User talk:Pharamond

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pharamond, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Deposition (university), was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 21, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Deposition (university), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Jean-Baptiste Pérès, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On January 21, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jean-Baptiste Pérès, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 01:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles about journals

Hi, if you are interested in articles about journals, we have a project of sorts to assist in the creation or improvement of these articles. See Wikipedia:List of missing journals (its a large list so maybe dont visit this page if you are on dialup) and Wikipedia:List of missing journals/Queue (a more friendly page with lots of open discussion). John Vandenberg 07:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The project has now been formalised as Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals. John Vandenberg 23:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 6 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Göttingen Academy of Sciences, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 19 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Altdeutsche Tracht, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod

Hi Pharamond. As a result of my proding various articles such as Yves Pouliquen, I modified the lead paragraph of Wikipedia:Proposed deletion so that it reads:

Even though {{prod}} is to be applied to uncontroversial deletion candidates, it may invoke strong reactions if not used correctly. If you are new to using {{prod}}, you may first wish to review the subcategories at Category:Proposed deletion to get an idea as to how others have used prod.[1]

Hopefully, this will keep others from making the same mistake. -- Jreferee 14:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That is probably a good idea. There should also be more stress on the necessity for informative deletion rationales.
BTW, congratulations to your adminship. As far as I can understand, you seem to be a good user and that prodding spree was a one-time mistake. Please try to be a bit more careful with googling topics and checking "what links here" before marking anything for deletion. At least as long as the article isn't libelous or seriously problematic in some other way beyond what you may consider borderline notability. Pharamond 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis

If you feel the article should not be deleted, consider changing your Comment to Comment Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis. There are currently eight deletes against two keeps.  --LambiamTalk 18:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. As a possible title for the merged article I'd like to suggest Theories of creole genesis.  --LambiamTalk 06:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you hadn't seen: the AfD debate was closed with no consensus to delete. Tschüss.  --LambiamTalk 12:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I suggest to follow the road that leads to the desired result with the least effort. If you think that one of the existing articles is a good base for merging to, then indeed move it to the new title, merge the rest & redirect. It may be easier, though, to proceed by creating a new article with the right structure to merge the various "subpages", as Rybka dubbed them, to. Perhaps some inspiration for that may even be found in the version of Creole language he "designed".  --LambiamTalk 05:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levite Tithe

Because this article had a recent proposed deletion, I had mistakenly assumed that it had issues similar to the Aaronids article and converting the proposed deletion to an AfD was merely an administrative task. Thanks for checking into the issue further and pointing out my mistake. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your message. Wanted to point out the deletion review process that's available if you're unhappy with the outcome. The main differences between this outcome and a merge is that in a merge one of the articles would be redirected to the other, and the contents would be explicitly combined. Although somewhat harder to do I think it would be possible to achieve a similar outcome as things stand. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emerald

The Librarians' least favorite publisher. Hang on till tomorrow and you will see why. DGG 07:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Scott

Done. As it happens, he has a full article in DNB, so N is certain. I added the link. If you do not have access, I can send a copy--email me from my page. Hint: never say "almost nothing is known" DGG 05:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Its not that short-- not so short--I just inserted the final paragraph of critical appraisal. There's more on the life, and more on the works. DGG 06:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice comment!

Thanks for this. I'm going to make a note of that and quote it next time I see people missing clunkingly obvious points about the disadvantages of poorly designed and badly used infoboxes. Carcharoth 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I made a case for why a certain box was stupid here. It got corrected slightly, but problems still remain (I might rework that article eventually and will try to get rid of the box then). I continue to see these boxes all over the places, and some people seem to make it their main mission on Wikipedia to insert them in articles. Pharamond 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English local history and Local history

Great job! —Theo (Talk) 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we just need someone who will write an article on Local history in general, focusing on theories and methods and with a comparative, global perspective. That may be a bit more difficult... Pharamond 13:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Template talk:Prod-nn

I'm ambivalent about the necessity of firm enforcement measures, and I doubt they'd gain consensus support, but I agree that stricter guidance in terms of prod rationales is necessary. The generic template's current wording of "This article is about a subject that lacks sufficient notability for inclusion" is downright misleading. Since notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources about a subject, a conclusion that a topic is not notable is logically unfounded unless one examines every reliable source in existence. "Is not notable" is an extremely strong claim to make and should be backed up by more than a boilerplate template.

I would propose changing point 2 of the "How to nominate" section from:

Add {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the main article page. Use an informative edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor.

to:

Add {{subst:prod|reason}} to the top of the main article page. Tailor your reason to each individual article; generic messages are not helpful. Use an informative edit summary and do not mark the edit as minor.

What do you think? I know that it's a relatively minor change that probably won't make any difference at first, but it will at least give people something to point to when asking editors who've prodded articles to provide more detailed reasons. I've also deliberately kept it a minor change to decrease the chances that it will be reverted. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great! I've made the change ... let's see if it sticks. I'll also post a comment at Template talk:Prod-nn to inform whomever uses it that the current wording is misleading and needs to be changed. If no acceptable alternative wording is forthcoming, another deletion nomination may be needed. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)