User talk:Boleyn/Archive 3

William Ponsonby ==

I see you're quick with your archives :-) I would like only add that in my case it had been an one-liner already before your shortening - obviously this depends on the monitor's resolution and the chosen skin of Wikipedia. Regards ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't get round to archiving, and it gets a bit mad. Yes, it wasn't a one-liner on my screen but I appreciate that it depends on the screen. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Sorry, I removed my post to your page after I realized that the wrong red link was on that disambiguation page. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is a number of editors are in the process of creating articles for every Canadian MP and Senator and that also involves some disambiguation. If I don't put a redlink on that page it's quite likely someone else will create the article in question and overlook adding a link on the disambiguation page. Dodge rambler (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see the issue. The majority of red links put on dabs are never turned into articles, but if it's underway, I'll ignore these from now on. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mary Jane Rathbun

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that a previous editor didn't link correctly, so there are actually two topics, and it isn't clear what the primary topic is in this case. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a red link which didn't meet MOS:DABRL, but I see you've changed it now. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Ponsonby/politician

I have no objection in principle to the loss of the disambiguation page PROVIDED you find a better disambiguator. George Ponsonby was also a politican. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Marshall

You reverted my move with "moved without discussion that I can see" comment.

In this case not discussion was needed, for this case is pretty obvious: neither Wayne Marshall (conductor) nor Wayne Marshall (deejay) is much more notable or famous compared to the other one. So main entry should be disambiguation.

Please answer at my talk page rather than yours. Netrat (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Roberts

If there are other people of the same name who can legitimately have articles, then the Canadian politician (who certainly isn't the primary topic for that name) should be left disambiguated whether the others already do have their articles or not. Disambiguation isn't, and shouldn't be, based only on whether the other articles already exist — that sets up a complicated and unnecessary set of page moves and link fixes later on when one of the other Don Roberts finally gets written up. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't reply straightaway as I wanted to have a good think about this. It seemed to me absurd to have only one Don Roberts who has an article, and for him to have a double disambiguator, both on nationality and profession. The notability or otherwise of the other Don Roberts hasn't yet been tested, as they don't have articles and we don't know if they ever will have. If they are written, then I will look at the situation again and am quite happy to correct links if a change is deemed necessary. I think we have to take it as it is - only one Don Roberts with an article, and nothing to suggest the others will be written soon, if at all. However, it's given me something to ponder and I'll think long and hard about making such changes in the future. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Howard

Great job catching those 2 random deletions and moving that addition to see also where it belonged. Once neutral editors get involved my hope soars. Tyciol (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's always the problem with dabs, not enough people watch them and so they easily remain messed up. I'm sad enough that I've just added all the hndis pages to my watchlist, except those created during the course of my project, and hence am forcing myself to take a semi-wikibreak. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Formal

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Talk:Formal" section of my talk page.

Clean up this box?

You can get rid of this notice (generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore) at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
At the cost of making these instructions hard to find, you instead can edit this section and remove (the one occurrence of) the pair of the characters "%%" shortly after "", and save the result; the effect will be to eliminate the box, icon, and prose, leaving a minimalist substitute for what you see now.

In either case, it is best to click on the "edit" link at the top of this section, but clicking on this link will always permit editing any part of this page.
|}--Jerzy•t 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ormond

I might ask you, why you,messed up a whole page i was working on? Randall O.

In non-emotive, polite language, you should put on the Talk page of the article what you feel the problems to be, then they can be discussed. Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) The problem is i,am going to put back the articles i was working on earlier. A few will be left out. I have had this happen to much on this site. People removing articles and so forth. Even going so far as to say i was using sockpuppets. When they were the ones using them.[reply]

Am I right in guessing from your reply that the issue is the entries I removed, quoting MOS:DABRL in my edit summary, and none of the other changes? Were these articles you were planning to write in the near future? If so, I would advise creating them as stubs, putting the under construction sign on them and then re-adding them to the dab. If you feel that this isn't your issue with my edits, or isn't your only issue, then if you put it on Talk:Ormond then other editors can have a look at it. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I do not have a problem with removing some of them. But some were well known, as St. Ormond. Also there is an Ormand or Ormond Iran. It is the site of, or was the site of a major oil pipeline. Also what was wrong, with the Great Ormond Street Hospital? Also on the Butler,s, their French name was Gautier. Butler is only as in a Butler a servant. Sincerely, Randall O.[reply]

A disambiguation page is essentially an index of articles, so whether they're well known or not, they shouldn't be on a disambiguation page until they have an article (exceptions to this general rule are given at MOS:DABRL.) Ormond, Iran, doesn't seem to have an article and so would have been removed per MOS:DABRL. Also all entries shouldn't just contain the word 'Ormond' but must be known as 'Ormond' - Great Ormond Street Hospital is never known simply as 'Ormond' so it shouldn't be included per MOS:DAB on a dab page. The Butlers were earls of Ormond(e) and so Ormond(e) was their title and they would have used it like a surname, so James Butler, Earl of Ormonde would sign himself as James Ormonde. Also if a page has the category disambig, it can contain any entries known as Ormond: those with it as a surname, given name, places, things etc. If there are a lot of entries, as there were here, it is often best to separate the surnames to their own page, which can also include information on the origins of the surname, which wouldn't be appropriate on a disambig page. If it is categorised as a surname page, as Ormond (surname) is, then it should only contain those with this as a surname - I've added a see also section which links to the disambig page, and the disambig page starts with a link to the surname page. This split makes the pages easier to navigate and is the general policy on such pages. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Smirnov

I apologize for not responding sooner. I have deprodded this pages after having created all three stubs based on the corresponding GSE entries. I appreciate you taking time to notify me of the situation with this page and I hope the resolution will serve as a good-faith collateral ensuring that the majority of other Russia-related people dabs are similarly resolvable. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:30, August 11, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There are some entries on Alexander Smirnov, a dab you created, which have been blanked out because they don't meet MOS:DABRL. It you click on the link and go to 'edit page' then you'll see them and can un-blan kthem if you create any articles. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of those when I have more time. All in all, I'm fine with the red links being commented out or moved to talk, as they are still easily accessible; it's when a dab is deleted or redirected I see a problem. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:30, August 13, 2009 (UTC)

Franz Xaver

I don't get it. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Franz Xaver is the "personal name" of Franz Xaver von Zach but not of Franz Xaver Gabelsberger (etc.)?

Also, I'm sure there's something relevant you had in mind by referring to MOS:DAB, but all I could find which seemed applicable was:

"Pages only listing persons with a certain given name or surname (unless they are very frequently referred to by that name alone) are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them."

—Blotwell 23:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A personal name is the given name + surname, and would go on a hndis page. We don't create dab pages for those with the same given name and middle name, because this is unencylopedic. I left the one whose entry was written on the dab as 'Franz Xaver, Baron von Zach' because I was unsure if Xaver was then his surname - I know that if this was an English title, then it would denote that Xaver was the surname. If it isn', then I will recommend the redirect for deletion. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. Marcius Figulus

Having now seen your userpage, I am humbled by the number of articles you have found unwritten, and then wrote yourself in comparison to the small amount I have. Anyway, I thank you for the Gaius Marcius Figulus notification. I have added blue links to the dates and "Roman Consul", but as none of the people have articles on them, I must express doubt as to whether the article should exist. Thus, I have kept the proposed deletion template. Please tell me what you think. Thank you for your help. --15lsoucy (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your knid message. As the blue links don't mention Gaius Marcius Figulus, it would end up deleted, unless som,eone creates a stub on them in the next few days. They certainly look like they deserve articles - do you known enough about them to write a stub? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found little snippets of information in A History of Macedonia by Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond and in Livy, but the article would probably approximate the quality of Lucius Manlius Torquatus. Is it still worth doing? --15lsoucy (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Q

I've replied at User_talk:Boleyn/Archive_2#Disambig_Q.
--Jerzy•t 01:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reply

{{uw-3rr}} Another avatar (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deactivated the foregoing "warning", which was merely a retaliatory act by a gross 3RR-abuser and should be regarded as mere harassment.
--Jerzy•t 18:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Fiennes

Sorry, I did mean to post you a message explaining/asking the background but you beat me to it. However, within the Blount article shouldn't there be a reference to Fiennes - was it when she married Lord Lincoln? Eldumpo (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, yes, she married him before he was made an earl; I believe he was then plain Edward Fiennes, then became Baron Clinton and after her death the earl of Lincoln, so at the start of her marriage she would have been Elizabeth Fiennes. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael Logan who is a newspaper writer

That's fine. I only moved that page to make way for the more notable Michael Logan who writes for TV Guide magazine. Mike H. Fierce! 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab repair

Congratulations on all your hard work while I was on my break! I'm glad we agree about the priorities - having an item not linked from the dab page makes it (a) so much less likely that the article will be found by someone looking for it and (b) so much more likely that a duplicate article with a different disambiguator will get created! We're doing an important job here... while fretting about piped links or redirects is just cosmetic stuff. I wonder whether Quadell's going to do any more files for us to work on? On the other hand, more of real life would get done if s/he didn't, as this dab repair is pretty addictive! Cheers, PamD (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it certainly is addictive! I think Quadell's plan was to go through the alphabet, but he hasn't been on much lately. I'm enjoying the break, although I'll be pleased when a new batch arrives. Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

What would the standard be? tx. and what is the standard for taking off "baseball"?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And actually, now that I look at the page Wikipedia:Redirect, I see no such requirement that you indicated to the effect that it must be discussed first on a talk page. Can you point me to it? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it a particular page? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sorry -- this referes to your delete at [[1]] with the edit summary "that would need to be discussed on the Talk page". But I don't see that as a requirement at Wikipedia:Redirect. And actually I'm not sure how your deletion is countenanced by [2]. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through your user contributions and guess you mean Scott Feldman? You changed this to a redirect with a dab underneath, so this obviously needed to be changed. I didn't delete the baseball palyer - he was on there twice and I removed the redirect section. And redirecting a dab page to 1 entry means that it is more difficult for people to find other entries, in this case the other Scott Feldman, so the dab would have needed to be re-created at Scott Feldman (disambiguation) or the baseball player would be moved to Scott Feldman with a hatnote to the other of the same name. This would be a page move and potentially controversial page moves should be discussed on the corresponding Talk page. If you feel that the baseball player is more notable and so should be at the primary page - you didn't write the reason for changing it to a redirect in your edit summary, so I can only guess - then please put your proposal and reasons at Talk:Scott Feldman. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you mean. At the moment it is a disambiguation page and follows MOS:DAB. As I explained above, edits like this cause problems, firstly making the other entry more difficult to find and secondly redirecting to the baseball player establishes the baseball palyer as the primary target - please read about this on MOS:DAB. The baseball player may be the primary meaning, but this would need to be looked into and discussed. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry -- I'm not sure what a dab is (and whatever it is, what prompt the need to change it) or a hatnote (sorry). I simply sought to redirect as directed by Wikipedia:redirect.

Again, I don't see the requirement at Wikipedia:redirect that I discuss this on the article's talkpage (and if there is none, I don't see a need to encumber the talk page with it). I thought I was fully compliant with Wikipedia:redirect. If I'm wrong, please point me to the relevant language.

Nor do I see your basis for deleting the requirement at the wikipedia guideline. The Wikipedia guideline lays out the circumstances under which one may delete another redirect, as you have done, and I'm missing which category your action falls under.

And yes, if one looks at the two scott feldman articles, one person is of a questionable noltability (not even one footnote in footnote in his article, and the bio seems to be a repaste), and the other person has a bio with footnotes to dozens of newspaper articles about him.

Also, if you check how often they are viewed, the one is barely viewed (2-12 times a day over the past 2 months ... except when I worked on his bio), while the other is viewed 40-400 times a day (1.2 thousand on June's highest day).

And the baseball player bio has a the top of his bio article page "For the newscaster, see Scott Feldman (journalist)," so any person looking for the journalist would need the same number of clicks to reach him as they did when they had to go through a disamb page.

Since far more than 90% of the article seekers are seeking the baseball player, I think it makes sense not to make them, however, go through two clicks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guidelines are at MOS:DAB. Please copy the information you've put here on the comparative notability of the two on Talk:Scott Feldman. If no one objects within a week, I'll make the moves so that the most notable has the primary page, Scott Feldman, with a hatnote (link at top of article) to the other. Boleyn (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to quibble, but since the issue here is a redirect, I believe that the proper pew here is the one that I have pointed you to. And, as detailed above, I don't believe that contains any requirement for posting discussion on a talk page. Nor does it permit your revert. The page that is the primary topic page with the revert I made is the "Scott Feldman (baseball)" page. The MOS that you point me to says "This guideline does not apply to any articles that are primary topics, even if the articles contain a "see also" notice or the like." Given all that, I believe that the redirect was appropriate, conformed manifestly with the redirect guideline, and your revert of it failed to comply with the redirect guideline (which is the applicable one).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on that, the page is a dab. As you've already said, you're not familiar with dabs and hatnotes. As your plan is to make the baseball player the primary page, we are not actually in disagreement there. I have also offered to make the move for you, if you follow the guidelines, which I have taken the time to explain. Copy and paste the information you've put on here to Talk:Scott Feldman and then I'll make the move if no one objects within a couple of days. Boleyn (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfamiliar I am, but I've read the above guidances and disagree. What is at issue is a redirect. The relevant guidance is therefore the guidance for redirects. It does not require discussion on any talk page. While it lists reasons for reverting redirects, your reversion does not appear to fall within any of the permitted reasons.

That being the case, however, I don't wish to edit war. Though I believe it is not mandated by the relevant guidance, I have followed your instructions. One thing though -- to make it prettier, when you make the change can you please: a) change the name of the baseball player by deleting "(baseball player)", and 2) put in a redirect so that any pages that now go to "Scott Feldman (baseball player)" continue to go to that page? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has not been addressed without a SNAFU. Somehow in changing "Scott Feldman (baseball)" to Scott Feldman, someone deleted the "Scott Feldman (baseball) talk page." I can't find it.

Can you? If you can, can you deleted what is now on the Scott Feldman talk page (which is not needed on his talk page) with that original material (which of course is necessary)? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, it's now done. Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Another editor (Hekerui) just undid it. Can you address w/him/her? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my edits, but the user seems to feel that this shouldn't have been copied and pasted and should be moved with a merged edit history. Anyway, they've requested this be done by an admin, so if it is undone by the user, it will soon be done again by the admin and so will turn out right. I think the other user is technically write re its movement. Boleyn3 (talk) 15:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kelly Hart

The article Kelly Hart has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No supporting references adequate for a biography of a living person, and one of the books mentioned is not yet published. The newspaper story in the Express looks like a puff.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kirill Naryshkin is a disambig page

I don't object to your changing "disambig" to "hndis", but "hndis" still designates a disambiguation page. The disambig template was changed not long ago to take parameters indicating what kinds of things are being disambiguated. "{{disambig|hn}}" and "{{hndis}}" both designate a human name disambiguation page. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation catch-22, with Thomas Fuller. Disambig page guidelines say serving readers trumps rules.

Boleyn, I added 2 entries to a disambiguation page(thomas fuller), to save others from my fate (I had egregiously confused them, in comments online). You deleted my two Thomases from the disambiguation page, twice, because their names weren't links, since they lacked their own Wikipedia pages.

Now while one of them would be significant enough to merit a Wikipedia page, the other one probably wouldn't, since the rule is that insignificant persons aren't permitted to have Wikipedia pages. So I sense a Catch 22 here - how can I disambiguate an insignificant person from a significant person, if each must have a Wikipedia page, but one of them can't?

It's a bit frustrating. Especially since the Disambiguation guidelines do say that following the rules should be subordinate to serving the reader.

Anna

68.126.140.53 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not serve the reader to have links which don't meet MOS:DABRL, and we certainly don't need to mention 'insignificant' people. Until they meet MOS:DABRL, or preferably have articles, their addition serves no purpose. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard McLean (Australia)

Per WP:PROD, once a prod notice has been removed it must not be readded. If the article cannot be improved to show notability per WP:BEFORE, then you should take it to WP:AFD. Fences&Windows 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't realised I'd PRODded it before. Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hsu

I hope you'll consider my role on the AfD as a friendly one! (And i wonder if i owe you an apology for being insufficiently helpful in cases where you otherwise might not need to go there in seeking resolution.) I'm betting we won't need AfD, tho i admit to not yet grasping what the issues are. And i'm rushing to say too much without understanding!
--Jerzy•t 08:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I would have left this earlier, except for the repeated re-adding of numerous blue links and quite a lengthy sentence fragment for the entry without an article. If that was sorted, I still think it's a bit of a waste to not have a direct link to the only article mentioning another Hsu on the primary page, but I wouldn't consider it too serious. Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

I also fixed the broken templates that were making your talk page display weird - hope you don't mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I kept meaning to get around to it. Thanks very much! Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Moving pages is done with the move button, not by blanking and moving text. If the move is not possible put an article up at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead of just blanking pages, because page history gets lost. You have many edits, I hope you haven't done that often. Hekerui (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page for William Smith

Please do not link articles to William Smith (disambiguation). This article only redirects to William Smith which is the propper title of the disambiguation page.Singingdaisies (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did put the reason in the edit summary. However, I'm glad to see you've been doing some great work on dabs, so please keep it up! Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DABs

Yes I realised my error. Hence why I removed my comment... Well I thought it was removed anyway. Thanks for letting me know the policy and for the encouragement. Sorry to have caused you some un-needed revert time. Cheers.Singingdaisies (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Neil Berry (disambiguation)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neil Berry (disambiguation), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Berry (disambiguation). Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Cnilep (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greville

Well done on reverting Fulke Greville (disambiguation). We seem to have a NN descendant who is determined to put himslef in WP, having been removed some months ago. I remove a list of names from Fulke Greville, but thought we would just get into an edit war if he was removed from dabpages, which include the above. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, when I checked I'd reverted the additions three times. I've left a warning on the Talk page, but as it's an IP address, it may never reach the person whose doing this. I definitely think he should be removed from all pages, as there's no reason for him being there. I know what you mean about trying to avoid edit warring, but I hate to let people bully their way onto Wikipedia; it's a strange hobby, but lots of people are determined to get their own name on here! Thanks for the message, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Jones

Could you please advise how I could have better managed the disambiguation on Margaret Jones. No-one would ever have called this journalist 'Maggie', and I thought my 'Edit Summary' explanation was pretty good. At a first reading I doubted "Maggie" applied to the hoax autobiography either. I tested the disambiguation entries and they worked perfectly.--Doug butler (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully sure what you mean by testing the disambiguation entries, but I'll try to answer. If you mean that they were all valid blue links, then yes. At the time I removed the journalist's entry, as I put in my edit summary, it didn't meet MOS:DABRL - there was no article and she was not redlinked in other articles. Later in the day you created an articel on her - great, she can now be re-added to the dab. I've put my idea for the Margaret/Maggie issue on Talk:Maggie Jones. Usually dabs would be at the full name of the entries, e.g. James Jones would contain a list of all those with James on their birth certificate whether they were commonly known as James, Jim or Jimmy. Therefore I think this page should be at Margaret Jones, which would cover all the entries. To the best of my recollection, I removed separate sections saying Maggie Jones may refer to and Margaret Jones may refer to because all may be referred to as Margaret Jones. It was also an unusual format, so I standardised it with the all-encompasing intro, 'Margaret or Maggie Jones may refer to:' Plus there aren't really enough entries (then only three) to justify two sections. Maggie doesn't apply to the authobiography either, from what I can see. I hope that makes it clear. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Brown

Hi there. I ballsed up the names of the five footballers called Arthur Brown, but I've rectified my mistake(s) now, and all is good in the world! Thanks, Giant Snowman 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wondered if they might have been misnamed. Thanks for sorting it. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman prosopography and disambiguation

I see you are diligent about disambiguation pages. In case we cross paths again (this may occur as I work on Roman Republican governors of Gaul, the linkage for which is showing me gaps, particularly for Roman consuls, and confusing identifications), please see my note at Talk:Tiberius Claudius Nero. The example I give there (Lucius Valerius Flaccus) is technically not a disambiguation page, though I think it might once have been, and it functions as one, in a prolix sort of way. Roman nomenclature, because repetitive, creates special problems and confusions. I hope I've explained my thinking in regard to the Tiberii Claudii Nerones, but sometimes you have to let people know what droids they are in fact looking for. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've responded at the article's Talk page. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAB notability

Thanks for your edit summary--that's useful information. I can't say I like the rule very much, though--and wouldn't an editor have a leg to stand on if, in the case of Peter Brown (businessman), they simply removed the wikilinks from the Monarch Airlines article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your dislike of the rule - the line has to be drawn somewhere and if an article mentions a person, then there is at least something on them for the user to navigate to. However I always find it a bit awkward when they're only redlinked in one other article, but think it's probably best to follow the guidelines and include him, as it will assist a user who's looking for him. If an editor removed the redlink, then another editor would still probably do a search on the bluelinked entry to see if they were mentioned on it. In that case, it would still (just about) be valid, I think, especially if the editor restored the redlink, which I would probably do if they seemed possibly notable or there was any information on the person in the article beyond their name. I agree that this is quite borderline, but I don't think a red link on a dab causes any harm, and may help someone, if it has links to other articles. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. You're right, of course--but I'm a Calvinist and I like things clean, that is, bluelinked. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:AB

I was a bit confused by that but figured out what it might be so did you mean MOS:ABBR? I'm actually surprised that's a redirect since I thought only things beginning with WP could redirect outside of articlespace. Anyway, in respect to Elen's objection (I guess it pays to check contributions now and then, as she seems to be doing with mine, since she didn't mention the reversion to me) I've brought it up on WP:WPDIS to get some clarification about it so I can refer to policy regarding redirects on disambigs in the future if such disputes occur. In particular I think this project might be able to help in informing me about proper redirect policy too. Tyciol (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping in here. Don't want to start and argument, but that redirect definitely didn't meet WP:PIPING - see current discussion at WT:WPDIS. Perhaps Tyciol could rewrite the Cool World article to include a section on the Detective, rather than just a sentence. Then he could include the redirect on that dab page. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for jumpin' back in here too, but there's more than a sentence, he's a central character, I had linked merely to the first mention. I mean, Brad Pitt played him, in the very least he's the 3rd most important character next to the artist and Holli. Tyciol (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for causing confusion, it was MOS:DAB I meant to link to. I understand Elen's point more clearly now it's explained on here, so thanks for taking the time to do so, I hadn't come across this before. I think it's probably best to use a redirect to link to the part of the page which mentions him, but that's borderline if there's only a line in the article. My main reason for reverting however, was that the entry was removed completely, and I am happy with it now that there is a link to film. Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad. This is a good compromise for now, although there's definitely more than a sentence/line. Even if it were some minor character rather than a lead character, it's not as if the disambig's all that cluttered that mentioning them on the bottom would disrupt people from finding the more important people with full articles. Tyciol (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I think the way it's done now is fine. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?

Regarding this edit & associated comment: "rem per MOS:DABRL; not mentioned on blue link - added link to Wikt where this is a valid entry"
Fair enough, but I don't understand the "not mentioned on blue link" bit of the comment.
Which blue link? How would/should it be mentioned? Huh?
Signed: "Confused from Adelaide". Cheers, --Pdfpdf (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only blue link on the line, which went to United Kingdom. Any blue link on the line should add to more information on the subject, so for the expression, as there isn't an article on it and the expression is mentioned elsewhere in the dab, with the person who is supposed to have inspired it, there wouldn't be a valid blue link. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Craik

Why have you removed my entry on Henry Craik? Silver Shiney (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an entry - you overwrote the disambiguation page with an article. Find a good title for the Henry Craik you're writing about, e.g. 'Henry Craik (x)' and create an article there - don't overwrite an existing page. Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain how I do that. Am I supposed to amend the link on the George Muller page to "Henry Craik (x)"? What do you suggest I put as "x"? Do I then put a link on the disambiguation page to go to the correct page? Sorry for all the questions but the online help is not easy to follow or understand. Silver Shiney (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dean (disambiguation)

Would you mind not removing the entry for John Dean, aka Natty Bumppo or at least suggest an alternative approach? The author is referred to in at least two articles and I have not been able to identify John Dean (author) with any of the existing John Dean's listed (which if one of those listed, I'd appreciate a clue).

After you complained about my red link (while leaving others in), I removed the brackets, but returned to find you removed my entry anyway. Any explanation would help at this point. Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in edit summaries, the other redlinks meet MOS:DABRL. A dab is a navigational tool to take you to articles on a person/which make significant mention of them. Linking to an article which doesn't mention the entry only causes confusion. If you can find mention of him in two articles, go to them and redlink John Dean (author) in them, then re-add to the page, but without a blue link which doesn't mention him. Alternatively, you could create the article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience. I'd be glad to start a Dean/Bumppo article, but other than Amazon books, I haven't uncovered any biographical details. Here are the articles with red links:

Does this do the job? Thanks for your clarifications about this.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fine, I see you've added the redlinks to those articles. Boleyn (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAB for names of people

I must question your recent edits to the Keith Miller (disambiguation) page. The guideline in WP:MOSDAB refers to pages with a well-known primary topic. In my experience, it is typically not applied to WP:DAB pages involving peoples' names. In these situations, there is no primary topic; the main listing is there because it was the first article created in Wikipedia. By listing it first and then stating there may be others gives our readers the incorrect impression that the name at the top has more importance than the others, which is generally not the case. In this specific case, there is nothing to suggest that a cricketer is more important than the actor, politician, geologist and other sports figures who happen to have the same name. Would you please consider reverting your edits. Thanks, Truthanado (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By a page having the primary title, e.g. Keith Miller, it is making a statement that it is the primary topic. If you think it is not, then look at the stats and then, if it backs your hunch up, request a move. If there is no primary topic, then the issue is that the dab is misplaced. The format is correct until such a change is made, as per the guidelines you've quoted and is commonly used on hndis pages (I'm afraid I'm enough of a geek to have around 18,000 hndis pages on my watchlist, so I know it's definitely the norm). Thanks for contacting me, and if you can back up that it shouldn't be the primary target, then I'd second a move. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion for page moves

Hi there. Just a little thing: Could you please use {{db-move|ArticleToBeMovedHere}} instead of {{db|holding up page move}} in future? That way admins can check if the deletion really is uncontroversial and do the move for you together with the deletion. Regards So Why 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that one. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		Awarded for upholding the small but important details of disambiguation page formatting. You're a woman after my own heart. Neelix (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelheid

I have deleted the redirect page as you requested, but I am not sure what you intend in its place. Can you make the required moves/redirects so that the incoming links are not left hanging ? Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip W. Anderson

Hi. You redirected this page (Philip W. Anderson) to Philip Anderson, which includes individuals who don't share the middle initial "W". I don't understand the change. I wouldn't have thought anyone looking for a Philip W. Anderson would need to be go to a disambiguation page that lists a Philip G. Anderson (i.e. Phil Anderson). I think that the majority of people looking for Philip W. Anderson are probably seeking out the Nobel Prize winner, and I'm not sure that this page shouldn't redirect straight there, with a headnote saying to see the Philip Anderson page if they get the wrong one. Anyway, Did I miss something? Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was simply because we don't usually create disambiguation pages based on more than sharing a personal name, e.g. Philip Anderson. Exceptions might be for a really common name, e.g. John Smith, where there might be several people commonly known as John A. Smith, and as they might get lost in the maze of entries, a separate disambiguation page can be helpful. Here there are only three of this personal name, so there was no need to duplicate; as Philip W. Anderson had been a disambiguation page, I put the two disambiguation pages together. If one of these is much more commonly looked for under Philip W. Anderson than the other, the redirect should go to them rather than the dab, with a hatnote on the physicist's page. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - your remarks were helpful. I've added a hatnote at the physicist's article, and sent the redirect directly there. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fitzgerald (disambiguation)

Sorry about that, I didn't know about the 1 blue link per line rule. My bad! Hope you have a nice weekend. :) LoveStreamFlow (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Smith

The requirement is that you only add the red-link to the dab page if the article is already red-linked, which it is, under the Descartes prize. I have submitted an AfC for someone to create the article also. I've red-linked Professor Smith in the invisibility cloak article also.

To find this information, you can click on the red-link, and it takes you to the page of the article, even red-linked articles. Go to the left-hand column and click on "What links here." If you do this in the future before reverting someone's edits you can see if the article already has links to it and therefore meets the requirements you quote.

--69.225.5.4 (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation of the guidelines (not requirements); I am very familiar with them. In this case, David R. Smith has already been deleted twice and had only a cursory mention on one page (as of the time I checked 'what links here' which you have now amended). It's likely to still be deleted without an article (though not by me), so if you want it to remain, I'd advise creating a stub which can then be expanded. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already created a stub, and of course a list of prize winners will have cursory mention of the recipient. Look at the lists of Nobel Prize winners. That Smith won the Descartes Prize goes to his notability.

The deleted article is not about this David R. Smith; it's about another David R. Smith, some politician it appears.

I have created a stub at AfC, and I am waiting for someone to post it. David Smith is a common enough name, ditto David R. Smith. Please, if you quote guidelines you are very familiar with as a reason for reverting someone's contribution, why not make the effort to make sure they apply? The guidelines you quoted didn't apply, s I assumed you weren't familiar with them. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure why you're still messaging me about this - trying to prove a point, I guess? I neither dispute nor have any real interest in whether this person is notable. I consider this matter ended. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Yugoslav Cup

Hi Boleyn,

I was on vacation hence the non-response. Please note that I have nothing to do with the 1952 Yugoslav Cup article except for the fact that I had originally made it on 30 January 2018 as a redirect to 1952 Yugoslav First League#Cup.

I too had thought that the external link from RSSSF actually sources the entire article.

Please take this into consideration before threatening me with a block. I had made the redirect as I was trying to help but you should have assumed that anyway because WP:Assume good faith.

Regards,
Tempo21 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finally responding, Tempo21. You were editing in between me sending each message, so I assumed would have read the messages. I did assume that the page was created in good faith, but continuing to edit but not responding to editors' messages is against policy and a waste of other people's time. Sorry for the original mistake in contacting you; I will look at whether the redirect should be restored. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tempo21 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New article Marie Lamont

Thanks for your comment. I've removed the citation to Wikipedia and changed it to a link insteadSusieCEMartin (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting List of Nostalgia Critic episodes (2018)

Why is there a reason to delete this article? Why?! I don't see any reason! You say there's a lot of mistakes in the writing, and there's none. You say there's always a reason to delete this article, and there's none! All other NC articles have not been deleted constantly, so why is this one doing so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.71.191.0 (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I've salted the draft page. Repeatedly cross-space linking it to get around the G4 deletions was particularly obnoxious. Thanks for keeping on top of it! --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious question, how is there a page on every season of Nostalgia Critic episodes? I would say that the main page itself barely qualifies for a page, most of the sources are primary, or don't mention it at all. I am going to have to revisit this on Monday I think... --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ponyo, yes, this has been a particularly difficult one with it being recreated so many times. kelapstick, I think you're right, from a quick glance it looks like they should be deleted/merged to the parent article if they have enough relevant, verified material. 106.71.191.0, please see WP:SCRUTINY and only send messages and edit while logged in. This was found non-notable at an AfD discussion - you don't need to agree but you do need to respect this. Boleyn (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I would let the discussion make it's course throughout the weekend to begin with, and have nominated all the season episodes for deletion, should you be interested in taking part. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We remember IP it, so you don't have to. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This is for the reviewing new articles in Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 05:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing articles

Hi, Greetings, Sir, please review some articles which I have created. Kollam Orthodox Diocese, Adoor Kadampanad Orthodox Diocese, Kottayam Orthodox Diocese, Thumpamon Orthodox Diocese, Kottayam Central Orthodox Diocese, Kochi Orthodox Diocese.--PATH SLOPU^(Talk) 06:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for your hard work creating these. Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Lebanon

Thanks for your interest and your comments. I have now incorporated two links about the station. One is from a major French language daily called L'Orient-Le Jour here on the 80th anniversary of the station in French https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/1066364/les-80-ans-de-radio-liban-que-reste-t-il-de-la-periode-doree-.html and extensive coverage of various aspects of Radio Lebanon Radio Liban again in French on Liban Vision site here http://www.libanvision.com/radio-liban96.2.htm with a compilation of a great number of articles about the station. These have now been incorporated in the Wikipedia article. werldwayd (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, and thanks again for creating the article. Boleyn (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Manual

Hi could you please kindly contact me via my Email address: Sarkhosh-ab@mashhad.ir regarding Refernces i can only provide persian language links to what i refer here. is that suffice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khakestary1363, Persian language links are OK. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I added the citation. would be glad to receive comments if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khakestary1363 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Bangkok United F.C. season

I've created page 2018 Bangkok United F.C. season and I will add references soon. I'm sorry that I haven't replied your messages. Please let me know when I make errors. Thanks JTheBest (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Hi, thanks for reviewing some of the new articles! You're so fast that you reviewed them while I was still working on them, I'm glad you didn't think they were rubbish haha. Thank you! Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy reviewing them, DrVogel} and thanks for creating them, Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Natureium. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, John R. McDonald, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Natureium (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the system decided I need to notify the reviewer of any article I unreview. I PROD'd it, but didn't mark it as patrolled because if someone removes the PROD it will still be reviewed, but the other issues won't be fixed. Natureium (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i think there is a way around it, Natureium, but I don't know it! When I review an article marked for deletion (and agree with the proposed deletion), I review it to remove it from the backlog and watchlist it, so I will take it to AfD if the prod/speedy is unsuccessful. It doesn't much matter though. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touring Car World/ Source

Hi Boleyn i'm sorry for not putting immediately source. I started since few weeks to add news and not im not yet used to wiki pages. I don't do on purpose. By the way all news i write about touring car championship come from my old books TOURING CAR WORLD published by EDIEMME and written by Ravaioli Fabio - Morandi Fernando

Thanks for your reply, it takes a while to learn everything about how to edit (there are lots of things I still don't know!) Just add the information above to the articles, preferably with a page number. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huinnyeoul Culture Village

I added categories about Huinnyeoul Culture Village. Please check it again. Thanks!!! :) --Yeoncong323 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed the uncategorised tag. Thanks for your hard work, Yeoncong323. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Farina and other hoax baseball articles.

You don't need to AFD them. Speedy deletion aka G3 is how to nominate it. Which I just did for 4 articles all created by the same editor. When I do something like this, I go to an administrator talkpage (Acroterion or MilborneOne are my usual choices) and ask them to care of this. Just letting you know. Cheers!...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WilliamJE, I speedy for hoaxes but thought this was just non-notable rather than a hoax. I'm glad it's been sorted, thanks for your help. Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my Township pages for Iredell County, NC

I'm working on the changes and should get them finished this week. Would you be willing to take a look at Chambersburg Township, Iredell County, North Carolina to see if my changes are acceptable? I removed the "cite sources" tag and added more info. Don't know if it's still considered a stub. Thanks a bunch! Eewilson (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to create so many, Eewilson! Your improvements on this article are impressive, definitely no longer a stub. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I am a genealogist working on normalizing locations in my research database, and as I was looking for information about some townships (and other locations) in Iredell Co., I found the articles didn't exist, so I am creating them. Might as well share the love! Thank you for all you do. I will remove the stub tag. Eewilson (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]