User talk:Neelix/Archive 3

Ranked
The reason is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; it can be unhelpful to populate Wikipedia with redirects from one dictionary word to another related word, as for example it discourages the creation of encyclopedia articles on a blue link. In this specific case, "ranked" is not relevant to the articles, all nouns, in the disambiguation page Rank. —Centrx→talk &bull; 00:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense redirects
Please stop adding nonsensical redirects. They will be deleted. Nakon 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation See also sections
Hi, I noticed that, on pages such as Red Hawk, you added items to the See also section which don't seem to me to belong (your edit ). This doesn't appear to fit the manual of style, as there is no way anyone would mistake "black hawk" for "red hawk", no one would be typing "red hawk" into the search when they really wanted "black hawk". Am I misunderstanding something here? --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

NL unincorporated communities
Hi Neelix, sorry didn't get back to sooner, been busy at work. Good work, I have noticed over this past few weeks your effort to get the incorporated communities finished. I kind of like the grouping of communities based upon current and historical status. A number of the communities in the List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador includes many communities which are very small fishing villages that are populated certain times of the year and then there are others that are abandoned and still others that are re-settled (forced or otherwise). Should we take this discussion to the WikiProject page for Newfoundland and seek suggestions and opinions from other wikipedians? It would be a shame to start something and then someone change it mid-stream. Thanks, --HJKeats (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Night of Joy.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Night of Joy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Heed (disambiguation)
A tag has been placed on Heed (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. M173627 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Purvey
Redirected to where, and for what reason? It is listed as being used on a island in Scotland and in germany but with no reference to back that up. There is no reasoning as to why it is a french word being used in those two regions for this rather drastic difference, and the only references to it even being used are on a few blogs ("I was at a purvey" and such) or in paragraphs about pricing at a funeral home (and only in the sence of "a purvey would be an additional fee"). It certainly does not seem to be commonly used in this manner, and Wiki is the only source I can find that defines the french word as this. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Species names disambiguation pages
Hello, I noticed that you created the disambiguation page for Miserabilis to direct folks looking for the spider, the bee, or the butterfly. A scientific name consists of two parts, at bare minimum, the genus and the specific epithet. The generic name is a noun and is limited to a single word. The same generic name can be shared by a plant and an animal. Within each kingdom, however, a genus is unique. The second part is an adjetive (by decree) and, with the generic name, gives each species a unique binomial name. In the case of "miserabilis" you have used only a part of the species' name, and have opened a Pandora's box. What will happen, for example, if we disambiguate the species of plants and animals that have the epithet "brasilensis" or "sinensis" as part of their scientific names? It would be much like having a page for all the people with "John" as a first name. All best wishes, --Wloveral (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have your work cut out for you. Good luck. --Wloveral (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arnoldscove.JPG}
Thank you for uploading Image:Arnoldscove.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RFD Nomination
On 20 May, you tagged Why The Reds Won The Civil War with rfd. However, you did not list this redirect at WP:RFD. Nominating a redirect for deletion is a two step process. If you still wish to see it deleted, please complete the second step of the nomination instructions. If you do not list it in a reasonable time, I will assume you no longer wish to see it deleted and will remove the tag. Let me know if you have any questions or need assistance. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Your redirect of Vizard (disambiguation)
FWIW, I respect your edit but did you glance at the conversation between me and Natalya? The dab has potential, I just couldn't come up with a proper layout. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesshomaru,


 * Talk:Vizard (disambiguation) consists solely of a WikiProject Disambiguation notice. To what conversation are you referring?  If there are valid entries other than the fictional group in Bleach and people with the surname "Vizard", then a disambiguation page would be appropriate.  Otherwise, the surname link is sufficient.


 * Neelix (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the wiktionary box count as an entry? In this discussion, nor I or the other editor could decide on using Vizard (Shakespearean English) or Visard in the place of Visor. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesshomaru,


 * The Wiktionary box would not normally constitute an entry. Why do you want this disambiguation page to exist?  The surname link seems suitable as it stands.


 * Neelix (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Discounting the box, we have three entries: Vizard, Vizard (surname) and Vizard (Shakespearean English) (or Visard?). This would be a "stub", like Devilman (disambiguation) is. Make sense? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesshomaru,


 * Vizard (Shakespearean English) is not a proper entry, because the term "vizard" does not exist on the visor article, nor should it. "Shakespearean English" is not a proper title qualifier, nor is the term specific to a visor in any way, as it could refer to any mask or disguise.  It is very unlikely that anyone typing "vizard" into the search bar would be looking for the visor article.  You referenced Devilman (disambiguation); that page should not exist.  There is no such thing as a "disambiguation stub".  Disambiguation pages come into existance when there are too many entries to neatly place as hatnotes on the main article.


 * Most importantly, you have not answered my question: why do you want this disambiguation page to exist?


 * Neelix (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Vizard (disambiguation) should not remain a redirect because I think there are enough items to make it a dab page. Does the MoS give a set number of items for a dab to exist? FAIK, it does not. If you believe Vizard (Shakespearean English) and Visard should be deleted then by all means tag them as such. Visor, on the other hand, can remain in the "See also" section. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesshomaru,


 * Please read WP:MOSDAB. In order for a disambiguation page to exist, it must list more than one article (a minimum of two articles) other than the primary article, the Wiktionary link, and the "See also" section.  If there is only one other article, such as in this case, a simple link as a hatnote on the main article is entirely sufficient.  Creating a disambiguation page makes users go through unneeded effort in order to find the page they are looking for.  I am not suggesting that Vizard (Shakespearean English) should be deleted (though I may at some point), but I am suggesting that Vizard (Shakespearean English) is not a proper entry on a disambiguation page.  We have carried on this conversation in private long enough.  If you have further concerns, start a conversation on Talk:Vizard (disambiguation) or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.  I'm sure the members of the Disambiguation WikiProject would be more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding Wikipedia's disambiguation policies.


 * Neelix (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tongue of Fire
Hi there! I see you moved Phaseolus vulgaris 'Tongue of Fire' to Tongue of Fire. I'm not familiar with the cultivar; is it a well-known one? The members of WP:PLANTS had been working toward a cultivar naming convention on the talk page of WP:NC (flora). The general format of the convention would be that the cultivar name, e.g. "Tongue of Fire", should only stand alone if it's very widespread or used in agriculture, e.g. Granny Smith. Otherwise it should include its full cultivar name: Phaseolus vulgaris 'Tongue of Fire'. Of course this is still open to debate! I'd like to hear your thoughts. Perhaps this may even stimulate another round of discussion and further refining of the proposed convention. Cheers! --Rkitko (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ryan,


 * I know very little about this particular cultivar. I simply stumbled across the article and noticed that it seemed to have two different titles, a practice that is normally discouraged.  I generally support the use of titles that are as short as possible while uniquely identifying the article, as per Official names.  As there are no other articles called "Tongue of Fire", that seems like the most appropriate title for the article.  If there was, for example, a novel called "Tongue of Fire" that was more notable than the cultivar, I would suggest renaming the cultivar article Tongue of Fire (cultivar) rather than including the scientific name before the cultivar name.  It may be confusing for people unfamiliar with the subject to have both names in the title.  As the policy on official names says, common names are generally preferred to official names.  Good luck sorting this issue out with WP:PLANTS.  I hope this helps!


 * Neelix (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind reply. Your thoughts on it are appreciated and I tend to agree with you when no disambiguation is required, especially for well-known cultivars. For others, though, like Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111', the "scientific name" as laid out by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants is usually preferred. Already in our regular naming convention we reject in some fashion Official names. Common names for plants are rarely common and individual plants, unlike birds and other subsets of all life, can have many different common names that vary regionally. For example, one of the catalysts for the convention was Cytisus scoparius, called "common broom" or just "broom" in the UK, it's native range, but called "Scotch broom" in its invasive range in the US. Round after round of discussion resulted in the scientific name convention. Likewise, while the convention hasn't been agreed upon formally, cultivar names in the format presented by the ICNCP are usually preferred over just the truncated cultivar name. Well, it's moot anyway. I think the title Tongue of Fire is ok for now. I'd prefer the full cultivar name, but I have no policy to cite for that since the discussion at WT:NC (flora) was never resolved, so I'll leave it for now. Also, interesting idea for a novel! The sci-fi genre might be a good fit for the title. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

European Robin
I reverted your edit because:

1) Refs you added were not formated in same style as all others in this article i.e. using cite xxx templates. In addition you added bare weblinks without author, publisher, title, date and other relevant information.

2) The notes you added stated that "An English robin differs greatly from the American one" and "The English robin is not the bird we call robin redbreast in the United States. Our robin is a big, lordly chap about ten inches long, but the English robin is not more than five and a half inches long; that is, it is smaller than an English sparrow". However much of this infromation is already in the article. American robins are mentioned in 'Other robins' subsection as species that "are not closely related" to European robin. The dimensions of European robins are mentioned in the next section. The short description of the American robin that was provided in the second note is not, in my opinion, relevant for this article. There is a separate article for the American robin.

3) You violated WP:lead. The lead is a summary of the article. If you want add new information to the article, add it to the main text first and then, if it is of real importance, it can be added to the lead. I am not sure that this information is so important to justify its presence in the lead. English robin is merely an American name of the British subspecies of the European robin and it is not a scientific term.

Ruslik (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
I'm all for redirects, but I hope you have some sort of criterion for creating ones such as "P nivalis". A redirect to a disambig, one based on a punctuation error compounded with the abbreviation of the generic name, seems unlikely to be useful, especially since other search options are available to the users. The "G. species" disambigs themselves I have no argument with. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is; a punctuation redirect to a disambig (a disambig that itself is based on a user misunderstanding thing one about looking species up) is overkill. It is almost a double redirect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: "G. species" disambiguation pages
Talking about taxonomic abbreviations is a good idea, but it is late in my time zone. Until tomorrow.--Wloveral (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see comment on my talk page. I have no stars to give, but I do know taxonomy. Let's talk and invite Bob, too. --Wloveral (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)




 * Dear Neelix, When Linnaeus finally settled on (disambiguous) binomial nomenclature (in 1758, for animals, in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae), he did not have computers, and he could hardly realize how necessary computers would be for sorting out the more than 1.5 million species of plants and animals that his intellectual descendants would name by the end of the twentieth century. Let us see how far you get with the G. species_epithet model you propose. If all species had correctly filled taxoboxes, a bot might be able to help you. There are authoritative systematic catalogs on the internet that could help you, such as Don Wilson's catalog of the mammals of the world on the Smithsonian Institution's website. This database includes about 5500 currently valid or "accessable" binomials and about as many binomials in synonymy and homonymy. (Yes, these out-of-use "ghost" names also are remembered in taxonomy, sort of like previous edits of a wikipedia article.) I, myself, have a database of about 5000 species names for neotropical butterflies, but it is not yet a finished product that I can use to bot-generate wikipedia butterfly species pages. It was suggested humorously some years ago that Linnaeus himself must be considered the type specimen of Homo sapiens and should be dug up to assume his rightful place in a natural history museum. He has had his way for the past 260 years. Good luck to you. --Wloveral (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)--Wloveral (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise known as daffodils
Hi. Regarding possible plurals of "narcissus", I'm happy to know there's a fourth possibility but am having trouble verifying it. A Google search using the spelling in question turns up nothing credible—e.g., a garden store page with a typo (the words "narcissus" and "is" run together), a passage from The Secret Garden employing a child's dialect (elsewhere in this work it is spelled "narcissuses"), some fairly weird stuff that doesn't seem to relate to the plant, and so on. If you know of a credible source, preferably a dictionary or botanical reference work, could you please cite it (or let me know and I'll cite it)? Otherwise, I'm inclined to tag it. Thanks for your good work with the article! Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Migratorius
An article that you have been involved in editing, Migratorius, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Migratorius. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Deor (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Terryturner.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Terryturner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD
I placed db-author templates on Migratorius, Monogyna, Rubecula, and Oblonga since you requested deletion of them in the Migratorius AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rennies
You're right that I was wrong, and John Rennie does not redirect to either article. But I think you're being a bit harsh in your evaluation of the hatnotes, specifically between the two Rennies young & old - my reading of the notes suggests that it may be appropriate to have hatnotes in that situation - the sentence ''However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).'' refers. I should be interested to know why you think it does not.

I think I probably - separately - have issues with the policy. Whether I have the energy to argue a case in that forum is open to question. FWIW, th4e hatnote policy appears to be predicated on the unsound assumption that users are entering the article from a wikipedia search or link, rather than google, for instance, which is as likely to pitch you into the Younger as the Elder. It seems pointless and counterproductive to remove hatnotes which will be of use to people who for whatever reason have ended up on the wrong page. In retrospect I'd point a hatnote for all John Rennies at the JR disambig page.

Unless I'm missing the point - which is possible - then I despair of policy which "tidies" articles at the cost of removing functionality. What on earth is the point of that? --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I am, for the time being, going to confine myself to asserting that there is legitimate scope for confusing JR the Elder with JR the Younger ... the suffixes of Elder & Younger are by no means universally used. Under the comics / illustrator argument cited in the policy, an argument can be made for the hatnotes. (Equally, the Younger article points to the Elder article on line one, so a counterargument can instantly be made).


 * I need longer than perhaps I'm prepared to give it to make up my mind on the policy in general, as it might apply to a group of people sharing the same name. I'm very unhappy at the crappy wikipedia search bar being the arbiter of how people might get to articles, rather than google, but that is an argument for some other time & place. And I reject a great deal of your John Joseph Smith reasoning as specious ... there was no suggestion in JR that we would have pointers to John or to Rennie.


 * So, conclusion. I don't entirely buy into the policy in general, but acknowledge that for me it needs more thought. I do not agree with the removal of hatnotes from the two JRs, but equally I'm not wound up enough about it to revert your edits. If, on consideration, you wish to revert, then you will. And if you do not, then you will not. Either is fine with me. I do agree that There is no case in which a person looking for the clockmaker, whose middle name is not Joseph, would type "John Joseph Smith" into the search bar, if that helps. And so I suppose I must agree that no-one will type in JRtheE when seeking JRtheY ... it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that I'm just being reactionary, and that with time I'll come around to the removal of hatnotes per the policy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Mergism
Neelix, thanks again for pointing out my misuse of merge tags when I found out that ovum and egg (biology) were actually two different articles about the same thing. It led me into a reinvestigation of the mergist philosophy, which I posted about on my talk page. arkuat (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifying users of TfD - Kudos
Hi Neelix, what rationale did you use for notifying all those people about your TfD nom of the creationism2 template? Only people who had contributed to the template? I noticed because you even notified User:Vanished user, who has left Wikipedia under RtV. Did you intend to notify them anyway when you made the nom, or decide to do it after the keep comments were registered? AvruchT * ER 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talkpage. AvruchT * ER 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for notifying everyone about the TfD - I really appreciated the heads up. And good job covering everyone involved. Guettarda (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I second that - I wish more people would do it. I'm changing the header to this section to reflect that, as it seems clear Avruch was in error. Well done, the extra effort was both ethical and I am sure time consuming, and is much appreciated. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

USS Camden
MBK004 is currently on vacation, and he likely won't reply to your question promptly, so I'll stick my nose in :) The guideline he spoke of can be found here. Both examples make use of the otherships template. I hope that answers your question. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, glad I could help. Parsecboy (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge tags
There is a large backlog of mergers proposed and it is hard to evaluate these if the tags aren't dated. No opinion on your merger, but please date the tag. Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outcome / Upshot
Hi--I've never heard "upshot" used in a formal way in game theory, and informally, it's frequently (usually?) used to mean something else. Can you provide references?Cretog8 (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I gotcha on "outcome"/"upshot". I don't think it's appropriate for game theory, though, so I'm going to revert that change to the article. Not sure what should be done about the redirects. My feeling is that someone searching for "upshot" won't be looking for game theory information. Cretog8 (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (many lags later due to locked database) The wiktionary definition may work in common speak, but like Cretog8, I've never heard it used in game theory. I'll revert, pending a reliable source from game theory. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rocketeer.JPG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rocketeer.JPG, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got mixed up between Image:Rocketeer.JPG and Image:Rocketeer.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see your point, I have marked it as keep, would you add to the description, where you took the photo. The other images on the article were marked as uncopyrighted DVD screenshots, which is unlikely, I must have gone into automatic mode nominating this one. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arrest
Hello. I note you added "also called nab" to the start of this article. To me (in the UK) "nab" is a purely informal, colloquial term and so I was inclined to remove it, especially as the word "nab" is used nowhere else in the article. However, I stopped short of doing so because I wanted to ask you why you'd added it; for example, whether there was somewhere in the world where "nab" had at least semi-formal status. Thanks in advance. Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, and my apologies for the delay in getting back to you. If I'm honest, I don't see that the term needs to me mentioned anywhere on the arrest article at all. After all, a British police colloquialism for "you're under arrest" is "you're nicked", yet "nick" is not mentioned in arrest. Using "nab" as a noun is something I've never come across before, and "being nabbed" (say) would be something I would consider a simple dictionary definition in BrEng; hence my query about the possible use of "nab" in other types of English.


 * If it is the case that an arrest is commonly called "a nab" in such-and-such a variety of English, then I think the best answer would be to edit the first sentence to read "An arrest (known as a nab in Examplevariety English) is the act of..." and to leave the rest unchanged. If, however, "nab" is no more than a colloquialism anywhere, then I don't think it deserves to be in the lead at all, and you could change the line on the disambiguation page to "A colloquial word for an arrest". Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Voltairianism
Don't you think Voltairianism and Voltaire are different? Voltaire is a person while the other is abstract.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Chimera
Whoops, sorry about that. I add dab links like that b/c I always like to read about topics with the same title. I wasn't aware of the guideline but I'll keep it in mind int he future. Thanks for taking care of it for me. Na uf ana :  talk  03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Intrepidity"
A page you created, Intrepidity, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. BigHairRef | Talk 00:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Revilement
A tag has been placed on Revilement, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mayalld (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Vatican twins
The link you provided (Vatican twins) was speedy deleted as it was a redirect to a non-existent article, (Irish twins), which was deleted after a PROD had expired. The reason for the proposed deletion was "WP:WINAD". - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was only a PROD deletion. You could have simply removed the PROD tag before to prevent its deletion.  Feel free to re-create the redirect. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Prodigious
You know what? You're right. Please feel free to undo my change, and I apologizing for futzing up your work. Props on the username, by the by. I was a bit of a fan of that character. On an unrelated note, you may want to consider archiving your talk page. It's slowing me (and presumably other visitors) to a crawl. - Vianello (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Intrepidity
I have recreated the redirect, but it might get deleted by someone else since it's really not a familiar word. Most of the first few pages of a Google search directed me to dictionary and thesaurus sites! ... disco spinster   talk  23:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Temporisation
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Temporisation, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Brianyoumans (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Benedict
Hi, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to provide the reference you have for calling St Benedict "Bennet"? I couldn't find this usage in any of my books which mention him, and a Google Scholar search was rather fruitless. Searching "benedict bennet" yields nothing in the top ten, and the only vaguely related result for "benedict bennet rule" is a book, Obit Book of the English Benedictines, 1600-1912, which unfortunately cannot be searched on Google Books. Thanks for your help. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
Please refer to Redirect Names of species should not be redirected to a list of all organisms found in a particular country or region. It is also inappropriate to redirect species names to genus names, except when the genus contains only the one species. The red links alert workers in that WikiProject or subject area that an article is needed; creating the article as a redirect hides this fact. the species name will still show up on a search on the site, even without the redirect, if it appears on a particular page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not commented on the creation of redirects like "G. species" or "G species". I am only persuading you not to redirect Cryptanthus maritimus to Cryptanthus, or to redirect Bolboschoenus maritimus to List of Canadian plants by genus B.  Each species should have its own article, and it should not be presumed that any species will ever be given full treatment within a List. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please also see DISAMBIG. Links to items listed on disambiguation pages should not have the links piped and should link to the target page, not redirect to another article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But such redirecting is not required. There is no requirement that all disambiguation links be blue and active.  Your redirects actually make disambiguation pages less useful, since they mislead the user and editor into thinking the target article exists, when in fact it does not.  They also create self-redirects.  The item you link is itself a linnk on the target page.  So, anyone who is redirected to the target page (such as a list), who then clicks on the link in that list will be pointed to the self-same list.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be appaled at removing so many links, but How I would feel is immaterial. There are plenty of others in the various wikiprojects (such as WP:PLANTS) that think delinking species from the lists where they occur is a bad idea.  The simple solution is to leave the disambiguation links red.  Making a whole system of changes to accomodate redirects is silly.  The links and articles are what build an encyclopedia.  Redirects should only exist as a courtesy, and when they are more problematic than courtesy, they should not exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: How do you reconcile your statement "If they are red, however, they serve no purpose and are not verifiable," with the eventualist userbox on your user page? Links do not have to exist for a disambiguation page to be helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will say again separately, it is not the two of us that need to come to a consensus. This issue impacts amny, many people.  I brought the objection to your attention only after other users complained.  I agree with their complaints, for reasons I have given, and disagree with your opinion that they are "much more helpful than they are problematic".  I feel quite the opposite in fact.  Again, endless discussion with me as an individual will not reach a workable consensus, because it leaves all the other users out of the discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

First, I believe you read too much into the previous discussion. That discussion only referred to redirects of the type A rubrum pointing to a disambguation page, and not redirects for full species names to lists or genera. Second, taking this discussion to WikiProject Biology would not be appropriate. A better choice would be WikiProject Tree of life, since this is the group that coordinates articles on individual species (as opposed to general articles about the field of biology). However, you should probably post notices of the discussiion at all the associated projects (plants, gastropods, spiders, fishes, mammals, etc.), since many participants in the daughter projects seldom or never check the ToL pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Need your opinion
Can you take a look at DBZ? I don't think the dab is needed (was sorta thinking the same thing for Yashamaru and Byakuya, but they have three entries). Your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sesshomaru,


 * Because neither of the two entries have been identified as primary, the disambiguation page is justifiable as it stands. To make the page more established, perhaps it would be best to add Divided by Zero as another entry, considering that it is also abbreviated DBZ.


 * Happy editing,


 * Neelix (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Neelix, if you are looking for something to do, there are huge numbers of plant articles with few on no categories, that could be easily bolstered with 'Flora of X Geographical region'. can't really be done by a bot as it requires a human to read the article and gifure out where the plant is from. I thinnk most of the birds and funi have been done already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ringleader.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ringleader.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Nonny"
A page you created, Nonny, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thanks. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Redlink redirects
Hello Neelix, per discussion here, could you delete all of the redlink redirects that you created for G. species disambiguation pages? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki of Facetious
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Facetious, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Facetious is an article that has been discussed at Articles for Deletion (or Miscellany for deletion), where the outcome was to transwiki, and where the transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded (CSD A5). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Facetious, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Facetious
Checking the entry in Wiktionary, I don't see why not. I'll recreate it. (You didn't really have to ask; it's not salted or anything like that) Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Toponymy
Please stop and undo your moving of articles to "toponymy of X". You appear to have unilaterally decided on a "standard" and enforced it when it is inappropriate. The "Category:Country name etymology" is all the standardization that is needed. There is no obligation for all the articles in a category to have matching titles; given that most articles are in multiple categoriesm that's just as well. Furthermore, the actual standard you are trying to enforce is just plain wrong: "toponymy" does not mean what you seem to think it means. "Toponymy of Ireland", for example, should redirect to "Irish placenames"; it has little to do with "Etymology of the word 'Ireland'" and nothing to do with "History usage and controversy of various names for independent states on the island of Ireland". jnestorius(talk) 07:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain why you redirected Name of Canada to Toponymy of Canada with no discussion or explanation whatsoever on the article's talk page. - EronTalk 11:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Joesty and Eron,


 * I expected that my standardization of these article titles would cause controversy. I will respond to your concerns one at a time:


 * 1) Why didn't you start a discussion before renaming the articles?


 * Firstly, I could not find any appropriate central location for doing so. WikiProject Etymology is tagged because it is "believed to be inactive", so that location seemed unlikely to cultivate proper discussion.  Due to the number of articles involved, starting a separate discussion on all the talk pages of the articles involved was not a feasible option.  In the end, I simply decided to be bold and perform the changes, hoping that anyone with objections would come to me with them then, which I am glad to see that the two of you have.


 * See Requested moves I suggest you undo your work and follow the procedure there.  Then people can discuss your other points at a central location. jnestorius(talk) 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 2) Why is title standardization required? Isn't grouping by category sufficient?


 * The main purpose of my standardization of the titles of these articles was so that I could introduce Template:Europe topic and the other corresponding continent templates at the bottom of these articles. Toponymy is a concept which should eventually be addressed for all countries.  Such templates would serve to connect these articles more integrally, while also encouraging the development of future toponymic articles.  The implimentation of these templates would look like this:


 * 3) Toponymy is not the proper term to be using in this case.


 * I do not believe that Toponymy of Ireland should redirect to Irish placenames, for example, because when one uses the term "toponymy of x", it is x which is being discussed, not the subdivisions of x. One article which I did not rename was Toponymy of Mexico, and that article is solely about the name of the country.  Based on the toponymy article, "toponymy refers to the scientific study of place-names (toponyms), their origins, meanings, use and typology".  Wiktionary defines it as the "lexicological study of place names".  By these definitions, the term "toponymy" seems appropriate to all the articles I renamed; they all dealt either with the history of the name(s) of that country, the development of the name(s), controversy over the name(s), and/or the etymology of the name(s).  All this seems rightly to fall under the heading of toponymy.  If there is a general concensus that another word is more appropriate, feel free to suggest it.  "Etymology" may be an appropriate alternative.


 * It seems to me that there should be an article discussing the history, development, controversy over, and etymology of the name(s) of every country in the world, and articles which only deal with a portion of this information should be expanded to incorporate the other applicable information. Title standardization makes the difference between articles less ambiguous, and it also allows for the introduction of the helpful navigation impliments such as the templates discussed above.  I hope I have properly stated my case.  If you have further concerns, please state them here so that we can maintain one unified discussion.


 * Neelix (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I also came here to ask you to please stop your massive undiscussed move campaign. Yes, toponymy of Ireland means the same as, and should redirect to, Irish placenames. As a courtesy, please undo all your moves and start a centralized discussion somewhere, alerting all talkpages of the articles concerned of your intentions. Thanks. dab (𒁳) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do this. Something this major really needs centralized discussion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would gladly do so if you could suggest an appropriate location for such a discussion, but I am unaware of one. As for stopping, I had stopped before anyone had raised a concern.  We are only dealing with 27 articles here, for there are only 27 country-specific articles which deal with toponymy. Neelix (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that you were being bold in implementing these redirects. In the case of the one article that brought me here - Name of Canada - I shall complete the trifecta by reverting your move and initiating a discussion of it on that article's talk page. There's a pretty good history of rather, er, spirited discussion about the article on that page, so I am confident this will generate some commentary on your proposal. The results may be instructive for your project as a whole. - EronTalk 21:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

An appropriate starting point for discussion on this subject would be Requested Moves. That allows the community in general to view the proposal, rather than only those associated with WikiProjects. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have contributed to the discussion on Talk:Name of Canada. Thank you for starting the discussion there, Eron.  As I stated at that location, it seems obvious now that "Toponymy" is not the appropriate term for the standardization.  My intention was not to impose this particular term, but simply to standardize the titles of these 27 articles, which I still believe to be a helpful and important endeavour.  What would users think of "Etymology" as an alternative?  This would be an understandable change for articles previously named "Name of x" or "Names of x", as etymology simply refers to "an account of the origin and historical development of a word" (Wiktionary).  The discussion on Toponymy of Mexico makes it plain that that article needs to be renamed, and "Etymology of Mexico" would be an applicable alternative.  Neelix (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, I appreciate the sentiment that these country name articles may need some standardization. Either "$COUNTRY (name)" or "Name(s) of $COUNTRY" or similar. It's just that "toponymy of $COUNTRY" is a terrible choice, because, well, it's wrong. The title doesn't say what you intend it to say. Also note that all these articles need to be looked at case by case. Thus Britain (name) discusses the name Britain exclusively, while Names of India discusses the various names historically used for the Indian subcontinent (not the Republic of India). --dab (𒁳) 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the discussion both here and on Talk:Name of Canada, it seems that most users are pleased with the "Name(s) of x" format. If there are no categorical objections to this switch in the next 24 hours, I will rename these 27 articles either "Name of x" or "Names of x".  For those articles which will be called "Names of x", I will have "Name of x" redirect to them so that the templates aforementioned will still function properly. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a case by case decision. Please look at what these articles are actually discussing, and then try to use common sense. To be on the safe side, consider to actually (gasp) use the individual article talkpages to look for WP:CONSENSUS. If this is just about your template, I suggest you just create redirects and refrain from moving around articles you have no previous involvement with: this is frowned upon. dab (𒁳) 18:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment above; most of these articles have appropriate names at present and if you rename them for purposes of standardization, the new name will not necessarily suit the article. Albania (name) is an example. --Mathew5000 (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perkins.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Perkins.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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. Sdrtirs (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bungles!
Hello! Good idea about the merge for the four articles. Do you want me to go ahead with the merging?  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge done and thanks for the star!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe, just noticed the "needs a lug nut to go around" part!  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lucinda Williams (disambiguation)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Lucinda Williams (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Lucinda Williams (disambiguation)
I have nominated Lucinda Williams (disambiguation), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Lucinda Williams (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)