriate for the Moor disambiguation page.


 * I appreciate your concern for this disambiguation page and hope we will be able to come to an agreeable solution.
 * Neelix 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in replying. I did take the lazy option in reverting, for which apologies. I'll put back Moors (race) (which really ought to be merged into Moors, but does belong on the dab page for now), and any of the "see also" links that could conceivably be confused with "moor" (i.e. not Moorefield, Moorestown etc.). However, I'd disagree with including Enchanted moors and Moors murderers, since they're very much names in their own right: no one looking for information on those topics is likely to look under "Moor", and no editor referring to them is likely to link to "Moor". Hope that makes sense, and please edit the page further if you think I've missed something. --Blisco 20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Blisco,


 * That all sounds reasonable. My last concern remains that enchanted moors is not included on the disambiguation page.  They are supernatural beings in Portuguese folklore, and are often refered to as "moors"; not always "enchanted moors".  I see it as being very likely that someone looking for the "enchanted moors" page would simply know of them as "moors" and expect to find it with that word only.  Still, I'll leave it up to your judgement.


 * Neelix 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You know...
...scanning the "new pages created" as I have been doing all week, seeing your "Long-haired", "Red-haired", "Chestnut-collared", etc disambig pages flying by brings a certain normality to the procedings. "Violet-chested" is a particular favourite of mine, I must admit. ;) Bubba hotep 20:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Bubba,


 * I'm glad you're enjoying my disambiguation pages. It's good to know that someone appreciates my edits.


 * Neelix 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do enjoy the break from the monotony of obvious vanity, spam, defamation, and nonsense pages, yes. In fact, I do often find myself chuckling as another Neelix page goes by. Keep it up! :) Bubba hotep 20:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Giant disambiguation page (in both senses)
Hi, me again! A related gripe I'm afraid. I had occasion to use the Giant disambiguation page today, and spent some time (well, ten seconds or so, but it felt longer than it should have done) searching for the meaning I wanted, Giant (mythology). (I was rewriting and wikifying the legend of The Wrekin if you're interested.) Now your recent reformatting of that page is all very neat and logical (sections in alphabetical order, with entries in each section also in alphabetical order), but it seems to me that it's obscuring the main function of a disambiguation page: to quote from WP:MOSDAB, "to help people find the information they want quickly and easily. These pages are not for exploration, but only to help the user navigate to a specific article."

Now, what might you be looking for if you typed 'giant' in the search box and hit 'Go'? In terms of encyclopedia articles, I would have thought the mythological meaning is the most common. Or you might be looking for information about gigantism, or giant stars (in general), or maybe the film or the magazine. But if you wanted to know about red giants, giant hogweed, Giant Eagle, Little Giants, Mary and the Giant, or the Bacharach Giants, would you type just "giant" in the box and expect to find it? It's more likely that 99.9% of readers would search for the full term, or something approximating it, certainly not just "giant". It's just conceivable that someone looking for one of the better-known sports teams might search for "Giants" (which redirects here), but it's unlikely.

With the current state of the page, someone looking for almost any of these meanings will have to scroll though reams of irrelevant material to find it. The previous version of the page, meanwhile, put the primary meaning -- giant (mythology) -- at the top, with the other main meanings also fairly easy to find. The page was certainly not perfect, but that's mainly because it contained too many links. Andre the Giant might belong at Andre, and Andre the Giant Has a Posse should be linked from AtG's own article, but neither belong here. As I hinted at above, and as I think WP:MOSDAB makes reasonably clear (but perhaps it could be clearer), dab pages are not places to list every possible article that contains the word in question: their sole purpose is to distinguish between articles that would otherwise have the same or very similar titles, and help readers and editors find the right article quickly. To this end, the more common a meaning is, the further up the page it should come. "For places or people, alphabetical or chronological order may make more sense — but only for articles that are equally common." (My italics.) Using proper headings may look nice, but ease of navigation is much more important.

Sorry to write such a long essay, but with the amount of dab page reformatting you're doing I thought you ought to hear the views of one concerned Wikipedian. --Blisco 20:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Blisco,


 * Thank you for voicing your concern about my edits of the Giant disambiguation page. I understand your reasoning.  I have been reading and updating disambiguation pages for quite a while now, and still have difficulty in determining what should and should not be listed on a disambiguation page.  When I began editing this specific page, I looked at the entries that were listed at that time.  They included both Andre the Giant and Andre the Giant Has a Posse.  As I have found it difficult to determine what entries are not valid for a disambiguation page, I have generally determined not to remove entries that seem like they could be appropriate, therefore I did not remove either of these.  I also used the entries that were existing at the time as a guide to what should be added.  If Belfast Giants should be listed on the Giant page, so should every other sports team named "Giants".  Feel free to edit this page as you see fit.  My only intentions for reformatting disambiguation pages are to make Wikipedia easier to navigate.  I would appreciate any comments or concerns you would like to share with me and I will not be offended if you make changes to my edits.


 * Thanks again,
 * Neelix 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I understand the difficulty. I think a good rule of thumb is to err on the side of removing entries from dab pages rather than adding them, for two reasons: firstly it makes them clearer and easier to navigate, and secondly because people are always adding inappropriate entries. (Andre the Giant Has a Posse is an extreme example!) I've reverted your edit and removed a couple more, but left the sports teams that were already there - not an ideal situation, since, as you say, why shouldn't others be added? - but these seem to be the best known ones, and I was uneasy about removing them all. I wondered about suggesting creating a List of sports teams using the name Giants or similar title, but on reflection that might open the floodgates for many more lists based on team suffixes. In any case, if there are any entries (in any category) you really think should be re-added then please do. Cheers, Blisco 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Clone Wars Volume 9: Endgame
That wasn't vandalism. I created the article, and I reconsidered and realized an article on a trade paperback with no real information wasn't needed, so i redirected. —Skope (talk)  07:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Skope,


 * I'm sorry to have called your edit vandalism. Normally when I see an article's information completely removed without explanation, I assume vandalism.  That type of thing is fairly common.  That being said, I do feel the article has value.  There are plenty of articles about trade paperbacks, as evidenced by Category:Graphic novels.  As I look through the Star Wars: Republic article and follow its links, I'm impressed at the depth of detail and the breadth of information you have provided about the series.  I would recommend that the "Endgame" article stand, but as you're the resident expert on the series, I won't revert your edit again if you feel that it should be redirected.


 * Neelix 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just that a lot of people are for as few articles as possible in the Category:Star Wars comics, and I felt the trade paperbacks weren't really needed, since all they really told was what comics they included. The only info they could have is about the comics themselves, and those comics have their own articles.  I admit I should have added a comment on why I redirected.  This is where a good bit of the chatter about all of the merges and whatnot: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars. —Skope  (talk)  15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Resistance page.
Just so you know, I mostly rolled back your changes to the Resistance disambig page. I'd already made the Resistance page compliant with MoS:DAB, and I feel that most of your changes were in the wrong direction- some very common uses like electrical resistance were pushed towards the bottom, and some common meanings were left off entirely. Since this is more a disambig style issue than something specific to Resistance, I figured I'd drop this off on your talk page as opposed to the Resistance talk page. Notably, some items I would like to register a polite disagreement with concerning your style:
 * In descriptions, I strongly prefer to use proper English. By this I mean that you should be able to make a complete sentence stringing the headers and entry together: "Resistance can refer to, in politics, Resistance (socialist youth organisation), an Australian Marxist organisation."  Removing "an" makes this a fragment, and sounds odd even on its own- very clipped.  That style would work as a long parenthetical note, but not with the comma.  It's the same for the section headers- you wouldn't say "Divisions can refer to in military to organizations of troops;" "in military affairs" or "in the military" would be grammatical.


 * You avoided indenting any items. I cannot see why as this often makes something much easier to read, and is a very common practice on disambig pages.  This is doubly true when something is a subset of another meaning; Drag is a specific kind of Friction (which is also referred to as resistance in many contexts, so should definitely be on the page), so it should go beneath it.  Same with Thermal Resistance & friends (Thermal Conductivity is on the page because, if you look at the pages, you'll see that the Resistance article is tiny and it's all actually at conductivity, which makes sense because it's the same exact topic.  Perhaps an argument for making Thermal resistance a redirect, but until that happens...).


 * While not hugely common, it is entirely possible for articles without the magic word to be valid disambig topics, especially if there's a redirect to them. Many people entering in resistance mean (human) (disease) resistance.  Hence, the link to the immune system.  Frankly, if it's an issue, I'll drop a redirect off at Disease resistance to immune system and that can be the link instead, but this is a MAJOR usage, and one where Wikipedia has a wealth of articles on the topic.  To leave it out would be silly.


 * Lastly, as a minor nitpicky note, bands or people are not typically italicized.

That said, you did come up with a more succinct explanation for Resistance (technical analysis), so thanks on that. SnowFire 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

--

Thank you for the reply. Sorry I misinterpreted you on indenting; certainly keeping the number of entries on a disambig page low is a reasonable goal. Also, the art of when to link directly to the article as opposed to linking to a redirect (containing the name) is certainly an uneven one; I can't articulate any guidelines for my own preferences, and are probably likely to trust other's judgment on it if it's already been decided.

Also, while I wholeheartedly agree that entries on a disambig page should not be "let's free associate with the word and see what we come up with!," a disambig page should ultimately be based around intent and meaning, not the actual word itself. There are many times when articles containing the word in its title will be inappropriate, and there are a few times where articles that don't contain that word and don't have redirects with that word will still be an appropriate link.

As other notes:
 * Bands should always be italicized. People should not.  It does not make sense to unitalicize V, Voyager, and Battlestar Galactica in the links but not in the descriptions.  They should always be italicised.  See italic type for when to use italics.

Er, bands aren't mentioned anywhere on the italic type page. I was going off of MoS:T, which does not list bands under the things that need to be italicized. To be honest, I don't know the actual rule on bands, so it's possible MoS:T has made an omission, but I really haven't seen bands italicized in standard reading.

As for internal parenthetical links... To prevent going insane, I usually don't italicize parenthetical disambiguators (even when they "should") under the theory of "too much work, too little return." Since they are used for internal Wikipedia use, I figured that WP can italicize them or not italicize them as it will, just like the iPod article is at IPod. That said, this is an interesting question. I think I shall go raise it on MoS:T and ask them if it's worth putting in an example with this.


 * "politics and the military" is not a field unto itself. Only the third entry in that section is political, and the other three are military.  These are two separate fields.  Also, adding the word the before military suggests that there is only one military, but the entries refer to more than one.

In that case, military affairs would work, but I think "the military" is clear enough. And I didn't mean to imply that they were one field, but rather two connected fields; I've done topics like "in film and theatre" before when appropriate, as an example. I felt that a resistance movement was not necessarily only in the military; it can be a political thing as well. The article there is pretty bad and short as it stands, but it does indicate in the header that nonviolence counts too, which would seem to make it an uneasy fit to a pure "military" category. That may change if the article was rewritten to only be about violent resistance.


 * PS - Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the name "SnowFire"? I like the image it conjures.

Thank you. When I was a wee lad (9?), I played Scorched Earth at a neighbor's house; the neighbor's daughter chose "Snowball" as her name, when choosing a computer name (other than my real name) was a rather new thing for me. Fast forward 5-6 years, and I'm registering an account on bungie.net for playing Myth: The Fallen Lords. "Snowball" is taken (and good thing, too, since it's an uncreative name in retrospect). I like the snow part, though, and I have a certain affection for Oxymorons, so I came up with SnowFire on the spot (blue & red colors, natch). It worked out well, and I've kept it ever since (though when it's been taken, Snowflame has risen to the occasion). SnowFire 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Article titles, etc.
Hi Neelix, I noticed you are doing a great job of making things consistent and have been creating a lot of useful redirects. You might be interested that titles of articles for a single television episode should only have the series name in parentheses if necessary, according to Naming conventions (television), i.e. Doctor Bashir, I Presume? instead of Doctor Bashir, I Presume? (DS9 episode). (Note that this guideline is currently under debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)). —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-21 00:00Z 


 * Hi Quarl,


 * Thanks for the encouragement on my redirects. I also appreciate the advice about the television episode naming conventions.  I'll attempt to follow that guideline in the future.


 * Neelix 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Equilibrium
Hi Neelix,

It seems that when you reformatted Equilibrium, something went wrong - most of the page content is gone. Only some pop culture references are left - chemical equilibrium, for example, is no longer there. Was this intentional? If not, maybe it would be easier to revert the page and then reformat it, rather than copying and pasting the content into the reformat. What do you think? 124.148.124.68 13:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wontoo Fore,


 * My removal of the majority of the entries on equilibrium was intentional. I began reformatting the page by adding all the different types of equilibrium to the page - dynamic equilibrium, partition equilibrium, solubility equilibrium - but there are so many pages about different types of equilibrium in physical science, economics, and other fields that the revision I was creating became exceedingly lengthy.  I assumed all these types of equilibrium should not be included on the page, so I removed all the ones that had the same meaning; the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced.  The four that are left are the ones that refer to something else.


 * I do, however, understand your concern. The more common uses of the term "equilibrium" are the science-related ones.  I hope I have explained myself in a sufficiently clear manner.  I really do not know which entries should be added to this page as someone searching for "equilibrium" could be looking for any of dozens of articles.  What do you think of having a separate disambiguation page for each field?


 * Ex: Equilibrium (chemistry), Equilibrium (physics), Equilibrium (economics), etc.


 * This would allow all the types of equilibrium to be listed without making any one page exceedingly long. Let me know your thoughts on this subject.


 * Neelix 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix,


 * I agree with you that someone could be searching for any of those articles. However, if there was a separate page for chemistry, another one for economics etc, wouldn't that be a bit messy – i.e. to have two levels of disambig? It seems to me, at least for the first half the page (using version 86455614 as a reference) it might be difficult to split up anyway. Although the uses are similar, there are enough differences to warrant a separate article for each one. So, I'd suggest leaving all the content on it – like the Aurora example in the manual of style and perhaps rearrange the actual entries. For example, the page starts off with physical sciences, then continues on to mathematical usage, before jumping back science again! This could definitely be improved. How does this sound?
 * 124.148.124.68 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wontoo Fore,


 * Sounds good to me. It will be a long page, but Aurora is of a similar length and that's ratified by the manual of style, so let's go for it.  I'll start adding entries as soon as possible.


 * Neelix 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix,


 * Looking really good! Much better than the old page, for sure! Just a few things that don't seem to have been transferred over from version 86455614:


 * Sense of balance (a redirect to equilibrioception)
 * Equilibrium point


 * Shouldn't these be added as well? Or should they go somewhere else?
 * 124.148.124.68 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wontoo Fore,


 * Thank you for the encouragement. I agree that Equilibrium point should be added.  I'll put it in the 'other' section.  What do you think of putting Equilibrioception in a 'see also' section?


 * Neelix 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix,


 * I agree with the Other section for Equilibrium point, but I'm not sure that the See Also section is right for Equilibrioception. My dictionaries seem to define "equilibrium" as "sense of balance (or words to that effect) - noun", and then go on to some of the other science definitions, but with the entires tagged as Chemistry or Physics. So I think it should probably be nearer the top, as it seems to be closest to a "standard" definition. How about something like this:


 * Equilibrium is a common term for Equilibrioception, the sense of balance present in humans and animals. It may also refer to:


 * My thinking is that before studying higher-level maths and science, I only knew equilibrium as the sense of balance. It seems to me that equilibrioception is the proper, more scientific name for this (much like sodium bicarbonate is a more scientific term for baking soda) and thus we should redirect people looking for this straight on to the correct page. Those looking for other meanings will be more prepared to scroll down the list, most likely being more aware of the different meanings. So, how does this sound?
 * 124.148.124.68 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wontoo Fore,


 * If you feel that Equilibrioception is the most common usage of the term Equilibrium, it should be fine to have it at the top. To be consistant with disambiguation page formatting, let's write it like this:


 * Equilibrium is the sense of balance present in humans and animals.


 * Equilibrium may also refer to:


 * If we are to do this, I think it important to switch the first sentence of the Equilibrioception article to read:


 * Equilibrioception, also called sense of balance or equilibrium, is one of the physiological senses.


 * We would also need to make Equilibrium (balance) a redirect page to Equilibrioception. Let me know your thoughts on these suggestions.  It's good to be able to work this out with you.


 * Neelix 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix,


 * I think it's good to work this out too. It's what Wikipedia is all about! And your suggestion sounds great! My only question is, why not link directly to the equilibrioception page and omit the Equilibrium (balance) redirect page?
 * 124.148.124.68 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Wontoo Fore,


 * My reasoning behind linking to the redirect page is because of this guideline on WP:MOSDAB:


 * ... a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not.


 * Since equilibrium is another name for equilibrioception, it would make sense to have a redirect page with equilibrium as the title. It's best to avoid entries on disambiguation pages that do not contain the disambiguation title.  Although links to redirect pages should be avoided on most articles, disambiguation pages seem to defy the normal rules of Wikipedia in a bunch of ways.


 * I'd like to wait until I hear from you again before the change is made. I don't want to jump the gun without you jumping on the bandwagon.


 * Neelix 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Neelix,
 * That's nice of you. Yes, including equilibrium in the title makes sense – I definately agree with that. I'm on the bandwagon!
 * 124.148.124.68 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle (1911 film)
Hi Neelix, the lists of years in film (like 1911 in film) are meant to link to articles about films, not the other way round. Also red links are used by film project members to monitor the creation of new film articles (WikiProject Films/List of films without article). Please, do not create film articles by simply placing a redirect, as this turn their title to blue and may be very confusing. Thanks. Hoverfish 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) To clarify one point: if a film article does exist under "Film title", you can surely edid "Title of film" (a notable aka name of the same film) and place a redirect to "Film title". Hoverfish 20:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Hoverfish,


 * I apologize for creating a confusing redirect. I did so for the Battle (disambiguation) page according to WP:MOSDAB guideline stating that a redirect term will sometimes be preferred to a direct link, if the redirect term contains the disambiguation title and the redirect target does not.  I had not realized that I was interfering with WikiProject Films.  In the future, I will attempt to avoid this misunderstanding.


 * Neelix 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No serious problem. I see you have deleted the entry from the disambiguation. D. W. Griffith's given selected filmography doesn't include the film and as I see in IMDb, it's a 19 min. war drama. It may well be that the film is not considered notable enough to have its own article, although I am not a specialist in old films. I would say that it wouldn't hurt the disambiguation to contain the item in unlinked text with a short description (1911 short film, war drama). After all I learned about this film's existence from this entry :) Guidelines are good to keep Wikipedia consistent, but they do leave freedom for individual decisions. For the moment I am collecting all red links I find on film titles in the forementioned list, so that at one future point it may be determined which of these are notable enough to deserve a red link and which should be turned to simple text. If in doubt on any further issues concerning films, feel at home to ask in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Hoverfish 08:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

page Anomaly
Hello Neelix, may I ask, why you deleted the part on anomaly and software testing? As you can see it is a known term from IEEE 1044-1993: Standard Classification for Software Anomalies. Or is it moved somewhere appropriate? --Erkan Yilmaz 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Erkan,


 * I removed the software testing entry from the Anomaly disambiguation page because of how a disambiguation page is defined on WP:MOSDAB. According to these guidelines, a disambiguation page exists soley to help a user find the article they are looking for.  The IEEE 1044-1993 and testobject pages do not exist.  I tried all the other links in the entry, but neither of the resulting pages mentioned anomalies at all.


 * Another guideline on WP:MOSDAB states that there should only be one link per entry, whereas the software testing entry had eight. When creating an entry on a disambiguation page, one should start with a link to a page discussing the term (in this case, anomaly), and this should be directly followed by a short description of that use of the term.


 * Also, there should never be reason for a "References" section on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages do not introduce new information that does not exist on the articles to which it links, therefore any information that needs to be referenced should be referenced on its respective article.


 * If you feel that software testing anomalies deserves its own article, feel free to create one. Once the article has been created, it would then be appropriate to create a short entry on the Anomaly disambiguation page linking to it.


 * Neelix 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well Neelix, after such a good explanation, I only can say: you are fully correct. I will create such a page then. --Erkan Yilmaz 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Neelix, I added here now a link. I am still updating the article itself, but I guess so far this works ok? --Erkan Yilmaz 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Erkan,


 * I like how the new Anomaly in software page is coming. It's good to see you putting the effort into making it.  It definitely makes sense to have a link on the Anomaly disambiguation page now.  I would like to make two minor formatting suggestions for the article you've created:


 * Wiktionary links usually only go on disambiguation pages, unless there is no disambiguation page for a specific word. Since the link is on the disambiguation page, it's not really necessary here.
 * To conform to the standard format of naming articles, Software anomaly or Anomaly (software) might be a more appropriate title.


 * Like any new article, I'm sure there is a lot of expanding that can be done, but you've laid the foundations for a great page. I'm starting to run into a busy spell for the next while, but if I get a chance, I'll try to contribute to the article you've started.


 * Neelix 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I kiss you
for creating a placeholder page for Author! Author! by the Scars that redirects to the band article. Thank you. I'd been meaning to do that but never got around to it, so the fact that you did it is superb. I will get to work on the actual article as soon as possible, thanks to you. You are the kick in the (American) pants I needed to get my butt into gear. (Krushsister 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC))


 * Hi Krush Sister,


 * Thank you for the encouragement! It's always good to hear that my edits are appreciated, and I love it when my edits encourage others to contribute.  Thanks for the virtual kiss!


 * Neelix 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

PAC edits
Sorry about that last change, I read the WP:MOSDAB:


 * For people: Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role.

too fast, and didn't notice it was restricted to people's occupation only. You are right...

Your edit:

Regards, 202.63.40.179 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Tuotu,


 * No harm done. Thank you for letting me know why you made the switch.  I hadn't realized that a's, an's, and the's should not be used in the descriptions of people entries, so it was a learning experience for both of us!


 * Neelix 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * :-) 202.63.40.179 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy
An editor has nominated the article Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Articles for deletion/Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy. Add four tildes like this &tilde;&tilde;&tilde;&tilde; to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Marks & Spencers MORE credit card advertisement controversy during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 20:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

BCC
It was getting cluttered, so unfortunately I had to remove the bits of info you added. If there is any problem, I'm open for discussion. I know that you've put plenty of work into the article. I am hoping that you will understand that my intentions were not at all undermining your contributions, but rather, saving a little old disambig. page from snowballing into featured list.  Jay  ( Talk ) 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read your comments and you're absolutely right. I re-instated most of your info (trimmed down a bit.) Keeping with the international approach, I'm not entirely sure about what to do with the place names - for example, what is Brooklyn and where is New York to someone reading this in Brisbane? I dunno - by all means tweak it until you feel it is just right. Thanks  Jay  ( Talk ) 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion for Giant squid (disambiguation)
Hello Neelix,

I've put Giant squid (disambiguation), started by you, up for proposed deletion. There are only two articles in the disambiguation page and I deemed it better to the template, which I have on both.

Just wanted to let you know.

Happy editting! JackSparrow Ninja 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jack,


 * Thanks for letting me know. As the Atlantic Giant Squid page has been merged with the Giant Squid page, it completely makes sense to switch the band link to an otheruses template.


 * Neelix 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Argentia vs. Argentia, Newfoundland and Labrador
Please read this section. There is no need to do the replacement of Argentia, Newfoundland and Labrador with Argentia as you have been doing. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi LaTondre,


 * Thanks for letting me know about that policy. I had not come accross it before.  I will keep it in mind in the future.


 * Neelix 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

John Russell dab page
Thanks for your attention to John Russell. I had some thoughts about your recent edits there, and figured that the talk page was a better place to discuss it than ping-ponging on our user talk pages. Matchups 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland and Labrador communities

 * I've noticed you have been shortening some article names by removing the Newfoundland and Labrador qualifier... I'm aware that the names are lengthy but thus far they have been consistent with all communities in the province. Not to discourage you but there are much larger centres such as Boston or Detroit which have official article titles as Boston, Massachusetts and Detroit, Michigan, so is it really necessary?Plasma east 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Plasma,


 * I'm glad you noticed my edits. I was hoping that someone would start a dialogue about the geographical name shortenings.  Hopefully I can provide a proper explanation of why I have been proceeding with them.


 * Normally, an article is simply named what it is most commonly called. If there are multiple articles that are each most commonly called the same thing, then a disambiguation page is created and the articles are provided with qualifiers.  These qualifiers normally come either in the form of a bracket, such as in the case of Mr. Big (chocolate), or in the form of a comma, such as in the two cases you have mentioned (Boston and Detroit).  In the case of an article whose title is not ambiguous (ie. there are no other articles that could be called by that name) or the article is the most likely to be referred to by that title, then the qualifier is unnecessary and usually omitted.


 * There are many articles about cities and towns that have titles without qualifiers, including Philadelphia, Toronto, London, Paris, Melbourne, Rome, and Harare. Currently, many of the articles about communities in Newfoundland and Labrador include the qualifier ", Newfoundland and Labrador" in their title.  I have been removing the qualifiers (only from articles whose titles are unique) for two reasons.  Firstly, the qualifier ", Newfoundland and Labrador" is excessively long, especially in the case of communities whose names are already lengthy, such as in Rose Blanche-Harbour le Cou, Newfoundland and Labrador and Harbour Main-Chapel's Cove-Lakeview, Newfoundland and Labrador.  These titles currently take up two lines on some resolutions.  Secondly, the majority of these articles do not have corresponding redirect pages whose titles are without the qualifier, therefore it is just as much work to move the articles to those titles as it is to redirect those titles to the current articles.


 * I hope I have explained myself clearly. Please let me know if you have any persisting concerns or questions regarding my treatment of geographical titles.  I would appreciate any advice or discussion you can provide.


 * Neelix 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely understand the lengthy province name and community naming issues, particularly with certain screen resolutions. I was just wondering if there has been any formal move to shorten smaller, less-known, community names in Canadian provinces, aside from these articles in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in isolated cases like Toronto, Vancouver, Moncton, Fredericton, etc?


 * Every community name that I have come across for U.S. articles, except for New York City, has the state name qualifier added and makes for marvelous consistency in categorization, etc. Since our provincial geopolitical divisions in Canada are organized along similar lines to the U.S. state model, should there not be a Canadian community naming standard?Plasma east 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Plasma,


 * I agree that there should be a Canadian community naming standard, however I do not know of any such formal standard currently in existance. If you become aware of one, please let me know.  My current understanding, as explained above, is that the qualifier (province in this case) should only be included as part of the title when the name of the community is not unique.  If a formal standard is created that is in contradiction with my current practice, I will gladly leave my reservations behind and follow that standard.


 * Thank you again for the helpful conversation. I hope that it will lead to more specific standards of practice on Wikipedia in this area.


 * Neelix 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure thing - I'll do some searching and let you know if I'm successful. Cheers,Plasma east 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

La Romaine
You shouldn't switch a redirect from one article to another like that, especially since almost all the links to the page refer to the La Romaine in TT (and none of them to Quebec) - it could have been quite confusing to anyone clicking on the link. It's much better to turn it into a disambiguation page in a case like this. Guettarda 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Guettarda,


 * I do apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The reason I switched the redirect to La Romaine, Quebec was because "La Romaine" was not even mentioned on the Trinidad and Tobago page, therefore there was no way to verify whether or not a place called "La Romaine" existed in that country.  If this place does exist, I agree wholeheartedly that "La Romaine" should be a disambiguation page.


 * Neelix 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Places in Newfoundland and Labrador
The rule for moving an article from "Place, Province" to "Place" is not that you can do it arbitrarily just because there isn't already another article at the plain title; a discussion, linked to from the Canadian noticeboard must take place on the talk page first. It simply isn't safe to assume that there isn't anything else in the world called Alderburn just because there isn't already another article at that title; we're required to solicit discussion first to ensure that that's the case. Until those discussions have taken place, the communities do have to be moved back to "Place, Newfoundland and Labrador". Bearcat 21:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And there is a formal convention already spelled out, by the way; it's at Naming conventions (settlements). Bearcat 21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Bearcat,


 * Thank you for providing me with a link to the formal convention I had been looking for. I assume you read "Newfoundland and Labrador Communities" above.  It is good to know that this has already been decided and layed out.  In the future, I will abide by these conventions.


 * Neelix 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Malkowitz
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcowice
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovitch
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovics
fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason: Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Bite messup
Someone has put all the towns of the TB area in a page called Trinity Bite which in itself is fine, BUT, they have redirected all of those little towns to Trinity Bite and we cannot put individual town histories on them, they are useless now. Also it should be Trinity Bite, Newfoundland and Labrador because it is part of the Newfoundland and Labrador project and all the villages and towns are listed that way for continuity and because Labrador is on the coast and Newfoundland is an island. How can we put them back as individual towns and just have the links in the Trinity Bite article??? HELP WayneRay 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay


 * Hi Wayne,


 * Sorry I couldn't help sooner. I've been in an area of Africa that doesn't have proper Internet access for a while.  It looks like the problem you have presented me with has already been taken care of.  If it has not, do not hesitate to contact me again.  I would be glad to help out if I am able.


 * All the best,
 * Neelix 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Catwoman.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Catwoman.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight 0001 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi After Midnight,


 * I really appreciate your explanation of how to add fair use rationale to images. I plan on adding more such images to Wikipedia, and it is helpful to understand this information prior to doing so.  I will attempt to add rationale to other images I have already uploaded in the near future.


 * Thanks again,
 * Neelix 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouattara
Welcome back. I have changed the categories on this page. Mos:DP states: "Pages only listing people with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply. In such cases, do not use disambig or hndis, but given name or surname instead." Chris the speller 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris,


 * Thanks for pointing this out to me. These types of pages are what I create and edit most, so I appreciate the advice.  I'll be sure to use the appropriate categories in the future.


 * Neelix 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the wikiproject
It needs a lot of help so please feel free to join in and take charge of anything that peaks your interest. Remember 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jae (disambiguation)
I agree, the first sentance was redundant, and did not realize that the standard was not to seperate the different classes of people. I have no issues with switching back to it's original format, however I think the See Also section should be incorporated into the "other people" section.--Kelapstick 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Kelapstick,


 * It would make sense to incorporate the "See also" section into the "people" section, as you have suggested. I'm glad we have been able to come to an agreement.  I will make the change promptly.


 * Neelix 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given name articles
Given name articles, such as Marie-Françoise and Jean Marie, are not disambiguation pages, and should be treated much like Dupin, but using given name instead of surname. The former template has been added relatively recently. If you have any questions, please toss them on my talk page. Happy editing! Chris the speller 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Chris,


 * I hadn't realized that the given name template was used for articles that included two given names, although it makes sense now that you point it out. I'll attempt to remember to use this template properly from now on.


 * Neelix 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Time and Time Again
Time and Time Again, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Time and Time Again satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Time and Time Again and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Time and Time Again during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Seraphim Whipp 11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Crumple-horned, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL(Query Me!) 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Commissioner.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Commissioner.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Videmus,
 * Thank you for letting me know about the missing rationale template on Image:Commissioner.jpg. I have added the fair use rationale.  Please let me know if you believe it to be inadequate.
 * Thanks again,
 * Neelix 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Valedictorian / Valediction Proposed Merge
Hello. Where exactly is the discussion page to discuss your proposed merge for the two articles, Valedictorian and Valediction? I can't seem to find it. I would like to weigh in with my opinion. Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC))


 * Hi Joseph, Thanks for your interest in the merge! The reason you couldn't find the discussion is that I hadn't yet created one.  I have now done so, and you may view and contribute to it by following this link. Neelix 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will weigh in at the link you provided.  Thank you.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC))