User talk:Propaniac/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Propaniac, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  IZAK 12:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Alberta Debate And Speech Association

I Have removed the deletion template, and posted my rationale for doing so. If you have any questions or comments, please use the talk page of the article to discuss deletion, or my talk page to leave me any messages you may have for me.

Deletion of ADHOC

I have removed the deletion tag from the ADHOC page, and have given my reason on the edit summary. Sorry for not notifying you sooner, I wasn't sure of standard procedures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redian (talk • contribs) 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Allan Detrich page

Thanks for your comments. Is the page better now? I've added some links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nitinblr (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Barb wire

Please don't change a disambiguation page, which is intended to assist readers in navigating the encyclopedia, to a redirect without a very good reason or editorial consensus at the Talk page. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I found the Barb wire page on the list of orphaned pages, and since a page with disambiguation links already existed at Barb Wire, I assumed that, like a LOT of the orphaned pages, the Barb wire page had only been created because someone didn't understand that different capitalizations go to different pages and that it made sense just to redirect it to Barb Wire. In retrospect, it makes sense that someone capitalizing both words is probably looking for the character article but someone who didn't capitalize it could be searching for something different and should be given the disambig page. Sorry for acting in haste. Propaniac 14:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Alkemade Line

I saw you prodded my orphaned page Alkemade Line for deletion. When I created this article, it was because I was reading about ternary phase diagrams, and did not find my textbook particulary clear on the subject of alkemade lines. I therefore created a stub article, hoping that it would get expanded. As it is now, it is not very useful, and it would be no big loss if it were to be deleted. But maybe others would come along looking for an eplxanation, like I was?

I think what needs to be done, is to get some information on ternary phase diagrams, as a start as a section in the Phase diagram article. Then the alkemade line can be explained there, and perhaps Alkemade line can be made into a redirect page to that section.

I will see if I can write something on ternary phase diagrams. If I do so before the alkemade page gets deleted, I'll remove the prod and create a redirect. Dr bab 08:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok.

Ok. Emerson

Deletion of AgileGraph

I have removed the deletion tag and have asked for help on the AgileGraph Talk Page. I appreciate your help. Agilegraph 06:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ananda Nilayam

i noticed that you added a reference required tag in the page. i added content and references for the article and removed the tag. Pls let me know if that is OK. Kalyan 20:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Appreciation

Thanks for your frankness and help propaniac. I appreciate it. Agilegraph 02:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Amigos de Santa Cruz Foundation

I'm convinced. I apolgize for the loose cannon remark. Not-notable. Schmiteye 03:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ana Silvera

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ana Silvera, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I probably lean slightly to the inclusionist side, but I've expanded the article slightly and added references. I'm not convinced it fails the notability test, but if you want to take it to afd I will completely understand. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Steve block Talk 19:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Prodding after an AfD

The page Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, section "how it works", states that "Articles that have been discussed on AfD are not candidates for Prod". Since the article had had an AfD (then called a VfD, but these two are the same), it should not have been prodded. No harm done, and I can imagine that many people don't know that AfD = VfD anyway. Fram 13:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the clarification. I was torn anyway about whether to bring it to AFD or just prod it, so no big deal. Propaniac 13:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Prod on Impact of renewable energy on UK power transmission costs

Hi, if Engineman removes the WP:PROD notice, as of course he is entitled to, I would support taking it to AfD. Regards, — BillC talk 17:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Serukeirewa

The deletion tag on the Serukeirewa article has been removed, and the article itself – as poorly written as it was – has been wikified. The tag was removed because, if an article on a Fijian chief fails a notability test, then at least 80 similar articles in Category:Fijian chiefs must likewise fail. The article may qualify for AfD due to lack of references (which I could not find), although many articles in Category:Fijian chiefs must likewise be deleted in that event. Cheers. --Liveste 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, if I could have figured out from the article as it was that she was a chief, I wouldn't have prodded it. Thanks for fixing it. Propaniac 12:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Why was Freedom Comes High Deleted?

And why wasn't there any more discussion after my "hangon" was posted? That short film was made by the government during World War II to remind people back at home that when they sent their sons and husbands off to war, they might not be coming back. I don't know what the WikiMOS definition for notablity is, then most of the other shorts on this site could just as well be deleted. Why, again was it not notable enough?--Dudeman5685 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually did post a response to your hangon on the article's Talk page, and I'm very sorry to hear that the article and Talk page were apparently deleted before you saw my response, because I'd worked hard on it and now I am sick and won't be able to recreate it as nicely. But here's the gist: if you haven't read Wikipedia's notability policy, I suggest that you should, because notability, as defined in the policy, is the primary criterion for whether a topic should have its own Wikipedia article. This article was speedy-deleted because there was no assertion of notability in the article; it simply said, in essence, "This is a propaganda film and here's what happens in it." It could have been the most notable topic in the world, but the article didn't say so. Beyond asserting that the topic is notable, an article needs to prove notability by providing reliable sources, as described in the policy. An article that asserts notability, but doesn't have references to prove it, won't be speedy-deleted (on notability grounds) but it can still be deleted through Proposed Deletion or Articles for deletion discussion. I believe you're free to recreate the article, but it will be subject to deletion if it doesn't satisfy those policies. I hope that clears things up. Propaniac 00:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hope Valley, Durham, North Carolina

I've removed your prod from the Hope Valley, Durham, North Carolina article. It seems like a notable enough neighborhood to me, especially considering its age. We keep articles on tiny towns and neighborhoods all the time, and this article is referenced. If you disagree with my removal of the prod tag, then please, by all means, take it to AfD. Corvus cornix 20:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Corrado Giannantoni

Hi - I've objected to the deletion - could you discuss why you propose the deletion? Sholto Maud 12:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Les AfD

I noticed your comments on the Les AfD. Seeing as you take notability seriously, what's your opinion on User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)? Any suggestions? — Deckiller 03:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis

After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hills End

I have added some sourced material about the book to the article. I would be grateful if you could take a look. Capitalistroadster 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Untitled stuff

Nice job cleaning up the Untitled dab and the titles of the listed articles. Thanks for going to the trouble :) Propaniac 01:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I just hope I didn't step on any toes when I went around those articles to introduce that somewhat standardized approach towards (really) untitled works. I also made a new formatting template to enter a plain "Untitled album" (without italics) into album infoboxes (see here), but I'm not sure how to get rid of the quotes around the title of a single box (probably using an album box with single coloring). - Cyrus XIII 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Archeological congress

I think you'll like what I did--the stub is now at Russian Archeological Congress. If you have any difficulty in maintaining it, let me know, & I will protect. DGG (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wes (given name)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wes (given name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Wes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 13:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Percy (surname)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Percy (surname), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.woofactor.com/movies/Percy/description. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 15:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Nelson

Sorry for the accidental removal of the formatting, as you guessed that was not the intention. --LiamE 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Holly Twyford citations

Apologies for that incorrect edit. There was a problem with my exceptions list, which I've now corrected. Thanks Rjwilmsi 21:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

NIT / Nit

Way to go! Exactly what I would have done if I had time yesterday! SlackerMom 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation page

Disambiguation pages are supposed to have no incoming links; and in most cases redirects should not have incoming links either as a matter of best practice, though editing just to drop single-redirect links isn't good practice generally (exceptions to the best-not-to-link-via-redirect are things like R-with-possibilities, R-from-merge and R-from-subtopic). Surely you know that. I could very well justify leaving it a disambiguation page. If you still want to delete it, take it to WP:RFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC) (updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

All I will say in response is please take a look at WP:DAB#Links_to_disambiguation_pages and WP:DLR. Also, yes, I know you can read through strike-throughs, which is why I left it in place, to indicate I was retracting that poor statement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Propaniac, I have not insulted you here except for the passage that I struck-out above in a second, follow-up edit to my initial response as I thought that statement was quite bad form from me and said so in the edit summary I left. About my comments ... I assumed you were not familiar with the salient areas of guideline because of your apparent unwillingness to edit the related articles in the manner that you suggested in the PROD-nomination; my mistake. I am going to do some follow-up revisions now to hopefully bring things closer in line with your desires. Neither one of our solutions to the fate of the article is intrinsically wrong, in my opinion, which is why I am not wedded to the solution I put in place. In explanation as to why I don't think my solution is outright incorrect despite your argument to the contrary and why I think it would be retained in a trip to WP:RFD ... keeping the dab as a redirect allows retention of a non-trivial history going back to Oct 2004; in addition, an oft used term at RFD is "redirects are cheap", which translates to "it is more expensive to spend time debating their retention than to keep them by default when they do no harm" - at least that is how I've understood the phrase. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
input after a break in the discourse You might find this interesting: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 4. I nominated a "...(disambiguation)" redirect for deletion after doing a page move ... and there is really significant opposition to the deletion of the redirect based on a couple of arguments I didn't think I would see. Interesting precedent ... I think it might have gone differently some time back. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

James Brown (magician)

I have removed your PROD from James Brown (magician) as he is regarded as one of the best close up magicians of modern times, having won the Magic Circle's prize for being the best close up magician last year and also having came 2nd in the International Magic Competition. In Magic these are two highly prestigious awards, and therefore James Brown is notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people) - "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." --Samtheboy (t/c) 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is where we disagree, while the article is short (due to huge limitations on my time I simply have not got round to making this any longer)
1) the article does ascertain why James Brown is notable (he won best close-up magician last year)
2) the article does abide by Living Persons biography (as far as I understand it)
3) the article has external non-affiliated reference
So in fact it does cover all three points. --Samtheboy (t/c) 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to your "linking to a website that shows the award" doesn't count approach, why is linking to the website of the Magic Circle (one of the, if not THE most highly regarded magic groups in the world) not evidence of the award. That's like saying that linking to the Oscar's page isn't proof that someone won an Oscar as anyone could have made that page! Don't worry, I know you don't have a vendetta about this article, I'm just attempting to show that James is notable! I've also added a second link to a review of one of his lectures from last year. --Samtheboy (t/c) 06:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Cure

Hi, you removed the direct link to The Cure that I inserted because, as you say, linking to The Cure (disambiguation) is sufficient. I disagree (and I'm not a fan of the band). I believe that people will look for the band often enough for the direct link to be useful – given that we're editing a section titled "media and entertainment" and looking at the other links in that section, I'd speculate that the proportion of users coming across this page while looking for the band will be high. If conforming to WP:LAYOUT#See_also is your concern then in my opinion it would be better to remove the duplicate link from the "See also" section instead. What do you think? (I suggest to continue the discussion here, I'm not really using my own talk page) SeL (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I merged and redirected the content on The Cure (disambiguation) back to Cure, including the band. I was surprised to find in the former page's edit history that I was the one who moved the The Cure content off Cure in the first place about a month ago; I'd forgotten that I did and I don't really remember why I thought it made sense, but I guess when I was doing the massive cleanup of Cure that it looked like a good idea. Anyway, they're all on one page now. Propaniac (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. This was what you suggested when you undid my change and I can see now that it makes sense. But since you had been editing this before and I was just passing by at first, I'm glad I discussed it with you and made you do the work. :-) I changed The Cure to link to Cure instead of the old The Cure (disambiguation). Thanks. SeL (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what?

as per MOS:DP

What is this? Maury (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Character (sign)

you may not be aware of this (but you would be if you had read the article before blanking it), but this was a major topic in 17th to 18th century philosophy. The existing article barely scratches the surface and serves as a brief sketch until someone can be bothered to write a full treatment. Once anyone does, this will be a long and involved article on early modern intellectual history. Hardly something that can be addressed within a disambiguation page. --dab (𒁳) 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DAB

I take it you are a DAB purist :)

I happen to agree with all five points you list, as a rule of thumb. But we should also ask ourselves why it is people keep ignoring them. Partly, of course, because they don't think, or don't realise what a disambiguation page is. But there are more complicated cases. I argue that in some cases, it will be valuable to give a brief idea of *why* the disambiguation is done the way it is. This applies in cases where the disambiguated senses are not, in fact, entirely unrelated. Thus, Shina (Hinduism) and Shina language are a matter of pure disambiguation. These are completely unrelated words that just happen to share a transliteration. The same goes for race (racing) and race (classification of human beings). History of Armenia (Moses of Chorene) is disambiguated from History of Armenia in another way, one being the title of one (*the*) early work on the History of Armenia. A much more difficult case is Gothic. I do not think the present version is superior to my January 2006 version. Another nightmare is (was) Chaldean (see the talkpage). These difficult cases need both an awareness what a dab page is and a thorough knowledge of the various meanings' interrelations. --dab (𒁳) 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

SIMS

There really was no need to be sarcastic. We should be striving to improve the articles by all means necessary, not to delete them by any means necessary. Just because you and me cannot improve it does not mean no one can. You could have at least looked into ways to bring the article to someone's attention instead of hasting to delete it on sight.

Anyway, since the article is now gone as a copyvio, I'm just ranting, I guess...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't need your apology, honest :) But thanks for taking your time to write a response this detailed; I really appreciate it.
I stumbled upon that article purely by accident, and by no means took your attitude personally. It's just that I prefer to see a bad, horrible article no one seems to care about over a red link any day. Speedy deletion is reserved for extremely obvious cases, and prod is mainly intended for cases which are marginal cases (i.e., when it is not crystal clear whether they qualify for speedy deletion or not). All I want from you is that next time you consider going straight for AfD in cases when an article is merely in poor condition but is obviously on a topic that should have an article. AfD exposure may not help save the article, but at least it'll get one more chance to be reviewed and possibly rescued. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Corn

User:69.228.2.135 makes a good point, with poor presenation in the edit here. Corn only "most commonly refers to maize" depending on your perspective. THe phrasing "Corn may refer to:" is probably most neutral. Jeepday (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just saw the edit and posted a message here User talk:69.229.224.122 suggesting taking it to Talk:Corn (disambiguation). Jeepday (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Monica (given name)

I have nominated Monica (given name), an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monica (given name). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.