User talk:Noiratsi/Archive 1

Article for deletion
You tagged me for deletion. I wanted to request a page to be made on our behalf about Simax glassware, but I couldn't figure out how to propose a page, the whole process is very confusing. I just left a negative review for wikipedia on the matter.. I thought if I made one, someone would edit the page and make it more official. Maybe you can help me with the process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavalierglass (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Kavalierglass. Welcome to Wikipedia! I tagged the page as "promotional" because it contained phrases like "our Simax glass", lots of complimentary description of the material and several links to the product website. An encyclopedic article should be neutral and be well supported by references. In order to merit an article you also need to establish that the material is notable. I wish you luck if you decide to research the topic and create a more encyclopedic entry, but for now I have left the deletion tag. Note that you're free to leave a note on the article's talk page contesting the deletion, especially if you'd like to try and rewrite the article to make it sound more neutral. --Noiratsi (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I added different information, technical information. Is that better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavalierglass (talk • contribs) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is indeed better - I've taken the liberty of removing the tag (even though I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that...). I'm sorry you found it confusing to create a new article! I hope you can understand why the article was tagged. I added some new maintenance tags which will hopefully attract some more editors to help you out with your new article. It definitely looks like a useful addition to the encyclopedia. --Noiratsi (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. The whole process is just a tad hard to follow. Kavalierglass (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Professor richard
Hello Noiratsi. I am just letting you know that I deleted Professor richard, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The thread is Suspicious activity at Micah Baldwin. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting on the AN/I. As I noted there, promotional pages are not the worst thing that's ever happened to Wikipedia, and they are certainly hard to spot. I hope this doesn't deter you from the other page patrol work you're doing, flagging the attack pages and all. My initial fear (as you may have guessed) was that your account was one of the sock accounts created by a PR company for the purpose of slipping their articles in under the radar. As a side note, if you don't mind my asking, have you had previous experience editing Wikipedia? I ask because NPP seems an odd place for new users to start out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I started looking over new pages almost by accident, because I was looking for ways I could contribute without actually knowing anything about the subject of the article (!). I had some fun converting some listy articles into prose, but that takes a very long time and sometimes a lot of effort. New pages seems perfect for when you have five minutes to make the world a better place. I've never edited Wikipedia before (well, maybe minor punctuation-correction IP edits), but I've had experience of wiki-markup on other sites.
 * I'm still getting the hang of all the different CSDs and such, but I'm learning as I go and I'm still having fun! Nice to have something worthwhile to do with your spare time. --Noiratsi (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, well keep up the good work. Keep having fun, and good luck to you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Behindwoods article
just wait and see how good the article you tagged for deletion becomes. read more about it here: http://www.behindwoods.com/about-us.html Kailash29792 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Atifs Lycian salamander
Not really an article about the person, but may be eligible for deletion under WP:CSD. Note WP:NOTCSD. ⁓ Hello  71  20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

CSD tagging
Hello, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I see that you're quite new here and have taken an interest in CSD tagging. You've made a few mistakes, but that's understandable. I've made some mistakes also and I'm sure you'll get better with more experience. I just wanted to let you know that Daniel(Dave) McCarthy, which I believe you had tagged as not evidencing notability, should have been blanked as an attack page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Regards, Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 21:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've noticed several times today that people have changed my speedy tags to attack page ones when I can't see anything on the page that seems to meet WP:ATP. What was it about Daniel(Dave) McCarthy that struck you as offensive or threatening? I can't check since I can't see deleted pages, but as far as I remember there was only one possibly very slightly offensive comment about how he hadn't inherited all his parents skills? (I may be remembering the wrong article of course). Anyway, thanks for your comments and of course I am constantly learning more about the CSDs and trying to get better at this! I hope that on balance I manage to be a help rather than a hindrance. --Noiratsi (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's good that you are asking questions. I'm happy to explain. Please bear in mind that an article does not have to be threatening to be an attack page. It is also an attack page if it exists primarily to disparage its subject and I think you could say that was the purpose of the article in question. Automatic Strikeout  ( T  •  C) 21:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Midlands Zone
Thanks for readding the tags. I was about to restore them. Thanks again and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was working on autopilot really - the tag I put on is actually a different one now since the page is empty, so the original reasons for deletion don't apply I suppose. Hope you understand why I tagged the article in the first place, and good luck improving it! (In other news, have been stalking your userpage and very jealous of your Mass-Effect-playing, half-american, Wikipedian boyfriend. Just saying). Keep up the good work :) --Noiratsi (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i understand completely. I was hoping i had more time to work on it before the tags appeared.
 * You want him? He's one of a kind but if the price is right...
 * Thanks and have a nice day ツ Je no va  20  (email) 12:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and placed the tags since proposed deletion does give you seven days to improve the article, and it had been nearly a month since the article's creation. But since you're happy to keep working on the article in your userspace there doesn't seem to be any problem :). Note that the current deletion tag in no way prevents you from putting the article back if you want, even if the page does get deleted for the time being - I'm sure you already knew that.
 * (...maybe we could share? ;)) --Noiratsi (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i knew some of that. I'll replace it in main space when it is more likely to pass notability though.
 * I'll take monday, thursday and saturday. You get tuesday, wednesday and sunday. We'll rotate thursdays each week =P
 * The more important question though - you don't want me? I'm a mass effect player too ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did link to Triad (relationship) rather than just Polyamory outright... (Shame there isn't a section title for the redirect to link to. See, I'm still talking about making the encyclopedia better,... right?) Does that answer your question? --Noiratsi (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Kinda...Anyhows jokes aside, BlueStars83 is here and said i can't share or sell him.
 * There's always the email button if you want to chat outside Wikipedia.
 * I hope no one reads this thinking i actually would do that lol. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 13:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tehrik-e-Niswan
Hello, just letting you know I removed the prod from the above article as it seems a notable organization, I've added a couple of references. Thank you. Rotten regard 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I removed the prod from Tietgenbyen, as it's a large commercial area and gets numerous coverage in Danish newspapers. Rotten regard 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but in that case would it be possible to link to said newspaper coverage? Even just adding some context to explain that this is a notable area would be a start... --Noiratsi (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ODM-List-Country
I have updated my Template:ODM-List-Country and added to the corresponding pages Mimich (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

ToR Tag Team Championship
This page I created was not susposed to be made I didn't know I created even though I haven't finished it.--Rebecca Maria Herrington (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For reference: I copied the article to User:Rebecca Maria Herrington/ToR Tag Team Championship and tagged it CSD G7 (deletion request by author). I have explained all this in detail at User talk:Rebecca Maria Herrington. --Noiratsi (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to User:Rebecca Maria Herrington/ToR Tag Team Championship so the attribution is intact in case it is ever moved back into the article space.  GB fan 14:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, thanks.--Rebecca Maria Herrington (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8
Given that not a single editor has argued that this article fails to meet WP:GNG, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to withdraw the nomination? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure it's extremely bad practice to try and negotiate about an AfD outside of the main discussion thread. In any case, it would be inappropriate for me to withdraw the nomination on the basis of what's been said (or not said) in the discussion—sorry. Even if the discussion doesn't go in favour of the article, you can still discuss potential undeletion in the future or work on the article in your userspace.


 * While WP:GNG is an important criteria it is far from being the only relevant consideration. WP:DEL-REASON lists a number of possible deletion reasons, including the sub-sections of the notability guidelines and the suggestions at WP:NOT. Policies and guidelines which have been mentioned in support of deletion are WP:LISTN (notability of lists), WP:LISTPURP (the purpose of lists) and WP:LINKFARM (on the subject of lists whose primary purpose is to link to external sites). The discussion runs for several more days, and you should present your case there, not to me. If the nomination really is unfounded, the discussion will hopefully reveal that. As a side-note, your improvements to the article have made a significant difference, and I've mentioned that in the discussion. —Noiratsi (talk) 11:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are correct, there are other reasons to delete an article, but none of them are present with this article. There are no copyright violations, no BLP violations, etc..  The only complaint seems to be that the article isn't finished yet. Or perhaps this is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  But neither are valid reasons for deletion.  Admitting you made a mistake would go a long way towards helping resolve this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will answer your points individually as a bullet-list, in case that helps to show that I am actually reading and appreciating what you're saying.
 * Copyright violations and BLP issues are reasons for expedited attention/deletion (speedy or blp-prod). The fact that they are not present doesn't bear on the normal deletion discussion process.
 * The fact that the article is unfinished is not the only complaint; as you say, it shouldn't be a complaint at all. All articles on Wikipedia are unfinished. The deletion discussion has revealed a number of problems with the article, many of which have been addressed—which is great. I believe that the suggestion that the topic would be better discussed somewhere in the Start menu or Windows 8 articles is still something which needs to be considered.
 * If you think that my nomination is based on my personal opinion and is unsubstantiated, you should say that in the discussion. I agree that I'm still new to this; that's why I appreciate the fact that deletion is discussed by several people and that other people can comment on my contributions. I also think it's good that discussions allow for other outcomes, like merges.
 * I don't feel that I made a mistake when I nominated for deletion an article which included nothing except a list of 5 external links. The improvements to the article in the last 3 days are laudable, and they have been talked about in the discussion.
 * I hope that I have answered at least some of your points. I hope it's not rude of me to suggest that before you reply you reread the talk page discussion, the deletion discussion and all of the many policies and guidelines that have been linked. Many of the questions that have been coming up over and over again are at least addressed, if not conclusively answered, by existing consensus. I will do the same; that way, we can be sure we're both on the same page. —Noiratsi (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you don't seem to understand is that (for the most part) we don't delete articles simply because they have issues or are incomplete. Issues can be fixed through the normal editing process.  Writing articles for Wikipedia is a collaborative, iterative approach.  Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was it build by one person.  We need more editors to help make the article better.  You'll note that  says:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
 * Note that it does not say:

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it.
 * What you should have done was to help me expand it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm backing down ;] hopefully we can make friends. My instinct to defend myself is probably distorting my perspective—it's hard to change course once you've got started in a particular direction. I also think I have a bit of an exclusionist view which makes me very hasty to suggest getting rid of stuff. I think we got off to a bad start straight away when I tagged the external links in the article. I'm still reading lots of things and asking lots of people about external links, because I really want to know what people think about that issue. Like I said at Talk:External links, I'm happy to go with whatever the consensus is, I just can't seem to find out what it is! Anyway, like you say, that's not got much to do with deletion. When I suggested deletion, I wasn't being very forward looking. Like you say, I should have spent a bit more time thinking about the potential future of the article. I can see now that the existence of Start Menu replacements for W8 is actually far more notable than the individual products, and that having an article (or section) about the topic is definitely justifiable. The lead paragraph you added puts that into perspective. I think if that had been there to begin with, I wouldn't have made the nomination—which does sort of show that the nomination was probably the wrong thing to do. The fact that the entries were briefly turned into redlinks threw me as well—it made me see the article as a navigational list, and obviously a navigational list that only includes redlinks is a candidate for deletion. As I said I can see now that the group itself is notable.


 * What do you think about moving/merging? A lot of the !votes in the discussion are just about whether the article merits being a standalone list. I think it's more than just a list now, and it would maybe even make sense to get rid of the "List of" from the title.


 * Full disclosure: I owe you one. Windows 8 was ruining my life; I downloaded Start8 when I saw it in your list and it's so much better. Thanks ;]. I'm sorry we've spent so much time arguing at cross-purposes. I got bogged down in the assumption that this was just a standalone list of external links and that it was never going to be worth rescuing. The addition of more context should have made me realise straight away that it was a keeper, but I guess I was already too far gone. Let's have a drink and get working on improving this article. And sorry. —Noiratsi (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. I'm a pretty big tech geek.  I've been following Windows 8 for over a year and all my home PCs are on now Windows 8 (except for one that I don't use anymore).  So, I was well aware of the controversy and how it generated a market for third-party replacements.   There's plenty of source and things to write about.  It just takes time.  Most people aren't using Windows 8 yet, so I think the topic will become even more notable as time goes on.  Personally, I prefer lists, but I'm OK if the article morphs into something else.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Structural/strategic family therapy
Hi Noiratsi,

I just merged the article with structural family therapy and place it within that page. Thank you for the help and advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlovato23 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fried Pork in Scoop
If someone looked for it once, and was motivated enough by not finding it they felt compelled to make an article, my expectation is that it's not likely they'll be the last person to do so. Redirects are actually nicer to the servers than deleting them, so it's not typically worth deleting them when readers are better served by them existing (if only occasionally), and the server is, too. Wily D 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I replied at your talk page. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries. Note that my own opinions about the usefulness of redirects "might be" "a little bit" to the inclusionist side of community standards, so you shouldn't give it unlimited credence.  (I'm not sure I can fairly represent the "We should delete infrequently used redirects", except that I gather they feel it clutters up the search bar.) Wily D  11:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Userfarm page
Hi, Userfarm is a big and is notable company in the world. It's one of the biggest company that work on video crowdsourcing, their clients are Repubblica, Paddy Power, Real Madrid, IBM, Microsoft eccetera...

If you want we can cut some information and add more details on case studies; i many country, in italy for example, more student have did research about it.

Let me know ho we can procede on this item. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvrluca (talk • contribs) 11:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lvrluca. Sorry that the article got deleted—I hope I can help you. As you saw, the reason the article got deleted was because it didn't explain why the company is important. That's one of the agreed criteria for deleting an article straight away and you can read more about that process at Criteria for speedy deletion.


 * That particular process "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance (even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines)". So basically to stop an article about a company getting deleted straight away, all you have to do is explain in the article that it's an important company.


 * Articles which say they're important but don't have any sources to prove that can still be deleted by one of the other, slower deletion processes. So to make sure the article is completely safe from deletion, you need to include citations which point to other sites, newspapers etc. that have talked about the company. Once the article explains why the company is important and backs up that explanation with reliable sources, it is probably safe from deletion. There's more info on this at the notability guidelines for articles about companies.


 * I noticed that there are articles about Userfarm on the French and Italian Wikipedias. You could have a look to see if those articles have sources and information that you can use to support the article. The French article is at Userfarm and the Italian one is at Userfarm. You could also try a Google News search for "userfarm".


 * It's okay to start the article again even though it's been deleted. If you're worried about it getting deleted again, you can put at the top to show a notice telling people that you're still working on it. Or, if you want to work on it in private and in your own time, you can make a userspace draft and copy it to the real article when you're happy with it.


 * I hope that helps you! Good luck with the article, and if you need anything else, just ask. --Noiratsi (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will try to create a new article with more details and more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvrluca (talk • contribs) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Georgian society in Jane Austen's novels
Salut, Noiratsi! Replied to you |here.

Thanks!
Thanks for your kind welcome. I added my suggestions to the talk pages of the articles "European Ombudsman" and "Nikiforos Diamandouros". I would very much appreciate if you would help me add the info. I am not planning to change the articles so it's nothing dramatic, but the links are a bit outdated. Anne

Anne Christensen (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC) 

I assume you are watching...
I assume you are watching Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems, but just wanted to be sure.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Archiving Talk pages
Hi, User Noiratsi. Thanks for the quick action on my archiving error...I'm in the middle of something I've meant to do since 2009. All I did was mimic the way my 2008 Talk had been archived (How, that long ago, I have no idea.). If you would, please show me the right way to do it, as I have one year left (and did another year the wrong way since you began your note to me, if I'm correct). Thanks in advance. Wikiuser100 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Erk! I was in such a rush not to repeat any errors I blew right by your Talk page guidelines. Sorry.  I'll stop all editing on my page and look for your responses there.  Thanks. Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:History of Edinburgh Zoo/GA1
The GA review at Talk:History of Edinburgh Zoo/GA1 is almost done, but there's one action point requiring your attention. Thanks for all your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiBorg
I am trying to get it put into a wikipedia page like WikiReaper. I think if wikireaper gets its own space wikiborg should. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok how do I ask the department of fun to transfer the page? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey how good are you at wikicode? I could use some help with 1 little thing. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I am secretly a supreme wikicode ninja, but I refuse to use my skills for evil. Let me know what it is and we'll see :p --Noiratsi (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was hoping you could make a cool thing that makes my userboxes fold up so you have to click "Show" to see them. Andrew Wiggin (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a go. I used the normal userboxes holder ( and ), but made it foldupable. If you want more than one column or anything, I can change it. If you like it, feel free to just copy and paste the code. I left it at User:Noiratsi/boxshowhide for you. --Noiratsi (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you mind making it 3 columns so I can add stuff more easly later? Thanks! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a go. Couldn't decide whether to make the boxes stack vertically or horizontally. In the end vertical looked better. :) User:Noiratsi/boxshowhide --Noiratsi (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I ended up using it! I looks great and now I can add more stuff to my page! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please dont "report" copyrights infringements, when not appearing! quite annoying!!!
Please dont "report" copyrights infringements, when not appearing! quite annoying!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deazph (talk • contribs) 13:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

citation for planetary nebula renaming
Hi, thanks for your help in cleaning up my circular links (stellar remnant nebula). I'll get back to you with a citation in a couple of days. Lehasa (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yiddish words and phrases
Thank you for the information. The links under the Category Yiddish words and phrases appear to generally point to definitions in some form (e.g., Chazerai). I guess what I need to do is figure out how to cause Yiddish words and phrases defined elsewhere to show up under the Category Yiddish words and phrases, since it's obviously being done somehow, and I see no other point in having the category. KMLion (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The idea behind the category is to group together those Yiddish words which have some notable use or meaning for English speakers. Thanks for pointing out Chazerai, which shouldn't have had its own article; I've turned it back into a redirect to the List of English words of Yiddish origin (since the notable point is the fact that the Yiddish word has apparently passed into English). The topic itself is just junk food, so I suppose it could have been redirected there instead—I chose to redirect to the list of words since the list then links to Junk food. --Noiratsi (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: SHAYKH AMINULLAH
The source is a US Government site. The terms of use state:

Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission.

I'm planning to remove the CSD, although you are urged to follow up and point out that even though the material can be used, it needs better citing.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  16:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I hadn't realised it would be PD. I've changed the cite myself, using . --Noiratsi (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Altered Walter (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pamoto Deletion
Pamoto is a credible constructed language. I just didn't get to the sources yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlphaGamma100 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it, the deletion discussion gives you at least 7 days. I tagged it because I couldn't find anything on Google, but if you do add credible sources then of course the article won't get deleted :) --Noiratsi (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

juerg neuenschwander
hi,

please restore my post of the musician jürg neuenschwander. at the moment he insists to having simply his cv published at wikipedia. of course there are many swiss german words related to his work / education environment etc. so this should not be an issue here..

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spring juere (talk • contribs) 19:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

THE anciant EGYPTIAN ART OF WAR
Greetings! Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia but I'd like to request you to wait and have patient before marking any new article for deletion. Thanks, NickAang (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment :). For some of the CSD criteria I sometimes don't think it's worth leaving time, though. For things like A3, A7, A1 or even G1 and G2 it might very well be that the article is a work in progress and will be rescued, so it's definitely worth waiting. The particular article you mentioned, though, fitted A10 perfectly—better to draw the author's attention to the existing article than to let them keep writing about a subject which is already well-covered somewhere else. Do you have a particular reason for thinking waiting would have been a good idea in this situation? I did read the article to make sure there wasn't any sourced, mergeable content, before I tagged it. —Noiratsi (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Material on the Mongoloid race should be merged into East Asian race
The article titled: "Mongoloid" should become a disambiguation page to several topics: (1) the racial typoology known as the East Asian race; (2) the historically common but now derogatory reference to people with Down's syndrome; and (3) Mongolians. Mongoloid became an outdated term in racial typology. "Mongoloid race" has 66,900 results, "East Asian race" has 176,000 results. Thus per Common name the article on the racial typology should be titled "East Asian race".--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, in that case I think the best way to go about it would be:
 * Get an admin to move the existing Mongoloid page to East Asian race (non-admins won't be able to do this since the page East Asian race already exists. The move is useful to preserve the edit history of the page, for copyright reasons and general niceness
 * Redirect Mongoloid to East Asian race
 * Add a hatnote to the page East Asian race saying that Mongoloid redirects there, and pointing to Mongoloid (disambiguation)
 * Create the Mongoloid (disambiguation) page, listing the song, the medical condition, the nationality and the racial typology
 * That's just my assessment of the situation. It might be that there's a better way to sort this. What do you think? —Noiratsi (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Mongoloid has been commonly historically used to refer to people with Down's syndrome. Merging "Mongoloid" into "East Asian race" would be inappropriate. The article Mongoloid itself should be a disambiguation page.--R-41 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That was going to be my other suggestion ;). I don't know much about the topic so it's not for me to say whether any of the pages counts as a primary topic. If you don't think any of them do, I agree we can just make Mongoloid into a disambiguation page in its own right. Either way, the move is still a good idea, to preserve the history of the article. —Noiratsi (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Might be better to continue this discussion at Talk:East Asian race :) —Noiratsi (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)