Talk:Nostradamus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nostradamus article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Featured article star Nostradamus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 31, 2006.
April 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Archive
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


Contents

[edit] What if

Nostradom could do what it is many suspect he could do?

"Nostradamus claimed to base the predictions that he published on judicial astrology — the astrological assessment of the 'quality' of expected future developments —"

After all we "can" prove there are people in this world which can perform mysterious techniques which cannot, have not & will not be performed by anyone else.

Great article, very well done. It is however obvious it was authored by a skeptic. Lighttraveler 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is based throughout on the reputable sources listed. Up to you to decide, after studying them, whether they are 'skeptical' or merely factual. --PL 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Alas, there appears to be a movement afoot, especially in the US, to define people concerned with facts, (oddly dismissed as "reality-based thinkers"), as skeptics, cynics, enemies of freedom, etc. Of course, as a "reality-based thinker" meself, I note that this movement is best described as being driven by the axiom "the facts ruin a good story". •Jim62sch• 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The United States in particular will be subject to serious natural disasters, particularly earthquakes and flooding, and flatten the nation from end to end, causing enormous conflict, despair, and misery. The US will be bankrupted attempting to deal with its disasters. Three other great nations will send aid to help the citizens survive."

That was here[1] as part of an excerpt of "his" new book, World War III. This is pretty much bull shit, as it mentions the United States, directly, using the name of our country over 200 years before it was formed. Knightskye 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And it has nothing to do with the article or its listed sources. --PL 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Please... Nostradamus is extremely vauge in all of his predictions... "In a great city, two towers shall burn and rise again as 1" And the point is... Could have been any of 1000's of towers... heck, I probabally should edit the article to place in some information about how vauge he is... -_- Javascap 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Er... Nostradamus never wrote that, and isn't always vague (though he usually is!). I think you may find that the point is referred to in the main article. --PL 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I trust the extremely reputable Åke Ohlmarks that relays that M. Nostredame used his Greek-oracle inspired divining technique and only used astrology for dating many events in an obscure manner to not help evil persons too much, Yes I think I trust him more than people that saw a TV Documentary on MN last week or read about the y2k byg way back when, and 2 the towers that were libraries where he got his prophesies from ofc and later was destroyed as ppl could read in their mail, and on his wikipage... RupertJanzzon (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecies 'by' Nostradamus ?

Under Literary Sources, about half way down, an assertion is made that the title "Les Propheties De M.Michael Nostradamus" is

   a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, BY M. Michel Nostradamus",

This is not correct, and most French speaking people will see this immediately as both false and dishonest. In a book title, de here unambiguously means of. Only par could possibly mean by in a book title. While ultimately the more general point being made is meritorious, de is most certainly not evidence of it, and you should not try to introduce a false claim to support it. It totally destroys the credibility of this otherwise excellent treatment, and which credibility is paramount in dealing with this particularly difficult subject matter.

This claim should be removed and the related passages simply rewritten to work without it.

Abunyip 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you read 16th century French, yes? Unlikely, yes? One cannot judge the writing style of 450 years ago by the writing style of today. •Jim62sch• 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The equivalence of 'de' and 'par' in this context (the former reflecting normal Latin use of the genitive for the author, in an age when Latin precedent was all) has been confirmed by at least one native French speaker here. Specialists commonly refer to Les Propheties, not Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus, as the title. Meanwhile...
- Paraphrase de C. Galen, sus l'exortation de Menodote... Traduict de Latin en Francoys... (Nostradamus, 1557) – i.e. Nostradamus's translation of the paraphase by Galen of Menodotus
- Letre de Maistre Michel Nostradamus... (Nostradamus, 1566)
- Elegie de P. de Ronsard Vandomois, sur les troubles d'Amboise... (1562)
- Palinodies de Pierre de Ronsard... (1563)
In publications of the time, 'par' is normally reserved either for the explicit expression 'Composée par', or for the publisher (where it is presumably the equivalent of the Latin per).
Even modern French has:
- Phèdre de Racine
- Horace de Corneille
- Le bourgeois gentilhomme de Molière
- Les misérables de Victor Hugo
- La peste de Camus
- Le mariage de Figaro de Mozart... and so on. --PL 08:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs I mentioned do not make any reference to OLD French noted above. The generalisation that "de" can mean "par" simply does not ring true in MODERN French. A small qualification (eg "...in OLD French...") would greatly help restore confidence to naive readers such as myself. Or do you expect everyone reading this to understand OLD French ? Judging from the above, evidently not. (Sorry if I sound abrupt, but I really want this peice to work for you. Its a great expose of Dr No.)  :-) Abunyip 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But I have just demonstrated to you (via no less than six examples) that, where authorship is concerned, de and par are equivalent in modern French, too! Is this not enough for you? If not, I will re-phrase slightly, but I really don't see your point. --PL 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I see the point. Oh, BTW, Nosty wrote in Middle French, not Old French, a language that had ceased to be used 200 years earlier. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I added a wiki link. •Jim62sch• 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but it isn't necessary to specify Middle, rather than Modern French. It still applies today. --PL 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From your comments PL, it seems that use of de is at best, ambiguous in each of modern, middle or old french. However, use of par is unambiguous. I'm just trying to point out that while de may suggest par (or by), use of de isn't sufficient to be used as evidence for actually meaning or intending par (or by). Logically, it simply does not follow that it is in any way erronerous to refer to the "Prophecies OF Nostradamus", or that it is in any way equally or more correct to refer to the "Prophecies BY Nostradamus". I understand what you're trying to say, that one COULD understand de to mean "Prophecies BY Nostradamus", but thats as far as you can take it. You cannot draw any conclusion based on this ambiguity, except that Dr No. was perhaps being deliberately ambiguous so as to apparently claim as his own the Prohecies of others. I think this whole issue has to do with this apparent weakness in French that does not exist in English. In English "of" can never mean "by". In the 6 examples above the English translations would be: - Racine's Phèdre - Corneille's Horace - Molière's Le bourgeois gentilhomme - Victor Hugo's Les misérables - Camus's La peste - Mozart's Le mariage de Figaro ... and finally, - Nostradamus' Prophecies.

In other words, English drops the of altogether to keep the same ambiguous context of the french de. Does that help ? Abunyip 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The 'of' was never there to drop. You are right that neither is necessarily more accurate than the other, though. That's why the article specifically says 'as easily means'. Meanwhile, if Les misérables has to be rendered as 'Victor Hugo's Les misérables ', then Les Propheties should presumably be rendered as 'Nostradamus' Les Propheties '. Or at least, that is at least as valid as Nostradamus' Propheties. Which, of course, is where we came in... --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
English drops the of? Precisely what do you think the genitive apostrophe s is there for?
I really need to ask one question: what level of French do you claim? •Jim62sch• 00:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm all done here. I dont intend to start a flame. I have a doctorate in Computer Science and I understand logic. I have high school French but it matters not one jot, because this discussion is about logic not French. To respond in full to Jim would be repeating myself. However FYI, the genetive apostrophe in Nostradamus' Prophecies does not imply either by or of. It is ambiguous and can mean anything, any word you like, that associates the ownership of "Prophecies" to "Nostradamus". That you can find a candidate word creating that association, such as by, does not mean that by was intended. To draw that conclusion is to remove the ambiguity. Oh, there I go... repeating myself already... Have a nice day. Abunyip 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have stated the case correctly. Either is possible, just as the article originally suggested. --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok have it your way.

     a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus", 
     which is precisely what they were

But "which is precisely what they were" is hardly suggesting that either is possible. Its claiming that they were IN FACT Prophecies BY Nostradamus. However, the article is an excellent peice of work as it is. Even if you agreed with me, it would be only a minor change. I can see the point is in any case, rather pedantic. Thank you for making your valuable research available on Wikipedia, and the opportunity to discuss it with you. Very much appreciated. Abunyip 11:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that Nostradamus work, especially Les Prophecies was heavily bootlegged and many additional quatrains were added in, sometimes as reissues by Michel, sometimes otherwise. Furthermore, many spelling inaccuracies occur on the bootlegged editions. AlexOvShaolin 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Well...
1. There was no work entitled Les Prophecies: please refer to the article.
2. Please cite your sources for alleging that 'many additional quatrains were added in, sometimes as reissues by Michel, sometimes otherwise'.
3. Many spelling inaccuracies occur in all editions! --PL 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Nostradamus" a single-name pseudonym ?

The category "People known by single-name pseudonyms" seems obscure to me. It is explained as : "People who are known primarily by their first name."

Nostradamus isn't a first name, I think ?

Marvoir 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. Prince, (before he became "the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince, and after he reverted back), Madonna, Bono (notice these people are all in music?), Ichiro, would probably count (although none of those are true pseudonyms except Bono), but while Nosty is primarily known by his last name only, that clearly doesn't count. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upright

I saw a tv show that said he was found dead, by his servant, standing up and was also laid to rest standing up for that same reason. The show was on the history channel or The Learning Channel. (moved from article revision as of 16:24, 29 November 2006 by User:64.198.46.28.

Sure you did! It's an old, old story. But if you care to read the article, under 'Alternative Views', you will see that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for this, nor is anything of the kind suggested in his Will. In fact it was disgraceful of the Channel to peddle it (I acted as adviser, but they failed to consult me on this one). His secretary allegedly found him dead 'between the bed and bench' (nothing about 'standing up'). His present tomb, certainly, is firmly horizontal (see photo in article). It's possible that the 'standing up' idea originally came from the fact that one surviving section of the chapel where he was originally buried contains a small vertical alcove a bit like a built-in wardrobe, and the owners of the restaurant that now incorporates it like to claim that 'that was his tomb'. Wouldn't you?! The History Channel is currently planning another one, and their producers have promised me that this time it really will be factual. I'll believe it when I see it! ;) --PL 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student Years

Under this heading it says, "He was expelled again". I am confused as I saw no reference to him being expelled for a first time. His original university closed due to the plague but this was hardly an expulsion. Might we drop the "again"? Bstone 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that was there -- I think it my have been a remnant of a change in wording. Anyway, I removed it. •Jim62sch• 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah me! What it is to be a splitter of hairs! 'Again' merely implies reversal of movement, as in 'kicked out again', or even 're-moved'. However, have it your own way! ;) --PL 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 2012

Wasn't the the guy who came up w/ the world ending in 2012?

1. No. You're thinking of the alleged Mayan prophecies. The popular authors who like to propagate the myth that their calendar predicted the end of the world for 20 December 2012 usually ignore completely what the reputable research actually says -- namely that 20 December 2012 will be only 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0 on the vigesimal Mayan long count, whereas the end of the current world is not due to occur until 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 -- which lies literally trillions of trillions of years in the future! Please refer to the Wikipedia article on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar.

2. That said, this forum is not dedicated to discussing Nostradamus, but only the article! --PL 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Name and title

While researching Nostradamus in college, I found the spelling "Nostradame" only in tabloid-style junk publications, with serious sources say "Michel de Notredame". "Nostramdame" does not appear to be a French name, but a mangling of French and Latin.

His book of prophecies is often referred to as Les Siècles (Centuries). Why is it not even mentioned here? If it is spurious, it ought to be mentioned as such. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The normal spelling is and was 'Nostredame' (based on its original Latin form, de nostra domina, used by both himself and his father), and the title was always Les Propheties, as you can see for yourself by following up on the various facsimile links provided (have you done so?). Les Siècles is the French word for entirely the wrong kind of Centuries, using an accent that was seldom if ever used at the time, and I've only seen that particular idiocy once, in a hopelessly unreliable publication by somebody who had presumably never even seen them! I can't imagine what 'serious sources' you've been looking at! ALL the reputable sources listed use the form 'Nostredame' and the title 'Les Propheties'. Check them out! --PL 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the idiotic source that called it Les Siècles. IIRC, the film Prophecies of Nostradamus put that on the cover of the book in the prologue, but that film is Japanese, so they get a little slack. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWIII?

Here is a prophecy predicted by him(It's not nearly in the correct words, I cannot remember it well). "After 57 peaceful years after the two great wars, another antichrist will rise, his war wil last twenty-seven years." When do you think it will happen? Also, is this at all connected to the mayan and the I ching date of Dec. 21, 2012? (Darth Vader II 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

You seem to be referring to quatrain VIII.77, of which the French reads:
L’antechrist trois bien tost annichilez,
Vingt & sept ans sang durera sa guerre,
Les heretiques mortz, captifs, exilez,
Sang corps humain eau rogie gresler terre.
My published translation of this reads:
The Antichrist - three very soon laid low -
His war of blood shall last seven years and twenty.
Heretics dead, captives to exile go:
Blood, corpses: water red on earth a-plenty.

This seems to be based on the contemporary Wars of Religion. I've no idea when or if it will also happen in the future, and (as you can see from the article) it is doubtful if Nostradamus did either! The date of Dec 21 has no particular significance in the Mayan calendar, other than the end of a minor, 400-year cycle. If you read the reputable research (such as Schele and Freidel -- see '2012' above and refer to[2]), you will discover that the Mayan 'end of the world' is not due for trillions and trillions of years. But then this forum is for discussing the article, not Nostradamus himself.--PL 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a classical astrologer, actually the date of December 21 does have significance. The Mayans related it to the Winter Solstice, when the Sun enters tropical Capricorn. The 2012 date is related as well to the passage of the lunar nodes, called the Dragon's Head and Dragon's Tail. At sunrise on December 21, 2012 — for the first time in 26,000 years — the Sun will rise at 0-degrees tropical Capricorn to conjoin the intersection of the Milky Way and the plane of the ecliptic, outlining in the sky a great cross of stars and planets. The cosmic cross is considered to be an embodiment of what is called "the Sacred Tree," The Tree of Life — a tree remembered in all the world’s spiritual traditions. However, the Mayans never mentioned "the end of the world" - their astrologers only noted the astrological significance of the transits they calculated to the year 2012. The above verse by Nostradamus is related to what he said was the last Anti-Christ. His war of blood, to last 27 years, is also mentioned in Nostradamus' prose.Theo 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date anomalies?

The first paragraph says he was born in 1600, and his most famous work was first published in 1555. 71.164.253.198 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB

Thanks for noticing the idiot date-change -- one of those things that manages to slip past from time to time, alas. Now corrected. I wonder how many student essays have duly gone on to reproduce it? ;) --PL 08:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Just a bit of vandalism from someone in Mt Laurel, New Jersey...no doubt a mischievous kid. •Jim62sch• 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Akashic records

In the article Akashic records, it is said that Nostradamus told that he was accessing to these records. If it was true, it would have to be in his article, don´t you think?

Yes, but in that case the article Akashic records is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence, or claim by Nostradamus, of anything of the kind. I must take a look at the article!... --PL 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Content on Videl

I added content on Videl considering the addition and tone of the critical view presented by PL within the article. It is important to see the context, and sample Videl's comments on Nostradamus considering the previous paragraph, as it explains what Videl's views were in light of his problems with Nostradamus' skills as an astrologer. As for PL comments that the content on Videl is "too much detail," It is only a paragraph which continues follows PL's addition of Videl's comments. Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia. Is it not? Thanks. Theo 06:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


If you think the details about Videl are important, Theo, I suggest (as per my edit comment) that you write a separate article about him, then insert a link to it in the article. Otherwise it would suffice to insert a single qualificatory phrase, if necessary. The article is over-long as it is. --PL 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan to me. That essay was just TMI for the article. •Jim62sch• 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nostradamus in music

Heavy Metal band Judas Priest will release a new CD with 23 songs based on Nostradamus. Considering that Judas Priest is a huge band, should it mentioned in Popular culture section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.242.23 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I missed it somehwere in the article but if it is not there then I believe that it should be mentioned in the article about music created to illustrate Nostradamus's life and/or prophecies.For example, the song 'Nostradamus' by the artist 'Al Stewart' which is almost 10 minutes long (9:44 exactly according to my version) which reveals many of the prophecies in the song.

Here are some useful lyric references that contain the prophecies:

'A king shall fall and put to death by the English parliament shall be Fire and plague to London come in the year of six and twenties three An emperor of France shall rise who will be born near Italy His rule cost his empire dear, Napoloron his name shall be

From Castile does Franco come and the Government driven out shall be An English king seeks divorce, and from his throne cast down is he One named Hister shall become a captain of Greater Germanie No law does this man observe and bloody his rise and fall shall be'

'In the new lands of America three brothers now shall come to power Two alone are born to rule but all must die before their hour Two great men yet brothers not make the north united stand Its power be seen to grow, and fear possess the eastern lands

Three leagues from the gates of Rome a Pope named Pol is doomed to die A great wall that divides a city at this time is cast aside These are the signs I bring to you to show you when the time is nigh'

Also,is it mentioned in the article that Nostradamus means 'Our Lady'.If not I think this is important information for the article and will be good for discussion because it is possible that when the song lyric says 'I am the eyes of Nostradamus' it could have a double meaning being that it is not just the eyes of Nostradamus himself but the eyes of 'Our Lady',the Virgin Mary.

Please, if you have not already,consider these things for the article if you have the time.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.14.97 (talk) 10:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, most of the above translations are hopelessly inaccurate, and in some cases totally misleading. If you want to check them I suggest you follow up the various links in the main article on Nostradamus – not that they all provide entirely reliable translations, either! As for the name 'Nostradamus', this doesn't mean anything – apart, possibly, from 'we dispense quackeries (nostrums)' in Latin. It is based, however, on the Latin 'de nostra domina' (of Our Lady), but I doubt very much whether Al Stewart intended that! You will find him suitably referenced in the article Nostradamus in popular culture, which is the proper place for such matters. --PL 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Rudy Cambier

I've removed the following text:

"According to prof. Rudy Cambier's research, the "prophecies" are no predictions at all, but a manuscript stolen from the monk Yves de Lessines, who wrote it two centuries earlier to describe in an encrypted way where the treasure of the Templars was hidden. See: [3]."

There are a large number of tiny-minority theories and views surrounding Nostradamus, and this one appears to not be notable, judging by various measures. For example, he is not cited in several well known reference works as a significant theorist, nor is the above theory apparently widely recorded within reliable sources, nor does an online search reveal much more than booksellers and fringe theorist websites.

Wikipedia requires reliable, credible, verifiable sources according to communal editorial standards, and evidence that the theory is notable, to be mentioned. At present, none are evidenced. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Well checked! Please see my review of Cambier's book at [4]. --PL (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "NPOV?"

The "Alternative Views" section contains the fragment "Edgar Leoni's unusually dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990." If this article was not locked, I would have toned this down a bit, myself. Anyone with an account care to fix this? 65.183.135.166 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, see what you think now... --PL (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

on the same topic, "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." seems a wee bit biased. NPOV anyone?

ie, Although Halbronn is one of the formost scholars of nostradamus's texts and associated archives, having conducted research on many of them, most other specialists in the field reject this view.

If you insist, I'd suggest the slightly less illiterate and more accurate: "Although Halbronn is one of the foremost experts on Nostradamus's texts and the associated archives, having dug out, researched and published many of them, most other specialists in the field reject this view." Up to you to insert it, though! --PL (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits in red

Why are the latest edits to the article coming out in red? They're meant to be the same colour as the bits they were inserted into! --PL (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that fire engine is blue but nice shiny fire engine that saved my house is red. You've put square brackets around too much text. I've fixed this. I don't believe it's necessary to universally use "14/21 December" unless there truly is no consensus. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Reference to the external links (CURA academic forum) will confirm recent published doubts about the exact birth-date.--PL (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thumperwad

I notice that he can't be bothered with the talk page. Nothing new really, he's done this before -- hit and run edits that serve no real purpose. Good thing you caught them, PL. •Jim62sch• 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this comment to ANI, but I'm happy to discuss individual parts of these edits in the hope that they can be restored.
  1. Relying on an image to provide text in the middle of the "Nostradamus's Sources" section is simply not workable. Users who are unable to read the text in the image are simply stuck halfway into the sentence. At the very least, the text in the caption must be changed simply to the name of the title, for accessibility reasons.
  2. There are too many external links. WP:EL suggests several points: all extlinks should be confined to the end of the article, we should avoid foreign-language links, and only the most relevant links should be included. So this should be re-tagged for now.
The internal links thing I'm fine with dropping if it's a point of contention. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat relieved that you're rather belatedly bothering to consult us about your most recent proposed changes, Chris Cunningham, since their over-all effect was in fact to make this Featured Article, which nobody else has complained seriously about for many moons, less intelligible, self-contradictory and in one case just crassly wrong. Which was a pity, as your infobox idea looks to have been a good one. As for your numbered points:

1. I'm afraid the assumption has to be that users can read the text in this and other images: certainly nobody has ever complained here that they can't. Moreover, in this particular case, the whole point of the argument is the way in which the title page is printed and set out, so its format is actually a vital part of the presentation. I know of no Wikipedia rule that facsimiles can't be part of the presentation.

2. Nobody has ever complained, either, about the number of this Featured Article's external links, all of which are relevant, all of which are certainly important (given the almost uniquely controversial nature of the subject), many of which are carefully grouped (thanks to a huge amount of hard work on Jim's part)specifically in order to avoid multiple references to a single source, and all of which are indeed confined to the end of the article (quite how you could imagine that they're not I don't know). As for foreign-language links, not only Nostradamus's own works, but the vast bulk of the research into him and them has been specifically done in French (what else would you expect?), so what else are we supposed to refer to, for heaven's sake? Perhaps we should pretend he was Welsh? ;) Rules (even Wikipedia ones) do need to be interpreted with at least a modicum of common sense, you know! However, if you see points in the notes that need tidying up, I hope you will feel free to do so. --PL (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the cycle goes "be bold, revert, discuss". It is a misconception that people have to go asking permission before editing established articles, and sadly it is one which generates vociferous abuse at editors acting in good faith (as I have here). I don't have a problem with being reverted in good faith, but I do take issue with having my work insulted rather then discussed neutrally.
Secondly, historical precedent is not a reason to oppose edits. FA is not the highest pinnacle of article development; it it was, we'd just freeze articles where they are.
To address the actual issues:
  1. Wikipedia:Accessibility is an established guideline and should not be disregarded lightly. It should be followed in spirit as well as in letter. If a user with a screen reader cannot make sense of that sentence, the article should be edited until it does. The only counterclaim here is the argument that having an inline image is a cute typographical trick. Frankly, I don't think that's a very powerful argument.
  2. At least two extlinks are used in the article body, at this point:

    A range of quite different views are expressed in printed literature and on the Internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn (see [5] and [6]),

    This should be formatted as a reference.
Anyway, I'm disappointed that what should be a healthy discussion has been accompanied by the acrimony that it has, but I see no reason we can't continue to cooperatively edit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No insult intended. You are right that changes don't have to be discussed beforehand, but when they are as sweeping as those you proposed it would have been wise, don't you think? You are also right that history is not a reason to oppose edits, but it ought to have given you reason to think a little more carefully before plunging in, oughtn't it -- especially with a Featured Article that has been specifically selected for its excellence!

As for your specific issues,

1. You seem not to have understood the point. The ambiguity of the title page's meaning is entirely the result of its layout. This therefore has to be demonstrated, whether in the course of the argument or via a direct reference to an image beside it. I repeat that nobody has ever complained about this.

2. Internet is not an external link. You are right about the other pair, though. Please feel free to reformat the reference.

Re your final point, nor do I see any reason why we can't continue to edit cooperatively! So let's have your proposals! --PL (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see these edits as "sweeping changes". I suppose it depends on one's definition of "sweeping". But still. Proposals!
  1. That nobody has complained perhaps suggests that no blind people are interested in Nostradamus; it does not indicate that nothing could be improved. The simple solution would be to float the image next to the section and to replace it inline with its title. That's basically what I did, although I moved the image to the top of the section instead of alongside the relevant text.
  2. Done. I've noticed a few more: Collégiale St-Laurent, along with a handful of books, are all given inline extlinks. These should be either converted to footnotes or moved to a Bibliography section. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Floating the image next to the section might work, but you'll need to be very careful about how you link it to the text, or you'll be sliding into crass error again!

2. Thanks. The link to Halbronn works OK, except that the first word needs a capital letter. As for 'a handful of books' (actually the books!), I find myself wondering whether you have actually read the article, let alone understood it. They are already in the Bibliography section, which (for good reason!) is entitled 'Sources'. But the 'Works' section is an explanatory item in itself, peculiar to Nostradamus, and the central point of the whole article. They therefore need to stay where they are. You're welcome to convert these references to footnotes, though, as also the Collégiale St-Laurent link. --PL (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The floating image is a no in my opinion -- it has the potential to be problematic, and is a fix for something that isn't broken.
I agree with PL on the rest. •Jim62sch• 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'No answer,' was the stern reply! Has he run off and left us in the lurch? If so, it would rather tend to justify your initial comment, wouldn't it, Jim?! --PL (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, this is the holiday season; a 36-hour lapse in conversation over Hogmanay is not an indication of "hit and run editing". I'd appreciate it if this would be the last time my good faith were questioned, because it's getting incredibly tiring.
As for the book references, my bad; that means there's no reason for these to be externally linked inline. A reference is meant to be a citation which supports a statement, not just a pointer to a resource. As for the floating image, I've already explained why it's broken, so I'm looking for some replacement text which you wouldn't feel was "crass error". Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- sorry! Not sure what you mean by "there's no reason for these to be externally linked inline", though. There is every reason why the book titles should be linked to something, so that readers know what is being referred to, since there isn't room to quote it all in the article! Meanwhile, please cite the Wikipedia rubric stating specifically that "a reference is meant to be a citation which supports a statement, not just a pointer to a resource". (If that's the case, then clearly the book titles should be directly linked as at present, not just given a footnote reference, so please leave them alone.) By all means try out your suggested replacement text here. --PL (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we have another Scotsman in our midst. Chris, are you conversant in Scots?
I have to agree with Peter here. The other option would be to have the book titles link to a Wikimedia source, but in any case, this is not really an instance where a ref would work. I understand the aesthetic desire to remove the external link, but I'm afraid I don't see the functional need to do so. Orrabest. •Jim62sch• 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm only as conversant in Scots as is required to address my relatives, alas. Anyway, the book thing doesn't bother me enough to get into an argument about it, but it was worth bringing up. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quatrain X.72 (Fatima & Nostradamus)

The following lines were reverted by editor PL with the comment "Fatima reference removed as inconsistent with the article and its sources (hundreds of events can be made to fit X.72 with a bit of twisting!) (...)". It is not my purpose here to question this judgement; however, as the data comes from reputable historians with a vast and solid background in the academic environment of the mentioned country of western Europe (Univ. of Porto, Univ. Fernando Pessoa, ex-Inst. Nac. de Investigação Científica [a body with similar functions to the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.], ...); it may be interesting for our readers to get acquainted with at least the sintectic idea presented through these brief lines, derived from their conclusions (source provided):

« Some Portuguese academic scholars have reported, in one of the publications related to their research conducted into the phenomena of Our Lady of Fatima for about two decades, namely the "third secret", that the events of attrocity which occurred at the city of Dili in East Timor, during the month of September 1999, are the events to which the vision presented by Nostradamus in quatrain X.72 applies, as an exact complementarity to the vision described in the third secret of Fatima.[7]
  1. ^  d'Armada, Fina (preface by Prof. Joaquim Fernandes), O Segredo de Fátima e Nostradamus [The Secret of Fatima and Nostradamus], ISBN 972-8605-37-4, Edições Ésquilo, Lisbon, April 2004, 238 pages »

Cheers, --Tekto9 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tekto9. May I come back on it tomorrow? --PL (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi editor PL! A stranger in this house of yours I am & the message I carry is not of my own; so, please feel free to address the previous comment according to your own discretion. Thank you. --Tekto9 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that opening the article up to the interpretations by alleged "scholars" (not sure what an academic scholar is) of Nostrandamus' verbal noodlings is not a good idea. If, on the other hand, you want to spin off an article with these "academic" or "scholarly" claims of having ferreted out the true meaning (revealed truth and all that), you would be OK. •Jim62sch• 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi editor Jim62sch! Please let me assure you that whatever the decision, I already appreciate the attention you have devoted to this request of mine; and whatever you may decide is fine to me, at this time. Thanks. --Tekto9 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Tekto9: if you feel like developing an article as I suggested, I'll help you with it. We just have to be sure that it doesn't become "gossipy" and that we have sources (like the one you provided) for the interpretations. We'd also have to make sure that it's kept neutral, and not History Channel-type ooky-spooky. Let me know if you're interested. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jim62sch, if it was meant to stay in a separate ad hoc article, you may be sure that I wouldn't have brought it here in first place; so, I will have to decline this generous & kindly offer of yours. But, once more, I must thank you for the honor you bestow upon me, of being at the centre of your attention. Nevertheless, my previous point, as stated above, I keep. Regards. --Tekto9 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - my comments, for what they are worth. The first thing that occurs to me is that your piece says absolutely nothing specific about Nostradamus. It merely makes vague allegations about one of his quatrains. The next point is that few, if any, historians are experts on Nostradamus. (There's no shame in that -- very few people are!) Are they, for example, using the original printings (A or X) of the 1568 edition? Did the Fatima revelation say anything about the 'great defraying King' of line 2, or the 'great King from Angoumois' in France of line 3? Are they aware that the verse is merely an astrological projection into the future of the 'resuscitation' of Francis I of France by his captor, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, in his Madrid prison in 1525, as one of our sources has demonstrated? Your piece doesn't answer any of these.

Meanwhile that still leaves the question of interpretation. As you may have noticed, the article is not about interpretations of Nostradamus, even though it briefly lists a handful of the best known of them and dismisses the principles on which they are based. If we started down that road, we would never hear the end of it! The sister article, Nostradamus in popular culture, does admittedly refer to interpretations of X.72, but only (once again) within a critical ambience. Thus, you might not feel that either is a good place to put your piece.

But the main problem is that the piece appears to be essentially a piece of bookspam -- i.e. commercial advertising -- especially its direct link to the title's publicity. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is no place for that! --PL (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In first place, your comments are worth it for various reasons, among them that they convey in a clearly manner your thought and point of view. I could provide a counterpoint rooted in reason to each one of the points raised in your comments in the first and second paragraphs. Nonetheless I won't since, in spite of a possible clarification it could provide, it would not bring a major change to the perspective you hold, thus contributing very little to the final result I was initially aiming. I only regret that you look into my intended simple contribution as "bookspamm" since I tried to provide the source in the most complete form I was able, taking into account that there isn't even a translation, as far as I am aware, into English or any other language to make undesired publicity (spam) in first place. I understand your position and I must accept it as it is. Anyway, a sincere thanks for the attention you devoted to this matter. See you. --Tekto9 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tecto9. Whatever your 'counterpoint', the fact remains that the piece gives no specific information about Nostradamus, nor about how the author arrived at his conclusions (which readers would therefore be in no position to examine), and that 'interpretations' are not what either article is about. The reader's only option, therefore, would have been to buy the book. Hence the impression I gained that your presentation and its link were 'bookspam'. I accept your assurance that this was not what was intended, though. Thank you for offering your nicely expressed thoughts. --PL (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disinterment?

So what year was his body moved to the current chapel? The article is vague about this. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain. Hence the intentionally vague wording. The current tombstone is dated 1813 (see illustration). --PL (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology/Psychics?

Why in the world is the category that Nostradamus is listed in "Astrology/Psychics"? As far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing "psychic" about he or his explained prophecies, even if they DO turn out to be genuine. Is there some way to just change it to "astrology" or "prophecy," or is this just some sort of general (and honestly pretty crappy) "New Age" category slapped on by Wikipedia, despite the fact that the two fields have nothing to do with one another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterMundi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Beats me! (Actually, it's because the public at large thinks he was psychic, as he himself appears to have done.) But the category was 'slapped on' by an editor such as your good self, not by Wikipedia -- which means that you are perfectly entitled to 'slap it off' again if you wish!--PL (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Al Stewart

Al Stewart wrote a song about Nostradamus, it is on the Past Present & Future album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.73.216 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Already included under "Music" section of Nostradamus in popular culture, which is linked from main article. PamD (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other opinions on dabbing Nostradamus

Copy from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Other_opinions_on_dabbing_Nostradamus:

I'm looking for some outside opinions as to whether or not Nostradamus should have a hatnote dab that links to Nostradamus (disambiguation). User:PL thinks that having a hatnote is unnecessary, and if any dab link should be present in the article, it should be under the "Popular culture" section, or at the top of the actual Nostradamus in popular culture article, because that's where readers will be looking for those links. I disagree and find this to be inconvenient to the reader and counter to the purpose of disambiguation. The passage from WP:DAB#Usage guidelines that says: "disambiguation links should be placed at the top of an article. Bottom links are deprecated, since they are harder to find and easily missed" applies to this situation, in my opinion. Any thoughts? Nufy8 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to allow pages with similar names to be easily found. The convention for this, as you seem to know, is to have the link to the disambiguation page at the top of the page. I understand the point that many of the things listed at Nostradamus (disambiguation) are listed at Nostradamus in popular culture, but I think that is actually the fault of the disambiguation page. Articles should be linked to on a disambiguation page if it is likely that someone will search simply for "Notradamus", and mean one of those page. Many of the pop-culture references at Nostradamus (disambiguation) have much more detailed titles; the only two links I'd really feel necessary to keep are the first two, Nostradamus (album) and Nostradamus (arcade game), since their names are truly the same name as the article. Regardless of that, though, if there is a disambiguation page (which there is), it should be linked to at the top of Nostradamus. -- Natalya 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't personally think that a disambiguation link is needed at all, since the name Nostradamus isn't ambiguous, and everybody knows who it refers to. If readers have some other specific name based on it in mind, they have only to input it. If they are merely looking for Nostradamus games and albums in general, they can find them under 'Nostradamus in popular culture', which contains all the relevant sections and is specifically linked to by the main article.
The only justification for a disambiguation link would be if there were articles on other members of the Nostradamus family or other people called Nostradamus, which there aren't. --PL (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Nostradamus" is ambiguous for dab purposes, because there is the person, an album and an arcade game of the same exact name. For everything else, I agree with Natalya. – sgeureka t•c 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"everybody knows who it refers to" is dangerous: do you think everyone interested in the album really knows/cares that it's named after the seer? There are multiple entities which have the title "Nostradamus", so there is a dab page, so there is a hatnote linking to the dab page from the article at the prime, non-disambiguated, meaning. Simple. An alternative would be to have "Nostradamus" link direct to a dab page, but I hazard a guess that most people would agree that the seer is the primary sense of the word, so the present situation is correct, and helpful. PamD (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Nostradamus the man is definitly the main topic of all pages named "Nostradamus", but, as much as we would like, we can't assume that everyone who comes to Wikipedia will know who Nostradamus is. Hence the need for the link to the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move this discussion over to Talk:Nostradamus, as this is about application of the guidelines to this specific page. --Marcinjeske (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, Nostradamus the guy is the dominant topic for 'Nostradamus', but if someone is looking for Nostradamus the game, you cannot expect them to dig through the article on the guy hoping there is a link buried somewhere in there. In fact, neither the album nor the game (or the butterfly for that matter) are mentioned in the article... you have to pick the right link to follow. I would like to point out some similar examples, and ask (at the danger of getting a no response) if the hatnote is not as appropriate here as with:

  • Superman - we all know people mean the superhere... but there is still a very useful hatnote pointing to the dab page listing all the films and televisions series and games and such named "Superman" - the only non-Superman related entry I can find is Superman (Nietzsche).
  • Copernicus - to take a more similar historical figure, here we also link to a dab page with a bunch of things named after the guy... including a Copernicus (musician) who seems to have adopted the name.
  • ditto for Mendel, Galileo, even Jesus Christ has to wear a hatnote at the top of his two pages.

Both application of the guidelines (multiple articles with the same name) and common usage with similar articles (as above) support including the hatnote to the disambiguation page.

BTW, my suggested hatnote was an attempt to address User:PL's concern that everything on the dab was named after N, since otheruses seemed to displease, and to guide users on why they would want to look at the dab page.:

This article is about the 16th century French seer. For other subjects named after Nostradamus, see Nostradamus (disambiguation).

On a side note, who would hate me profusely if I added Notre Dame on the dab page as a misspelling of "Nostredame"? --Marcinjeske (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On the last question, a "see also" from the dab page to Notre Dame seems perfectly reasonable. On the hatnote question, I see no reason not to use the standard {{otheruses}} (or {{otheruses1}} to show "This article is about the 16th century French apothecary and reputed seer ..."). PamD (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It is quite clear to me that a hatnote is needed. This is exactly the situation hatnotes were devised for: a 'root' article with an associated dab page Root (diambiguation). It is important that readers are offered the easiest and fastest way of finding the article they want when they type in "Nostradamu" - this should be the first thing they see on the page. Don't forget, many readers will have no idea who Nastradamus was if they are looking for one of the modern culture topics - to them Nostradamus is indeed ambiguous. Abtract (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you absolutely must, the present brief note leading to a disambiguation page seems more than sufficient. But I really don't see the need to cater for misspellings -- not least because if anybody enters 'Notre Dame' they presumably won't be led to 'Nostradamus': nor should they be! --PL (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great, that sounds vaguely like we might have a consensus. (Given my unexplainable compulsion to make Nostredamus wear a hatnote, I absolutely must.) The longer hatnote was just a misguided attempt to address concerns about the need... so I think using short version as currently placed is best.
As for Notre Dame, we would naturally provide Nostredame the courtesy of his very own link on Notre Dame. After some clicking around, I note that Messe de Nostre Dame implies that Nostre Dame should be a redirect to Notre Dame, and then we are simply one space away from our seer, Nostredame.I realize some of this stuff is unnecessary to someone who has worked extensively on the article and knows all of the facets, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who heard some "rockin" music at a friend's house... vaguely remembers the title of the album (Nostre-something?)", and goes to Wikipedia to learn more... they might end up at any of these pages we have discussed, and Wikipedia has pretty decent methods (like dab pages and hatnotes) to guide them to the correct page.... it is good to use them. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My hatnote update at Nostradamus

It wasn't a question of notability when I performed this edit. I believe someone can easily mis-type the word, arrive at a "strange" page and become confused, hence, the purpose of the hat (see the ones at Yamucha and Yum cha). Want another? Try Rogue and Rouge. Or Salon and Saloon, etc. Point being, I see no harm in it. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, or on Talk:Nostradamus. Prefer keeping all discussions in one page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Above comment copied from my talk page. --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So my edit summary was a bit confused: "moved Nas' work over to the dab page... there is not reason that Nastradamus is more notable than some of the other items there" - what I meant to say that there was no obvious way to elevate Nastradamus (a different spelling but also inspired by Nostradamus) above the other articles which needed to be disambiguated. So it makes sense to treat them all somewhat equally on the disambiguation page.
  • I will admit that given the concerns about including even one hatnote on the page, I didn't think there would be immediate consensus to start putting even more... and that factored into my decision to revert.
  • The specific hatnote implies that not only is the article not what some are looking for (for which the other uses links will work), but that there is a likelihood of confusion:"Not to be confused with Nastradamus."
    • I think someone looking for anything vaguely like Nas' album is not going to think that Nostradamus might be what they are looking for...
  • The examples you cire, Yamucha and Yum cha are an isolated pair of confusable articles with no related disambiguation page (and really, with just two articles using two distinct names, that's fine) - the hatnotes are the sole disambiguation needed.
  • the other two are pairs of disambiguation pages, where hatnotes and disambiguation links are basically free to flourish.
  • I would draw your attention to more similar cases where there is a dominant topic with a subordinate disambiguation page, like MP3 or Monk.
  • Or for that matter, the Nas article itself... which would only be hurt by adding a series of WP:POINT hatnotes on top:
Anyway, as i noted, I have added Nastradamus to the Nostradamus (disambiguation) page as another possible misspelling. I have no objection to moving up to a hatnote on the disambiguation page, but I don't think that is really necessary or would improve things. I do not see a good reason to include it and only it as a hatnote to Nostradamus... I think a person looking for the album will be able to follow to the disambiguation page. Thoughts? --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Disagreed. "Nostradamus" redirects to this article, not Nostradamus (disambiguation). I'm neutral on also having "Nastradamus" at the dab, though would prefer it in the "See also" location there. Anyway, I still think it's a pretty confusable term so why not go for the hat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So yes, Nostradamus directs to this article (no redirect involved).. meaning people probably end up at Nostradamus for the main meaning (the guy), or one of the (by my count) 5 secondary dab meanings, or the 1-2 possible misspellings... or something else. is the album Nastradamus that much more ambiguous or prominent than the other 6 articles that it needs it's own dab note? They shouldn't all get a hatnote... what makes the Nas album's case stronger? If it helps, Lord Sesshomaru, I think BLEACH and Bleach should dab link to each other in addition to the Bleach (disambiguation) page --Marcinjeske (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Nas case stronger? The very identical spelling of course: Nostradamus VS. Nastradamus. I also applied hats at Belzi and Belzig. I'm trying to find similar examples, how about Bill the Cat and Billy the Cat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How can almost identical spelling (Nastradamus) be a stronger case than identical spelling (say, Nostradamus (album)? The two examples you cite do not have existing disambiguation pages.. they are just pairs of similarly named sites, where mutual hatnotes do make sense as ... there is not dab page.
The potential for confusion would generally be less when there is even a slight difference in spelling. Bizzaria Bizzare is the best example I can find... hmmm.. try seeing how you would want Roster and Rooster... seems like whoever made the "For the Sydney Roosters rugby league team , see Sydney Roosters." hatnote would support your position. (for the record, there are three sports teams and one band named "Roosters") --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, think I'm starting to understand your argument. Articles which link to a disambiguation page should not have {{Distinguish}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


I hope I tucked a "generally" in there somewhere... but yes... I would say that if there is article A already linking to an A (disambiguation) page, then do not add any further name-based disambiguation UNLESS:

  1. One of the disambiguated articles (besides A itself) is a much more prominent meaning of the term than the other disambiguated articles. I think this is the case for Apple and Bleach.
  2. One of the terms is close both in spelling and in meaning, so that if it were not noted specifically, the reader could think the current article discusses it. That's the kind of situation that the Distinguish template is for.

An example is French Guiana (ignoring for the moment that the dab page is for a different abbrev.) where there are three countries (close meaning) with very similar names (close spelling). Another good example is New York, which has a dab page (two in fact), but also highlights potential confusion with New York City since both the names and the types (subnational geopolitical divisions). In this specific case, I do not see that the Nas Album sense of the word is significantly more prominent than any of the other non-ancient-seer meanings, nor is there likelihood that looking for a rap album, a reader will read the Nostradamus page and say... oh yeah, this must be it.

Keep in mind that disambiguation notes are not the only claimants of hatnote space... we have:

and so on,,, If you still feel like it is needed after this discussion, feel free... I won't revert... but I would be willing to bet that someone else would come along soon and make similar objections. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Point understood. Thanks for everything. It was a pleasure having this conversation with you ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers disparity

I don't know which is correct [in The Prophecies], but 941 quatrains - made of 9 x 100 + 1 x 42 = 942? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.95.71 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says 'This version contains one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called "Centuries"' - i.e. 1 + 941 = (9 x 100) + 42 = 942. (It doesn't say, without a comma, 'This version contains one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called "Centuries") That, as you say, makes 942 - and is correct. --PL (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)