User talk:Roman Spinner/Archive 3 (2010 and 2011)

Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer)
Kindly do not interfere with massive amounts of work done by members of the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing by arbitrarily changing the name of an article. 1I do not care what your opinion is as to "common usage", and ask that in future you show enough good manners to consult on the Project talk page. You know nothing about Thoroughbred racing and know nothing of the reasons the full name of Thomas Joseph Kelly was used. Thanx for your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the nearly-four-week delay in replying to your post. Your choice of "Handicapper" as user name presumably serves as an indication of expertise in the subject of horse racing and, therefore, since you state that I "know nothing about Thoroughbred racing and know nothing of the reasons the full name of Thomas Joseph Kelly was used" and that my "arbitrarily changing the name of an article" from Thomas Joseph Kelly to Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer), does "interfere with massive amounts of work done by members of the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing", I will limit my "interference" in that subject to narrow procedural grounds.
 * As the creator, you naturally feel protective of the article's contents which, you may note, I did not revise. As to the main title header, you, yourself, refer to the subject throughout the article as "Tommy Kelly" or "T. J. Kelly" and, not even once, as "Thomas Joseph Kelly".  Although Manual of Style (biographies) indicates that "article title should be name by which subject is most commonly known", some Wikipedia editors have the notion that it is somehow "unencyclopedic" to entitle articles with names such as Johnny Carson, Billy Crystal, Babe Ruth or Sammy Sosa and that those biographical entries must instead be titled John William Carson, William Edward Crystal, George Herman Ruth and Samuel Peralta Sosa, respectively.  Moreover, while the 16th president, although affectionately known as Abe Lincoln, did not sign documents with that name, preferring to use A. Lincoln, presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did sign bills and other documents with those names, rather than as James Earl Carter, Jr. or William Jefferson Clinton.  In fact, many current and recent political figures and a majority of sports figures are known to the public as "Bob", "Dick", "Dave" or "Tommy" and would be virtually unrecognizable if referenced by their full names.
 * Since Wikipedia articles should be written and titled in such a manner that all users, and not solely specialists in the subject, are privy to the information contained therein, your insistence on retaining Thomas Joseph Kelly as this article's main title header, but keeping the reasons to yourself, runs counter to such a purpose. At the very least, you could have added an explanatory sentence to the article, stating something to the effect of, "although inducted into the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame as 'Tommy Kelly' and referenced in the press as 'Tommy' or 'T. J.', he was proud that his Purple Heart citations indicated his name in full, and preferred to sign himself as 'Thomas Joseph Kelly'".  While still not fully acceptable (Johnny Carson would remain as "Johnny" in his article's header, even if he did sign his checks as "John William Carson"), some explanation would at least exist.
 * Finally, not all moves of article titles are controversial and thus do not require the WikiProject procedure that you insist upon. Since you objected to this move, however, any further steps in that direction, would, indeed, need to be discussed both on the article's talk page and within the WikiProject's talk page.  This brings up a related point.  As a veteran editor, you must know that Talk:Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer) should not have been redirected to Thomas Joseph Kelly, but to Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly, As a result of your move on January 5, Thomas Joseph Kelly has been bereft of a talk page since that date, with the resulting lack of a place to indicate the WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tags or discuss the suitability of the title.  Also, you must know that If you are unable to revert a move because of an immovable redirect, you should not perform a revision-history-obliterating cut-and-paste move as you did with Thomas Joseph Kelly, but use RfD or discuss the matter with an administrator, explaining why you feel that Thomas Joseph Kelly is a more appropriate name than Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer) and request the deletion of the redirect so that the article may be properly moved.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RE: Thomas Joseph Kelly - I always give way to editors of those articles managed by a defined Wikipedia Project especially for individuals who have a clear and demonstrated high input and expertise on the subject. Thomas Joseph Kelly is one of the most common full names in the English language, thanks to horny Irishmen and the Holy Roman Church. There are five Thoroughbred racehorse trainers with that exact name and until I determine which ones warrant a Wikipedia article and figure out how to label them, then allow me and the Project to do what we know for one in the Hall of Fame pending resolution. Organizing disambig pages is so far down on the order of importance at Wikipedia, that such consideration is quite properly warranted. Second, though, is that of the thousands (yes thousands) of trainer names I have inserted in Wikipedia with an appendage, none where their  article has been done are labeled with the very broad term, "racehorse trainer."   (For now, mine is actually worse) You move the page, and it cant be reversed by any of the current knowledgable Project members. So, why would you arbitarily decide to compel me (us) to adhere to your title? If your level of concern is so great, then why not show the Project consideration with a question on the Projects talk page.  And no, I did not create the British ones with that poor title but, as I practise what I preach, leave it alone pending resolution by the Project. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI - I think your assertion that "In fact, many current and recent political figures and a majority of sports figures are known to the public as "Bob", "Dick", "Dave" or "Tommy" and would be virtually unrecognizable if referenced by their full names." is, but not always, an incorrect opinion unless you believe Wikipedia's shelf life is short. History shows that wildly popular and regulary used nick names disappear within a generation or two. And, there are clear situations where fans and newspapers etc. call someone by a nickname when the person themselves do not. An example, is the article created as "Bobby Frankel" that I moved to Robert J. Frankel. Why? Well, I put the reason in his article with a reference to his own words. Conversely, I changed Shoemaker's article to Bill Shoemaker as he authored his memoirs under "Bill." Question, should we change the Wikipedia article to Teddy Roosevelt because he was most known as that name during his time. Today, one rarely here's him called Teddy although FDR gets used inside paragraphs and, almost always as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, never Franklin Roosevelt, but Wikipedia is currently using Franklin D., something rarely ever used by anyone at anytime. So, is it not a matter of using a disambiguation page to a proper name in certain cases, rather than a widely used public nickname that no one will ever know within a few years. Was not William Shakespeare known best by the "public" in his day by a nickname? It’s all a matter of time. Handicapper (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-reasoned explanation which, as far as I am concerned, puts the matter to rest. Had I taken the time to glance at Category:American horse trainers or Category:American racehorse owners and breeders, I would realized that few of those articles contain qualifiers and none have "(racehorse trainer)", thus leading me to follow the already-existing examples of John Dickerson (trainer) or, alternately, Chad Brown (horse trainer) since, in his case, one or more other editors insist that he was not known to the public as Chad C. Brown, or did not normally use his middle initial. [Among those racehorse owner and breeders who have other business interests, Jess Jackson (wine) seems to have a particularly awkward qualifier. Your "(viticulturist)" is much preferable. Perhaps "(wine entrepreneur)" might be an acceptable compromise]. With that said, I should like, with your concurrence, to recreate the Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly discussion page and add to it the BLP (listas=Kelly, Thomas Joseph; living=yes) and WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tags along with our above-contained exchange on the subject in the unlikely, but possible, scenario of another user/editor having similar concerns. If you would prefer to add the tags yourself or if you would rather not have this exchange replicated on the Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly discussion page, please let me know and I will leave it to your best judgment.

As to your second post, regarding nicknames, it is a subject I have been writing about for years and participated, last June and July, in a lengthy discussion on Talk:James Stewart and Talk:James Stewart (actor) regarding the use of the affectionate nickname, Jimmy Stewart, now the prime target of the Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) page, versus the actor's own preferred form, James Stewart, which is now rendered as James Stewart (actor) on the James Stewart disambiguation page, which has no prime target. For "serious" personalities, which usually meant political figures, widely-known affectionate short forms, such as Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were not used in newspaper stories and were generally confined to editorialists, columnists and humorists, Mark Twain, in particular. Jimmy Carter made minor history by becoming the first president who actually instituted his nickname as an official presidential name, although he still took the oath of office under his legal name, James Earl Carter, Jr., with Bill Clinton following the same route regarding his own name. I, too, would have preferred Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt [the only well-known venue which comes to mind for that form is the centrally located Parisian rapid transit station, Franklin D. Roosevelt (Paris Métro)], however, to assure uniformity among articles which numerous editors may have wished to call Dwight David Eisenhower, Lyndon Baines Johnson or George Herbert Walker Bush, some form of consensus developed around the use of middle initials, even in the case of FDR, where the full name would have been more appropriate [there is still inconsistency, with the article on Richard Milhous Nixon entitled Richard Nixon]. Finally, your mention of Bill Shoemaker, who appeared in newspaper stories referenced primarily as Willie Shoemaker, is an excellent example of someone who indicated his own preference through an autobiography. I faced a similar choice in titling my article about Bill Lawrence (news personality) who, in his twenty years as a New York Times reporter, was always bylined as "William Lawrence" or "W. H. Lawrence" but, upon moving to ABC News, became officially known by his long-standing nickname, "Bill", and wrote his memoirs as "Bill Lawrence". There are obviously many additional examples, but sufficient for the day...&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming disambiguation qualifiers
Please stop renaming "just for consistency" because it still isn't consistent. Just because you've found some Australian footballers with (Australian rules footballer) as their disambiguation qualifier, doesn't mean they all should be. I prefer (Australian footballer) as the official name is Australian football, but Australian rules football is a common and less ambiguous name. Are you going to change all (singers) to (jazz singer) or (pop singer) and all (politicians) to their (country/state politician)? Of the 895 pages in Category:Players of Australian rules football with disambiguation qualifiers, 500 have (footballer), 230 have (Australian rules footballer) and 116 have (Australian footballer). I think that unless (footballer) is ambiguous with a soccer/rugby/american football player, then it's fine. I can't see any other John Kennedy, Jr. who are footballers, so why bother?The-Pope (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your taking the time to communicate with me regarding this matter. I can allay your concern by assuring you that, as far as this move is concerned, I never had any further intention of changing hundreds or even a couple of qualifiers for footballers, singers, politicians or any other profession for the sake of consistency or for any other sake.  Rather than presenting examples in my move/edit summary of other entries which use the parenthetical qualifier "(Australian rules footballer)", I should have noted that the move of John Kennedy, Jr. (footballer) to John Kennedy, Jr. (Australian rules footballer) merely served to elucidate the subject from John Kennedy (English footballer) and John Kennedy (Scottish footballer) who appear next to him on the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page. The other edits associated with this move merely served to adjust incoming links.  While, as you point out, there is no other John Kennedy, Jr. who is a footballer, the reason to bother is that all four John Kennedys (the fourth being John Kennedy, Sr.) who were/are footballers, appear under subheader "Sports competitors" on the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page, thus highlighting the uneven nature of their qualifiers.  Since the son of the 35th president of the United States is entered as John F. Kennedy, Jr., and not merely as "John Kennedy, Jr.", John Kennedy, Jr. (Australian rules footballer) is, theoretically, able to stand alone and has no need of any qualifier, but, since most Wikipedia users were apparently judged unlikely to enter the middle initial "F.", while the John Kennedy, Jr. might-have-been-disambiguation page, exists solely as a redirect to the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page, the use of the qualifier was effectuated.  An overlong explanation, but one which can serve as a referral point for future discussions.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the db-move template
Hi there. I've just done the delete/move that you requested on La Notte. For future reference, if you use, then that template provides a link for the admin. They just need to click on the link and tick delete, and the deletion and move is all completed. Just makes it a bit easier. Ged UK  07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Placement of Missing Birth/Death Information Category Tags
Back in April 2007 there was a CfD for Date and Place of Birth and Death that resulted in the tags' being placed on the Talk page. I only learned about that decision 2½ years later and have railed against it, privately, ever since.

Where is the CfD that put the categories back on the article page, where the information is generated and where all the other Birth and Death information category tags are placed? JimCubb (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contacting me regarding the placement of these maintenance categories and would also like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for having neglected to initiate communication in response to your earlier postings. I had been using Wikipedia since its first year, 2001, but did not become a contributor until January 2006, seven months after the initial two of these maintenance categories, Year of birth missing and Year of death missing, were created in June 2005.  An additional eleven related categories came into being between March and November 2006, while the last three, Year of birth missing (living people), Place of birth missing (living people) and Date of birth missing (living people), appeared in May 2007.  I created two of the latter, "Year (living people)" and "Place (living people)" and described some of the reasoning behind the creation in my May 2, 2007 comment at the newly-instituted Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people).  A maximum of only four of these categories can be logically appended to any single biographical entry — 1. Year or date (but not both) of birth, 2. Year or date (but not both) of death, 3. Place of birth and 4. Place of death, while most entries use none of them or only one, possibly two.
 * All of the foregoing notwithstanding, a few editors continued to submit these categories for deletion, positing that their presence created clutter amidst article categories. The deletion and subsequent restoration of some of these categories (one of them, "Cause of death missing", was deleted in March 2007 and never restored), prompted the April 2007 CfD you mention, proposing that only the three "defining" categories — Year of birth missing, Year of birth missing (living people) and Year of death missing were eligible to remain among article categories, while the remaining twelve should be repurposed to the discussion page, where they would be out of sight and, unfortunately, out of mind.  As has already been pointed out, had the "hidden category" option existed back then, it would have obviated the need for such actions.
 * Three years after that April 2007 CfD, an April-June 2010 CfD came to the conclusion that the 2007 arguments for retaining the twelve categories on the discussion pages of biographical entries had become outmoded/outdated and presented no objections to the restoration of all entries in Category:Articles missing birth or death information to article pages. An associated deletion discussion is still ongoing at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June 9, with relation to Date of birth unknown and Date of death unknown.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. What no one seems to have noted in the discussions about the placement of these category tags is that the data which trigger the tag are only on the article space unless there is a dispute.  This ties in with you regret that putting the tags on the talk page puts them out of mind.  When a tag is on a different page that its triggering datum the tag is begging to be poorly maintained.
 * I have little to no sympathy for those who complain that there are too many of these categories. No more than four of them will be on any page.  There should always be three category tags for living people and four tags for dead people.  There will never be more than that.  Compare that to the "People from " tags on mediocre sports figures, who play in one place for a couple of years, another place for a couple of years, a third place for a couple of years and so on.  There some articles where the list of "People from " tags is longer than the article.
 * Thank you again for you reply. If I ever get back to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and find one of these tags on the talk page I will move it to the article space and feel good about it.  JimCubb (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sergeant Hathaway
Noting your speedy deletion request on Sergeant Hathaway, I've gone ahead and just plain deleted the title as G7, and so with the title clear, you are now free to place whatever you would like at that title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move
Redirect deleted, move when ready. CIreland (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Colour My World
Although Chicago is an American band, the official spelling of the song is "Colour" according to the band's official website, allmusic.com and the actual albums in which the song appears. We obviously go by what the song is actually called in this case.  freshacconci  talk talk  07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Stahl
The article John Stahl has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Article does not assert notability and is an unreferenced biography of a living person (WP:BLP).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kubanczyk (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Stahl


A tag has been placed on John Stahl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Armbrust Talk  Contribs  18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * After viewing Google's cached version of the John Stahl stub, I certainly agree with the decision to have it speedily deleted. However, since I never edited John Stahl, the above notices on my talk page regarding that deletion must have occurred as a result of some type of confusion or error.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Young
Hi, now that Paul Young is a disambig, could you help fix the links that now need to be pointed to the correct article? This tool makes the job much easier. Thanks, -- Ja Ga  talk 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the reminder and will continue attending to the Paul Young links until all of them are properly adjusted.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Circle of Love
Generally, when there are only two subjects with the same title, we use hatnotes, not disambiguation pages, to direct readers to their desired article. Now that you've done it anyway, could you at least go and change all the wikilinks that used to direct to the album that now direct to the dab page? You created quite a few redirects. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your contacting me and I will gladly allay your concerns as well as elucidate my reasoning on this matter. I support the use of hatnotes and frequently apply them to articles.  However, when confronted with Circle of Love and Circle of Love (film), one is forced to conclude that the two-sentence stub comprising Circle of Love is the primary topic, while the parenthetically-qualified stub about Circle of Love (film) is of secondary importance.  Two years ago another editor questioned my addition of the parenthetical qualifier "(writer)" to Geraldine Brooks and my subsequent creation of the Geraldine Brooks disambiguation page containing Geraldine Brooks (actress) in addition to Geraldine Brooks (writer).  Although articles rather than stubs were at the forefront on that occasion, I explained my actions (User talk:Roman Spinner) presumably to the satisfaction of those who were interested.  WP:TWODABS provides an instruction specific for the question you have raised regarding a two-topic disambiguation page: "...if an ambiguous term is considered to have no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page".  Finally, thank you for the reminder about the "quite a few redirects" to the dab page, to which I'll attend today.  There are six, according to my count: 1981 in music, Steve Miller (musician),  Abracadabra (Steve Miller Band album), Greatest Hits 1974–78, 2011 in hard rock and Steve Miller Band discography.  Heart Like a Wheel (disambiguation) should probably count as a seventh.  If you find any others or have additional concerns, I will welcome further discussion.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to say I disagree somewhat with the hatnote / dab page quandary, despite the information at WP:TWODABS - I suspect that sentence is mainly concerning terms with more than two articles. A hatnote at the Circle of Love album article would have provided the same effect as the dab page, with the bonus that half the people would have found what they were looking for immediately; the other half would have had to make the extra click to the film article. With the dab page, everyone has to make one extra click and nobody finds what they want immediately. It doesn't matter that there's no obvious primary topic - just have one of the two articles (it really doesn't matter which) with the straight Circle of Love title and put a hatnote on it leading to the other one. It's a lot less work, with a perfect result for everyone looking for one article, and no extra effort required for anyone looking for the other article.
 * There are still a few redirects to be fixed: Steve Miller (musician), Greatest Hits 1974–78, Heart Like a Wheel (disambiguation) and 2011 in hard rock. There don't seem to be any others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note
Thanks for contributing to Gates of Paris. Your additions are welcomed. BlindMic (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My appreciation, likewise, for your thoughtfulness in writing the kind note above. It is a rare and very welcome gesture.  While we are on the subject of the Gates of Paris disambiguation page, I would like to add a general suggestion, if I may, regarding the format of disambiguation pages.  Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) (MOS:DABENTRY) specifies the following details relevant to our subject:


 * Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments, with no final punctuation (commas, full stops, semicolons, etc.).


 * Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line. For example:
 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%

or but not
 * "Dark Star" (song), song by Grateful Dead
 * "Dark Star" (song), song by Grateful Dead
 * "Dark Star" (song), song by Grateful Dead
 * "Dark Star" (song), by Grateful Dead
 * "Dark Star" (song), song by psychedelic rock band Grateful Dead
 * }
 * The link should not be emphasized with bolding or italics, although titles (such as for books and movies) may need to be italicized to conform with the style guidance on titles. If the article's title contains both a title and a clarifier, use a piped link to quote or italicize only the part requiring such treatment, as opposed to the entire link (as in [Gates of Paris (film)|Gates of Paris (film)], which presents the film title in italics, without changing it), but cannot be used in [City gates of Paris|The city gates of Paris], since the main title header is City gates of Paris, not The city gates of Paris, and therefore the piped link hides the actual title and presents a (slightly) different title in its place.
 * The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. The thinking behind keeping description to a minimum is: it is only for helping the reader find the right link; being on an obscure page, it will not be used for reference, and will not be well maintained.  (I have measured my descriptions to a single line of text on 16X9 screen at 75% Times Roman font.  Descriptions formatted on smaller screens and/or those using larger fonts will, consequently, expand to a second or even a third line.  To keep descriptions to a minimum, certain conventions may be adopted, including date contraction [1998–99, instead of 1998–1999] and since, as indicated, these are sentence fragments, avoidance of all articles ("a", "an" and "the") [in keeping with the French subject of this disambiguation page, it can be noted that unlike French linguistic specifications, those in English indicate use of definite and indefinite articles only when the text demonstrates the need for it (book/film titles such as "The Bridge over/on the River Kwai")].
 * Since you restored the definite articles "the" as well as multiple links and punctuation (indicating end of sentence) to the Gates of Paris disambiguation page, I realized that you may not be aware of these portions of the WP:Manual of Style and decided to bring them to your attention. Please feel free to contact me at any time and, once again, thank you for the note.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cache is the correct title for the article, not Hidden
Perhaps you are unaware that we are to use the most common title. Any English language title doesn't trump the more common title. Cache is more common than Hidden and this has been discussed before. Thanks for correcting yourself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

John Waters (British Army officer)
Hi. I notice that you have moved John Waters (British Army officer) to John Waters (British general). Under WP:MOVE discussion should really take place on the relevant talk page before page moves are initiated. Indeed the page move should not take place until there is agreement. In this case I don't see how the change helps distinguish from an American officer - the article title includes "British" before and after the move. The vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer) - the use of (British general) is most unusual. Please can I respectfully suggest that we move the article back? Dormskirk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I welcome your kind comment and appreciate the fact that as the creator of the John Waters (British Army officer) article, you contacted me before initiating further steps. First, as to the move itself, having performed numerous moves, I have noted that over 90 percent of those are non-controversial "housekeeping" adjustments which do not require discussion or consensus.  If a discussion questioning the appropriateness of a disambiguating qualifier already exists on the subject's discussion page, then, of course, any projected move should solicit consensus before being initiated.  In the same vein, a tendentious move such as James Jones (politician)→James Jones (convicted criminal), even if true, should not proceed.  In the present case, however, the talk page contains no discussion and the qualifier "(general)" is analogous to such numerous other instances of use as Samuel Breck (general), John Cochrane (general), Joseph Conrad (general), James B. Davis (general), Thomas Duncan (general), James Ferguson (general), John Garland (general), Michael Hayden (general), John McAuley Palmer (general) or William Wells (general).  In the rare instance of two same-named generals, more-specific qualifiers such as James Jones (American general) and James Jones (Australian general) may be used or, in another rare occurrence of both generals having the same nationality, James Jones (Australian Air Force general) and James Jones (Australian Army general) could be considered or, simply, James Jones (Air Force general) and James Jones (Army general).
 * In this instance, if there were no other generals named John Waters, then John Waters (general), would have sufficed, since all the entries are, in the end, sorted out at the John Waters disambiguation page. However, since an American general also bearing that name is likewise listed on the disambiguation page, the additional indication of national identification seemed appropriate even if due to the American general's use of his middle initial, he requires no parenthetical qualifier.  Perhaps you may prefer that this article be moved to John Waters (Commander-in-Chief of the British Army) or John Waters (British Army Commander-in-Chief), each of which contains a few letters more than John Waters (British Army officer), but is more-appropriate to his rank, since describing an Army leader as "officer" may be comparable to using such qualifiers as "(politician)", "(legislator)" or "(MP)" for an individual who also served as "(president)" or "(prime minister)".  Moreover, a number of those who are disambiguated as "(British Army officer)", such as Thomas Evans (British Army officer) or John Graham (British Army officer) never rose to the rank of general.  However, if you still feel that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)", this entry should also remain as such, I will list the article in WP:RM and, within a seven-day period, barring lack of consensus, the main title header would be eligible to revert to its original form.  Please let me know if such a resolution would be acceptable to you.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the care with which you have answered my point and the sincerity of your argument. Nevertheless I still believe that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)" and therefore this entry should also remain as it was. I am content therefore for you to list the article in WP:RM. Thanks again. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles S. Johnson, 1990 Colorado University football, different from Charles Everett Johnson
Good evening.

Colorado Buffaloes football, in 1990, had two different players named Charles Johnson. One of them, Charles Everett Johnson, was a starting wide receiver who later played for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the NFL. Charles Everett Johnson has had a wikipedia page for a long time, although the name of the page has occasionally been changed.

The other Charles Johnson, Charles S. Johnson, was the backup quarterback on the 1990 team. He never played in the NFL, but he was a pivotal figure on the CU team in the "disputed national championship" season of 1990. He was the quarterback who took the snap on fifth down in the infamous 1990 game at Missouri, the down on which the winning touchdown was falsely recorded. He was also named the Most Valuable Player of the very last CU game of the 1990 season, namely the 1991 Orange Bowl. In both cases, Charles S. Johnson was the quarterback because the starting quarterback, Darian Hagan, was injured.

In 2006, I noticed that links on the Fifth Down page and the Orange Bowl page were referring to Charles Everett Johnson's page when they should have referred to Charles S. Johnson instead. However, at that time Charles S. Johnson did not have a wikipedia page. So I wrote one. I also placed explanatory material on the pages of both players, pointing out that CU had two players in 1990 who should not be conflated, although both were named Charles Johnson. (This material still exists on Charles Everett Johnson's page, by the way.) I also made sure that this distinction was absolutely clear on the Charles Johnson disambiguation page.

Just today, I noticed that my work from 2006 had been undone -- there is no longer a page for Charles S. Johnson, and a note on the Charles Everett Johnson "talk" page indicates that you (in 2008) changed the Charles S. Johnson links to point to the Charles Everett Johnson page. And I have also noticed that the disambiguation page no longer mentions Charles S. Johnson.

I would like to re-do the Charles S. Johnson page now. However, I am wondering how in the world I can protect it from future deletion.

Since you appear to be a savvy wikipedian, let me ask you -- how can I proceed here and prevent future mishaps like what has already occurred? What more can I do to prevent erroneous deletions and erroneous link revisions?

Even if Charles S. Johnson is "non-notable" (a sentiment with which I do not agree) it is certainly wrong to attribute his accomplishments to Charles Everett Johnson.

Sincerely, Paul Haynes Paul (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your frustration over the confusion and subsequent deletion regarding the entry in question. If you would open the entry for the sociologist Charles S. Johnson and click on Charles S. Johnson (football), the redlinked title in the hatnote (or click it from this redlink), you will see that on 12 November 2008 Roman Spinner (talk | contribs) moved Charles S. Johnson (football) to Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) ‎ (all references are to "Charles Johnson", not "Charles S. Johnson"; entire career spent at University of Colorado also involved other sports and basketball commentary).  Clicking Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) will show that on 2 September 2009 Levineps (talk | contribs) moved Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) to Charles Johnson (Quarterback) and on 17 October 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "Charles Johnson (University of Colorado)" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page).  Clicking the redlink for Charles Johnson (Quarterback) will show its move to Charles Johnson (quarterback) and clicking on the redlink for Charles Johnson (quarterback) will show that it was moved to Charles Johnson (American football, born 1969) due to naming conventions.  Clicking on the redlink for Charles Johnson (American football, born 1969) will show that it was changed back to Charles Johnson (quarterback).
 * Ultimately Charles Johnson (quarterback) was deleted over notability concerns, but this main title header seems the most logical and, moreover, it is analogous to Charles Johnson (wide receiver). If you wish to recreate the Charles Johnson (quarterback) page, I suggest using the Charles Johnson (wide receiver) page as your guideline, including adding the appropriately revised infobox and categories as well as a couple of links to statistics website(s).  I hope that helps and if you have any further comments or questions, I will welcome any and all communications.&mdash;Roman Spinner (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)