User talk:Star Garnet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Star Garnet, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username 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}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] elections talk

Please join the discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008#Charts.—Markles 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Deaths in 2008

An editor has nominated Deaths in 2008, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in 2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths in 2006

Hi, I already cleaned up Deaths in December 2006. Prior to that month it's a mess, a real dog's dinner. Redlinks aplenty, many nationalities missing, format problems etc. There's a challenge waiting there ... I have thought about it from time to time, but kept putting it off. Perhaps you might like to begin with Deaths in November 2006 and see how it goes? It's probably easier to do one day at a time, breaking up the task into smaller units. If you find that it's a do-able task, then I will try to find the time (and patience) to join in on some other months. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editing user pages

I would appreciate you NOT editing my user page. If you notice something is out of date you may mention it on my Talk page.DerbyCountyinNZ (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on List of the verified oldest people

A request for comment has been initiated at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. As you have been involved in the issue, you may wish to comment there. Cheers, CP 00:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Deaths in April 2008. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Xp54321 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Murdoch and Deaths in 2008#7

Have a look here and New Zealand. Read them and learn from them. I concede that 'New Zealander' sounds cumbersome, but nevertheless it is correct, and as such should be used in an encyclopeadic article. If the word really upsets you that much and you want to use an alternative, then maybe try 'New Zealand-born'. Finally, I took the effort to enter a hidden comment asking that any edit such as your's be explained on a discussion page; if you are editing in good faith, please make some effort to argue your change with citations and/or examples rather than the somewhat meaningless 'wrong context' in your edit summary. Mannafredo (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does sound cumbersome, but the main reason that I would change that is that that is WWGB's opinion on the matter Star Garnet (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Murdoch's article begins "Colin Albert Murdoch MNZM (6 February 1929 – 4 May 2008) was a New Zealand pharmacist and veterinarian". Why, then, would his death notice not read "Colin Murdoch, 79, New Zealand inventor ... "? Why is New Zealand inventor any different to New Zealand pharmacist? Would you describe Helen Clark as the New Zealander Prime Minister? WWGB (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
But for this, I would have argued that both articles were wrong, and that just because something sounds cumbersome, does not mean it isn't correct. Read the first line of this article. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Star Garnet! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Xp54321 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

[edit] Emigration and citizenship

Hi Star Garnet. Re our "edit war" over Fred J. Taylor (only joking), there are many people who emigrate to Australia without becoming Australian citizens. Their status is permanent resident but not citizen. (I know because my wife is in this category). There is nothing in the article to suggest that Taylor ever became an Australian citizen, hence it is not appropriate to refer to him as Australian. The fact that Taylor returned to live in the United Kingdom suggests that he never renounced his British citizenship. That's why I would just refer to him as British. Regards, WWGB (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! Star Garnet (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Howard Dill

Sorry, I didn't realise that Howard Dill already redirects to Atlantic Giant when I reverted. I hate those dumb pages that redirect to something else. It makes Howard Dill look like a blue link when there is no article about him. I look forward to his entry being deleted in one month! Regards, WWGB (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does notability have geographical boundries?

Hi, as some of your past edits have inspired me to ask the above question, I thought I might pass you a heads-up to my edit on the Wikipedia talk:Notability page. I'm putting this on WWGB's talk page also. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Keenan

Do you have a source describing him as a peace activist? --RaiderAspect (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you do not have a source, I must ask you to cease editing the entry to claim he was a "peace activist". --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deaths in May 2008

Hi, I curious as to why you are removing redlinked names from this page? Is there some sort of guideline behind this? Surely if a persons death is covered in obituaries by mainstream media then this would confer notability and these redlinks should on day become blue? Indeed, I myself have seen redlinks on these lists in the past of figures I am interested in an created articles for them. Why therefore are you removing them?--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The established rule for the recent deaths is that redlinks should remain for a month after the date of death. The general belief is that an article would have been created if they were significant enough to warrant one. Happy editing! Star Garnet (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, although it seems a bit odd to me. Presumably that means that if people want to see any redlinks from more than a month ago they have to go trawling through the history to find them. Where is this rule laid down, I'd be interested in seeing it?--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Tell me about it. That's exactly the point I was making when I brought the subject up on the notabilty talk pages, here. Mannafredo (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting...

You might want to see this. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also note the statement "when considering adding red links to lists or disambiguation pages, editors are encouraged to write the article first. Red links should not be created for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles" which comes from the same source. Regards, WWGB (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The section Editorofthewiki links to leans much more to the retention of red-links in death pages than the statement you have chosen above. Your statement is misleading on two levels. 1. 'editors are encouraged...' to write the article first. The article wasn't written first and we can't go back in time and change that. Live with it, it's no reason to then delete the link to person who belongs on a 'list of notable people who have died'. 2. '...should not be created for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles...' relates, as stated, to things like 'every chapter in a book', not people who have more or less been proved notable by their appearance in other WPs. Mannafredo (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
"it's no reason to then delete the link to person who belongs on a 'list of notable people who have died' ". How do we know they are notable? Because the authoring editor claims? How do I get to challenge that assertion of notability?
Conversely, if I write
then the entry cannot be deleted? If it can be deleted, who decides? WWGB (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
'How do we know they are notable?'. We look around the media available to us; google news, newspapers, other wikis etc, and then make the call to keep, dump (both are perfectly bold) or go looking for consensus. Each and every case should be addressed on its merits alone. Some should survive as a red-links and some deleted. If creating a stub is easy, then the media search I describe here is even easier. Although a stub is preferable, it should not be a prerequisite to recognising notability. Systematic deletion of 'all' red-links just because they are red, especially in list-type articles/pages, seems to me uncalled for. I would also argue that it is irrelevant whether the red-link has been red for one month or five years. Regards, Mannafredo (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC).
There is no way to decide what to keep and what not to fairly, so the only clean option is to set a deadline for the creation of an article. Besides, there is no point in making a stub that is orphaned apart from the deaths page just to keep it on the list. Star Garnet (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Please note that many articles I have created were, upon creation, not linked except for the recent death page; Mary Meader, which I added the first link (to Deaths in 2008), is currently at GAC. The community should decide which redlinks should be included and the ones not to include (the one WWGB provided would be uncontroversial). Just because it doesn't have an article doesn't mean its not notable, and it could deprive the encyclopedia of content if we remove the one and only link. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that this sounds quite sensible. For example, I recently added Reg Flewin to the Deaths in May 2008. Flewin was a top professional footballer in England during the 1930s and 1940s who clearly qualifies for notability on several different criteria. Under the current rules however, unless someone creates the article in the next 20 days (and I had no intention of doing it myself until I read this discussion), his name will be deleted and it will be up to someone who creates the article at some point in the future to add the name back to the correct deaths page. It seems to me that this is a bit of a waste of time for all involved - every person listed at the deaths page has to given a reliable source mentioning their death and indicating their notability already, so I don't really see the need for this extra round of deletions.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As another thought, would it not be more sensible to list all month old names that have no article at Wikipedia:Requested articles and allow the people there to decide whether or not to create an article on them using the source provided on the page here? If they create it then these lists will be all blue and if they do not then the name can be deleted from here then.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK Cricket Clubs

Hi, the convention in UK is to refer to County Cricket clubs as just name of the county, e.g. "Yorkshire", so I've reverted your addition of "Club" as it would jar with a Brit. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing is that the wording seems out of context for those who don't know the workings of cricket. Your call. Star Garnet (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)