Jump to content

User talk:Michipedian/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Archive 1: December 2012 – July 2013.

  • Note: During this time, my username was Wikipedian77.

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 11:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian77, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Wikipedian77! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Michigan Urban Farming Initiative logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Michigan Urban Farming Initiative logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

  • state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
  • add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NtheP (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Pratyya (Hello!) 10:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Italics for article titles, the terms that are put in WP:BOLDFACE at the beginning of articles

Hello, Wikipedian77. I saw that you are putting article titles, the boldface terms that are at the beginning of the leads of articles, in italics. Since I don't see this often practiced on Wikipedia, except for in the cases of books, plays, films and name brands, I felt that I should present you with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Italics guideline and the Wikipedia:ITALICTITLE#Italics and other formatting policy (the policy is mostly about the naming of articles, however). It may be best to ask at Wikipedia:Manual of Style's talk page if your versions on this matter are appropriate. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

For instances like this, where it's not the boldfaced article title terms, I'm sure that it's fine to use italics or quotation marks. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
OK. I won't edit anymore until I get a feel for how they should be. I figured it would be OK to use italics when it's a term being discussed. (Compare "Lesbian is a term that . . ." to "A lesbian is a . . .") Wikipedian77 (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2013‎ (UTC)
I'll ask about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style. I signed your username for you above. To sign your own username, all you have to do is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I know that you are still relatively new to editing this site, so don't get discouraged by this italics topic. We all make mistakes when we start out editing Wikipedia, and even after we've been editing here for a long time, and I'm not even sure that you have made a mistake on this matter. If you feel that a Welcome template will help you learn the ropes, although you mostly do grammar formatting, I'll present you with one. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, and yeah, not in any way offended or anything like that. :) I'm not sure what a Welcome template is, but feel free to send one my way! Wikipedian77 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
MOS:BOLDTITLE is the guideline to follow. Only things that would normally be italicised per MOS:ITALIC should be italicised in the lead section. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Like I stated in the WP:Manual of Style discussion about this: Thanks, Robsinden. I suppose that from there...it depends on what a person considers to be "things that would normally be italicized." Flyer22 (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Wikipedian77. I don't think that these terms[2][3] or any terms should be in quotation marks while in boldface at the beginning of articles. This is not done on Wikipedia, from what I have seen. For all articles about terms, the boldface takes the place of quotation marks. Quotation marks or italics are used for the term, where appropriate or needed, after the appearance of the boldface. Flyer22 (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems as if quotation marks would help clarify that these are terms being discussed, meaning that the primary focus is on the word itself and not its denotation. Quotation marks make that clear from the start. The lack of them, in my opinion, causes some confusion. I will remove them, however, if you feel they are unnecessary.Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see what confusion could be caused, Wikipedian77. The two articles in question even use the wording "is a term" right after boldface. The only reason I object to having quotation marks go along with boldface in these cases is because I don't see it practiced anywhere on Wikipedia. If I have, such as in these cases, but simply don't remember, I still know that it's not standard practice on Wikipedia. It's not something that WP:BOLDFACE endorses. I know that I may be a pest to you right now, or maybe even in my previous interaction with you, but I don't mean to be. Thank you for removing the quotation marks from the two aforementioned articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Some articles do put the term in quotation marks. (See: wetback.) Also, some italicize. (See: honky.) -Wikipedian77 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
But quotation marks accompanying boldface is still not standard practice on Wikipedia. And the Honky article shouldn't use italics, per what has already been stated above. Italics are only standard practice regarding what has been clarified above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard practice is to use italics, not quotation marks, when talking about a term. A lead may start with "X is a term...", but it would be better to reword it to be "X is ...", since the article is usually about the topic X, not term X. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Dicklyon. That was very helpful. — Wikipedian77 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Dicklyon, while using italics for terms is standard practice on Wikipedia (and so is using quotation marks, judging by many Wikipedia articles), it has not been my experience that it is standard practice on Wikipedia to begin an article with a term both in italics and in boldface. This is evident from most articles on Wikipedia that have terms as their titles, though, like you stated, the articles are usually more about the topic beyond the term. Above, while pointing to WP:BOLDTITLE, Robsinden pointed out that only things that would normally be italicized should be italicized. The word "gay," for example, is not something that would normally be italicized. Most of the time I see the word, it is not italicized. Contrast that with a book name, which is almost always in quotation marks or italicized. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
If this matter needs to be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style again, then let's take it there. Hopefully, we would get more replies this time. Flyer22 (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'll grant you that many articles staring with "X is a term" do not italicize; but they should, since any term would normally be italiicized in that context. I have seen many articles that do use italics there (Hacker (term), A-list, Midget, Yuppie); and a few with quotation marks, like Missional living, Going Dutch. Most others that start with "X is a term" just haven't been looked at by anyone who knows or cares about style, or they'd be rewritten in most cases; like Automotive industry. See Use–mention distinction and WP:WORDSASWORDS. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are stating; you feel that if the wording "is a term" is used, then the word should be in italics or in quotation marks...even when also in boldface. But if an article starts out stating "is" without "is a term," you feel that it likely shouldn't be in italics or in quotation marks. Do you feel the same way about "refers to" and "describes"? The words "refers to" and "describes" have been getting steadily removed from the beginning of articles by a few editors, and so has "is a term," because they find it to be unnecessary or redundant. However, "is a term" has only justifiably been removed from articles that are more about the topic beyond the term. I'm not sure how not both bolding and italicizing a term in an article that begins by introducing it became standard practice on Wikipedia, but my point is that it is, and the articles often remain that way even when they go through a WP:GA or WP:FA process, so it can look odd when an article departs from this standard. Maybe Wikipedia became that way due to how many dictionaries and encyclopedias introduce a term without italicizing it or putting it in quotation marks? Flyer22 (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should almost never start "X is a term/describes/refers to". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. Most articles are about concepts or things, not about words or phrases. You gave the example of lesbian, which begins: "Lesbian is a term most widely used in the English language to describe sexual and romantic attraction between females." This is a terrible lead, and should be rephrased (but I am not the right person to improve it), so I wouldn't take it as a model.
When in fact the article is about a word or a phrase (but not the title of a book, movie, etc.), then quotation marks are appropriate, e.g. "Let them eat cake". That article is not about the concept of the insensitivity of the rich to the suffering of the poor, but about the history and abuses of the phrase itself. On the other hand, the memento mori article is not about the phrase, but about the concept of a symbol or reminder of mortality in art, so it should not be in quotes (but it is in italics because it is a foreign phase). The lead previously didn't reflect that, but I just reworded it. --Macrakis (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I'm not sure that Wikipedia articles should almost never start out stating "is a term" for an article that is about the term (or mostly about the term). The Lesbian article, like the Gay article, is about the term and concept. So it would not be exactly accurate to start out stating "A lesbian is a woman who" or "Gay is a person who"; the terms have more than one definition, and starting out the Lesbian article with "A lesbian is a woman who" will lead to a person using "is only romantically or sexually attracted to women" or "is exclusively romantically or sexually attracted to women." But like this source (page 22) states, "There is no standard definition of lesbian." Not only is it often not consistently defined in the same way by women who use the term to describe their sexuality, it often is not consistently defined in the same way by researchers. The article therefore does not give a definitive definition for the concept, in the lead-in or elsewhere; among other things, it discusses different definitions. And then there are articles like Nigger, Faggot (slang), Dyke (slang), Slut, and so on; it would be extremely inappropriate to start out those articles with "is a person who" or "is a person that." So I'm not seeing how using "is a term," "is a word," "is a noun," "describes" or "refers to" can be avoided in such cases.
Like I stated elsewhere, there is also the matter of things that are debated as existing/not existing. There has been dispute over using "is" for the Telepathy article because using "is" for that article is stating that telepathy exists. Whether or not it exists is debated. That article currently uses "is the supposed," but the term "supposed" isn't at all neutral. And, again, there are cases where a term has more than one definition; in a lot of these instances, there are concerns about how to get that across without having the first sentence sound like it's giving a definitive definition, even when the first definition is the most common one and the other definitions are listed right after it. After all, per WP:LEADSENTENCE, we aren't supposed to start the definition off ambiguously unless it can't be avoided; by that, I mean unless it doesn't have a most common and/or authoritative definition, but rather just a few, several or many. Therefore, starting the lead sentence out as "[So and so] has a range of definitions" is usually something that should be avoided. I point to the lead of the Universe article, where "commonly defined as" is currently there because there has been some edit warring over the initial sentence, even recently. See The Universe is NOT everything that exists and The difficulty of defining universe discussions here in its third archive and currently here at its talk page. The Anarchism article, which is of WP:GA status, used to use "generally defined as"...but currently uses "is often defined as." The Glasgow effect article, where there was debate over its lead using both "is a term" and "refer to," is obviously another example concerning using those words; see its talk page and where the discussion about that continued at Aeusoes1's talk page (an editor well known for removing "is a term used to describe").
Like I told another editor, I understand the point and agree that we should generally avoid using "refers to," "describes," "commonly defined as" and "defined as" or some variation of them. But there are instances where such wording is necessary. Aeusoes1 mentioned that the Afterlife article avoids those words for its lead; it uses "is the concept," but since "afterlife," "gay" and "lesbian" are more than just concepts to people, I don't think it's wise to start off identifying them as concepts. I especially feel that way in the case of "gay" and "lesbian; that's because the attractions have been proven as existing, and using "concept" to initially define them makes it sound as though the romantic attraction, sexual attraction and/or behavior these people experience are concepts. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
However, since the Afterlife article starts out stating "In philosophy, religion, mythology, and fiction" and uses "is the concept of a realm, or the realm itself," I don't find initially identifying it as a concept as something that would be considered very objectionable in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome template

Okay, Wikipedian77, as suggested/requested above, here is a Welcome template:

Hello, Wikipedian77! Welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, you can 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 or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Saint Matthew

If you put in a WP:RM I will certainly support it. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I have not put one in before, so I will look into it. Thanks! —Wikipedian77 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I did and have strongly supported Andrew Peter Matthew. I didn't understand your comment about whether books using "the..." were published in Brazil. I don't see what difference where they were published makes. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused on the matter. (I didn't know Google Books only searched for English language books.) Your explanation was very clear. Thank you. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, no I wasn't clear. No problem. Actually the [Search English only] isn't reliable, particularly with academic subjects where many university papers are classified as "English" but in reality may be a conference with papers in German French Spanish in the same binding. For this reason I usually safety check delimit using "the..." or "of..." to check. Then 100% sure that no German French Spanish is being picked up. On the other hand however English sources may be typographically unreliable (the original book, not the scan) for example mathematics books prior to 2000 turning Hungarian long umlauts into German short umlauts on Hungarian mathematicians. We can rely on the difference between "Universidade" and "University" as OCR and typeset issues don't arise, but we can't trust a pre-2000 book or a Google OCR of a 2010 book to get East European accents, and fortunately don't : so nearly half a million bio and geo articles are titled correctly, even when OCR or pre-2000 print may fail. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nicknames

Hi, you removed the nicknames "Rick" from Santorum and "Bill" from Clinton, with the comment "Nicknames should only be included in lead name when nickname is rare and uncommon. xxx is very common for yyy, and it is obvious information." I have reverted those removals.

Though Rick is a common nickname for Richard, and Bill for William, there is no way of knowing a priori that any particular person is widely known by some nickname rather than another -- or none. For example, Richard Nixon was not commonly referred to as "Rick" or even "Dick", though his opponents often called him "Tricky Dicky" (I have no idea what he was called by his family and close friends, if any). William Rogers was known as "Will", not Bill or Willy or Billy or anything else.

The fact that Richard Santorum is widely known as Rick, and William Clinton as Bill, is thus not "obvious" and should stay in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Macrakis. I was unsure as to the policy on this. I added a nickname in for Tim Tebow, and a user removed it for being unnecessary and obvious information. Additionally, a user on Tony Blair's article has seemingly banned the use of a nickname in his lead. Do you know if there is a WP policy on this? I prefer the nicknames in the names, actually, as I do see it as helpful and clarifying. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline on point, but there are a number of editors who continue to insert diminutives and other common nicknames obviously derived from the first name, middle name or surname, citing some sort of precedent that's the Wikipedia way. Well, if such a policy exists, I've never been able to find it. I am preparing an RfC to be addressed at the MOS:BIO talk page that will settle this by actual and specific consensus.
In my opinion, when an article is titled "Rick Santorum" per WP:COMMONNAME, and includes an infobox with the header "Rick Santorum," it is perfectly clear that the subject's common name is "Rick," but that his full legal name is "Richard John Santorum." Moreover, many infoboxes for athletes (e.g., Infobbox sportsperson, Infobox swimmer, Infobox golfer) actually include a specific field for the subject's nickname, and a properly completed Persondata template will include both the subject's common name and full name. Artificial constructions such as "Richard John "Rick" Santorum," with the nickname inserted into the middle of the subject' actual legal name, only serve to break up the presentation of the actual legal name and confuse the reader. My new favorite exercise in duplicative redundancy "Christopher "Chris" Johnson" for an article titled "Chris Johnson." Why does anyone think this is necessary when the article title and infobox already include the common name? There is no logical reason for it other than some sort of need for mindless consistency.
I will notify you both when the RfC is ready, so that you may freely express your opinions on point in a forum that may actually lead to a conclusion and consensus policy on which we may all rely. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the Manual of Style does have explicit policy on this matter:
The name of a person is presented in full if known, including any given names that are not included in the article's title or are abbreviated there. For example, the article on Calvin Coolidge gives his name as John Calvin Coolidge, Jr. If a person has a commonly known nickname, used in lieu of a given name, it is presented between quote marks following the last given name or initial, as for John F. Kennedy, which has John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. The quotation marks are not put in bold.Manual of Style, Lead Section
As for the information in the title and the infobox, I believe there is a guideline somewhere (but I can't find it) that says that the article should be able to stand on its own, independently of its title and ancillary material. This is because Wikipedia articles are often used in other contexts. --Macrakis (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your follow-up, Macrakis. Please note that the provision of MOS:LEAD cited by you is contradicted by the examples provided by MOS:BIO, including the example of Bill Clinton. Logically, one would think that the more specific provisions of MOS:BIO would govern the formatting of biographies, but we both know that this is only one of many self-contradicting MOS provisions that represent the input of different editors, at different times, with different agendas. Clearly, the two MOS provisions need to be reconciled, and whatever the consensus outcome is it should probably be embodied in MOS:BIO, the specific MOS section that governs the formatting of biographies, not the more general MOS:LEAD. At a minimum, the two provisions need to be reconciled and cross-referenced.
I will also add that neither of the examples provided (Van Cliburn, Jack Kennedy) directly address the more ridiculous examples such as "Matthew "Matt" Grevers" or "Christopher "Chris" Johnson," where application of the MOS:LEAD examples would repeat the first syllable of the first name and yield an unnecessarily repetitive and sing-song result. As for the two examples provided, "Jack" is a more commonly known diminutive of John in some regions than others; "Van" is by no means a common nickname for Lavan, if indeed a common nickname for such exists anywhere. Given the conflicting MOS examples of MOS:LEAD and MOS:BIO, this still deserves an RfC to reconcile the provisions, so that a conscious choice can be made by the hundreds, if not thousands of editors who deal with biography leads daily. I can certainly abide by that, but we should not presume the outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to North End while it's listed as under review

Hi there, just a friendly reminder that this page has a Review in Progress banner on it. This means it's a work in progress and, as a courtesy, other contributors are asked not to edit while a review is ongoing. If you'd like to provide input, please could you do this on my talk page as this will avoid potential problems with edit conflicts. Thank you Libby norman (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I will make sure to not edit it anymore. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
PS Thank you so much for your helpful contributions to the North End article! You have found a lot of great resources! —Wikipedian77 (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
A pleasure, I've now put Detroit on my must-visit list thanks to this article! Libby norman (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That's so great to hear! Wikipedian77 (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

North End, Detroit, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Libby norman (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Historic districts

Hello, Wikipedian77! I stumbled across your series of move requests to remove the phrase "historic district" from a dozen or so Detroit-related article titles. I value all the work you put into these proposals, and I think that may well be a good idea. However, I'm afraid I have been opposing them - not because I think it's a bad idea, but because I think the group of articles should be considered as a group. IMO there should be one consolidated discussion about whether to remove this phrase from all of the articles, or some of them, or none of them. Right now they all use it, which is at least consistent; I'd rather not see each article go its own way and leave a haphazard system.

This is the notice I have been posting at those articles as I came across them:

*Oppose See my comments at Talk:Brush Park Historic District. I am opposing because this is one of many current, separate proposals to drop the words "Historic District" from Detroit article titles. Currently all historic districts in Detroit use the phrase, as shown at Category:Historic districts in Detroit, Michigan. I think instead of half-a-dozen unconnected individual discussions about whether to delete the phrase, there should be a discussion at some central location about whether or not to include the phrase "Historic District" for Detroit articles, and an overall consensus reached. I am neutral on what that consensus would be. --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to encourage you to choose a central location for the discussion, and direct all the talk pages to that discussion. I will be glad to join in the discussion, and to remove my "oppose" comments once we have some kind of systematic approach to these articles. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with what you're saying; however, some of these historic districts cannot have Historic District removed from their titles as comfortably. Greektown Historic District is always referred to as Greektown, but Lower Woodward Avenue Historic District should not be labelled Lower Woodward Avenue as it is then undistinguished from the road itself. I don't think there can be a completely universal rule for these, but I like the idea of having some kind of system. Wikipedian77 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that there may be cases where "historic district" is necessary regardless of how the others are treated, and other cases where "Detroit" is necessary as you have already researched. Anyplace that can be legitimately regarded as a neighborhood and not just a historic district - and where there is not already an article for the neighborhood - could have "historic district" dropped if that is consensus, while districts that are not really neighborhoods retain it. From a look at the category Category:Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, it seems that Detroit's usual treatment of neighborhood titles is to add "Detroit" only when they need disambiguation. (Different cities handle neighborhood titling differently.) And of course, they would all stay in the "historic district" category, regardless of the name. I do suggest that you pick a place for this discussion, and direct the individual discussions there, where we could establish a pattern for what HDs have the phrase in the title and what ones don't. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Where would I start such a discussion? Wikipedian77 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The simplest way is simply to direct all the discussions to one of the pages where discussion is already underway. Pick a page where some responses (other than mine, because mine is procedural) have already been made. Add a note to that one saying something like "this is a consolidated discussion" and then just list the recommendations you have made at the other pages, e.g. "Brush Park Historic District → Brush Park". Add a note to the other pages saying "please see consolidated discussion at Talk:whatever page you chose." You might also call attention to that discussion at places like Talk:Detroit and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Michigan/Detroit. This sounds like a lot of work, but it will ultimately save you time - for example by not having to watch a dozen different pages. And you will have a lot more confidence in the result once you get it. (My hunch: all proposals will be approved.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 Done. If you have the time, MelanieN, I would appreciate your support at the consolidated discussion that I started. Thanks! Wikipedian77 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Good job. Don't forget to post a "move request" and direction to the consolidated discussion on the five new pages you added. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Political Notability

FYI. I suggest you just post your Adam Zemke article (though please do fill out the citations properly), as you don't need to submit new articles to AFC in the first place, and it's clear that it wasn't declined according to prevailing consensus. postdlf (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If you need help with the citations, categories, etc. just ask me. --MelanieN (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not familiar with the process of creating an article outside of the AfC page. Is there a page that explains all this? Wikipedian77 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not that hard. Make a copy of the page you want to create; you can do it off-wiki, or use your sandbox (there should be a link to it at the very top of the page), or simply copy what you already have at the Articles for Creation site. You could go to the AfC site and add additional references and resubmit it to AfC - but you don't have to use Articles for Creation if you don't want. You can also use that draft as a template to add additional references, and then use "select-all" and "copy" to make a copy of it. It is best to make your draft on Wikipedia rather than offline, because then you can see if the Wikipedia functions are working.
To create an article from scratch, go to the Wikipedia "search" function and type in the intended name of your article, i.e., "Adam Zemke". (No quotes, just the name.) It will take you to some suggested other articles as well as a redlink for Adam Zemke that allows you to create the article. Click on that redlink, paste in your intended text, click "show preview" to make sure everything like references and wikilinks are working correctly, put in an edit summary such as "creating page about a member of the Michigan legislature", and click "save page". That puts your page into the Wikipedia mainspace - bang, just like that. You can continue to work on it by clicking "edit". You will need to add some categories (ask me if you need help with categories) and eventually a talk page. The article will be "live" in the encyclopedia mainspace; it will also get listed at New Pages, where some Wikipedia editor will patrol or curate it. They may have suggestions, but in the meantime you can continue to work on the article. Let me know if you do this and I will help you put it into shape.
User:Postdlf suggested "filling out the citations properly". The easiest way to do that is to use the "cite" link just above the edit window. Click on that, choose "web" or "news" or whatever is appropriate, and fill in the blanks. Then put your cursor at the point in the article where you want to cite it and click "add citation". That's important! If you don't click "add citation" the information will be lost and you'll have to fill it in again. Make sure that at the bottom of the page you have a heading ==References== and the code <references />. If you like, let me know where to look at this, and I will check it before you launch into mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, MelanieN! I will let you know if I get around to creating a proper article for Adam Zemke. Wikipedian77 (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No need to do this - somebody just promoted your afc draft to article status. MelanieN (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Great! I will still work on the material and citations at some point. Wikipedian77 (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Several people have improved it already - adding categories and such - but the references still need to be put in regular format. I will add wikiprojects to the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Wikipedian77 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at the Bisexuality talk page

With regard to this, what I was planning on stating was this: Hello, Wikipedian77. I don't feel that such an article is needed any more than a Homosexual (social identity) article is needed. Many people are gay or lesbian, but state that they are heterosexual or bisexual because being gay or lesbian is not widely accepted. In fact, being bisexual is significantly more accepted than being gay or lesbian, which is why so many people come out as bisexual before coming out as gay or lesbian. To them, being at least "partly heterosexual" lessons the blow for those who are uneasy about same-sex sexual attraction; it's also less scary with regard to their own psyche, and, for some who are battling internalized homophobia, keeps them feeling that their sexual orientation is at least partly normal. People not being honest about being bisexual, somehow not realizing that they are bisexual, or otherwise rejecting the term bisexual can be covered in the Bisexuality article, which it already somewhat is. What you are talking about is sexual identity vs. actual sexual orientation, which, again, should not be split off from the Bisexuality article (unless that aspect took up so much of that article that a WP:SPINOUT article would be needed). That's a social aspect of the topic of bisexuality and should therefore be covered in the Bisexuality article. The Homosexuality, Lesbian and Gay articles are separate because homosexuality is the umbrella term for same-sex sexual attraction, lesbian is the most notable term for same-sex sexual attraction between women, and gay is a notable term for a variety of reasons that are mentioned in the Gay article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Flyer22. I deleted my comment because I also felt it was unnecessary. In response to your comment, you are correct in that a bisexual orientation tends to be more accepted than a homosexual orientation. However, at least for men, the gay identity (or homosexual identity) tends to be more socially accepted than the bisexual identity. The bisexual identity is frequently seen as a transition phase for someone who is coming out (and it frequently is); however, genuine bisexuals find it difficult to identify as bi as they are frequently accused of being simply bi-curious or closeted. (See: bisexual erasure.) Wikipedian77 (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And, yes, I am familiar with those aspects. For men, I know that a gay identity or homosexual identity is more accepted in the gay male community than a bisexual identity, much like being lesbian is more accepted than being bisexual in the lesbian community, but I'm not 100% sure if it's that way in general for men who identity as bisexual. Certainly, the media seems to take the gay male identity more seriously than the bisexual male identity, but it's the same with regard to the lesbian identity vs. the bisexual female identity; it's just that people are generally more accepting of same-sex sexual attraction between women than between men. Flyer22 (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yet lesbians seem to have a more difficult time in society being taken seriously than gay men. Maybe that's just the struggle for gender equality though. Human sexuality is so complex! Sigh. Wikipedian77 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a significant number of people (researchers included) think that gay men are more solid in their sexual orientation than lesbians are; sometimes, I'm not sure what to believe with regard to the "women are more sexually fluid than men" notion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus' walk on water move request

Hi there

You recently participated in a move request for the Jesus' walk on water article. There was no consensus for the proposed move, but some suggested the new possible title of Jesus walking on water and I have reopened the move request with that as the move target. If you are interested, please contribute to the debate at Talk:Jesus' walk on water#Requested move 2. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing / subordinating official names of places

Hey, Wikipedian77 -

I've noticed that recently you've edited a few articles to remove or subordinate the official name of a place to the common, informal name used as the article title. I'm not sure that that's the intention of WP:Commonname, which goes (in my reading) to article names and not the content. Whatever a place might generally be called, it would seem that the better practice would be to lead the article with the official name of the area. Thus for example at Shelby Charter Township, Michigan where the infobox once led with the official name - showing the common name below it and in smaller type - we now have a hodgepodge of names and wikilinks - with the township's actual, formal name subordinate to the common one - that leaves the reader entirely uncertain about what name is supposed to be what. I'm inclined to undo that and similar changes but wanted to hear your thinking first. (In that regard - edit summaries would be very helpful. Something as simple as explaining why you removed "neighborhood" from the description of Greektown would save other editors the effort of puzzling out your thinking.) Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, JohnInDC! I would first like to thank you for paying close attention to edits on Wikipedia. Editors like you are the ones who affirm the trust I have in Wikipedia.
In regards to your concerns, I understand where your confusion may arise; however, I assure you I can explain. First, in regards to my edit at Greektown, Detroit, that was simply a correction of syntax. If you read the version directly before mine, it was syntactically erroneous. That was my only reason for editing the lede there, and I didn't summarize it because I assumed it to be obvious. I will make sure I include edit summaries though.
Secondly, in regards to my edits at Shelby Charter Township, Michigan, the common name is not "Shelby Charter Township." Rather, it is "Shelby Township." It may help you to know that I plan to request a move from Shelby Charter Township, Michigan → Shelby Township, Michigan, after which the article will be in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. In regards to the infobox, the practice of infoboxes is to put the common name at top (e.g. "Chicago"), then the classification of municipality (e.g. "City"), then the official name (e.g. "City of Chicago"). This is how I changed the Shelby Township article. (If you click "Edit Source," you can see that one spot asks for the "name" whereas the other spot asks for the "official name.") In regards to your assessment that the lede term should be the official name of the municipality—well, I agreed with you for a while until I was firmly corrected by other Wikipedians (such as Bkonrad) that a municipality's lede should be the common name and not the official name. Otherwise, all major cities' articles would have to be edited to the contrary. I hope I have presented myself clearly, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 06:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. Moving in reverse - my point about Greektown was not that the edit was suspect, but that by routinely omitting edit summaries you are putting the onus on other editors to figure out what you just did, even with the simplest of edits. You should use them. All the time!
On to townships. I'd looked at the source edits. It looked to me like the infobox template had pretty effectively accommodated the original layout, with "Shelby Township" being associated with the field "other name" (which presumably means "other than official") and its official name in the "official name" field. The output was a sensible box that showed the official name at the top and the common name as "other" below. In your your edits, you added the field "name" above, put in Shelby Township, deleted "other name" and left "official name" alone. The result was a muddled mess, with the box now showing an unofficial - but common - name, then the type of entity ("Charter Township"), then the official name in smaller type below that. All with no indication of what any of those things are supposed to be. Whether or not the infobox allows that - and whether or not the change is technically defensible - the change does not improve the article. The problem is exacerbated by your other edits, which removed the official township name from the article text altogether. Perhaps this setup works for places like Chicago, where people understand that the city will have some cumbersome "official" name that no one really uses. In that case they can probably decode the infobox based on what they already know; but with a place like Shelby Township or Lyon Township (the common names for which will be familiar to a couple million Michigan residents at most, the official name to fewer still) it doesn't work. Remember - this is an encyclopedia. where people come to find out information on particular subjects. The point is to make the information we include clear, easy to find and easy to understand. Someone coming to Wikipedia to find the official name of townships in Michigan can't effectively do it any longer - they'll do as I did, which is to read the article, try to make sense of it, and then continue on to the official township website (if there is one).
If the changes you're describing result from a hard-and-fast rule, and the rule produces these confusing results, then I guess my gripe is with the rule or with the templates. I've cast about (a very tiny bit admittedly) looking for examples one way or the other - to see if it's hard & fast - but haven't come up with a bunch of stuff. Can you point me to a Wikipedia page that discusses this, to other similar township info boxes, or maybe even your exchange with BKonrad? These changes pretty plainly degrade the articles, making them less clear and less useful but I want to be sure I'm focusing on the problem where it lies. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
(It does not appear to be hard and fast - formal names are at least permissible in leading off geographical info boxes, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes#Geographical_infoboxes.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, as I'm learning more about Michigan townships, I'm wondering whether redirects from the common name wouldn't be better than moving and renaming the pages. I don't feel as strongly about this as I do the foregoing, but the official name of these townships - e.g. Shelby Charter Township - conveys real and useful information about the legal form of township that is lost - or submerged - with the name change. Indeed I hadn't even realized that "charter" was a specific variant of township until I started looking through township articles for this discussion. I understand the preference stated in Commonnames but wonder if the same end couldn't be achieved, and less destructively, by leaving the articles as they are (with "charter" in the name) and adding redirects from the common name. That way people who are looking for, e.g. "Lyon Township" as they know it will find it immediately, but the formal name - including the actual information added by the word "charter" - remains in place and easily accessible. Have these moves been discussed anywhere or have they all been processed as uncontroversial / administrative? JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
An example that splits the difference here is Pennsylvania. Article name omits the (interesting but inconsequential) fact that it's a commonwealth, not a state, but the infobox shows only the official name, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania". And the official name is featured prominently in the first sentence. Similarly, Massachusetts. JohnInDC (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, there is a lot to respond to here, so bear with me.
First, allow me to construct an abstraction. For any given Michigan charter township, it can go up to four names: 1) Charter Township of XXX (which is always the official name), 2) XXX Charter Township, 3) XXX Township, and 4) simply XXX. None of the latter three are official names. (I will reference this abstraction throughout my comment.)
Next, in regards to your comment, the version before mine contained three names for the municipality (names 1, 2, and 3), whereas mine only contained two names (names 1 and 3). I think Shelby Charter Township is an unnecessary name in the article and that it can be limited to Charter Township of Shelby and Shelby Township (the official name and common name, respectively). I therefore plan to submit a move request from Shelby Charter Township, Michigan → Shelby Township, Michigan. I feel that this makes it less confusing to the reader. Also, the lack of clarification on what each of the names mean was not unique to my version. The version directly before mine posed this same problem. (I don't think clarification is necessary though. If I came across a random township—say "Eastfield Township"—and I saw "Charter Township of Eastfield" listed in smaller text, that would be self-evident to me that that was the official name of the municipality while "Eastfield Township" was the common name and the name that will be used throughout the article.) I do see your point with having the official name at the top of the infobox, but I was using the standard version of major cities such as Chicago and New York City. I feel it is rather unfair to say that my changes objectively degrade the article when the only effective difference between the two versions is that I limited the amount of names from three to two and changed the infobox layout to the standard version for major cities. To see my interaction with Bkonrad, see the edits at Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. Removal of "Charter" from the article title has generally been seen as uncontroversial as in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. It was decided against for Augusta Charter Township, Michigan, as "Augusta Township" wasn't found anywhere in text. —Wikipedian77 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I know I threw a lot at you. (I was in a hurry, then I wasn't, and so my remarks were a bit disjointed.) Also I apologize if my comments seemed unfair. I wasn't intending it!
As I said I don't have a serious problem with the moves. I mean, I'm not sure I agree that it's the best result (for the reasons I gave) but I agree that it's consistent with Commonnames, and any confusion can be sorted in the article. I guess we just think of it differently and I'm content to leave it there. I also agree with you that two names (the official name and the common name) are quite sufficient, and the least confusing, in any article where the locality hasn't got a second or third common name too (unlikely I think). I really only have two concerns, finally - one is that the official name of a place (esp. where it conveys non-obvious information) needs to be included clearly somewhere up front in an article that bears the name of the common, but not official, name. I don't know if any policy or guideline requires this (it may, but these kinds of things can be bearishly hard to find) so I'll just say it strikes me as a matter of common sense. It's like - no article about an actor or actress will get very far without mentioning their birth name. Same sort of thing here. The second is the presentation of the infoboxes. I think the form, Commmon name / entity type / formal name works well when the names, and naming conventions, are well understood by the reader. This will be true of, e.g., most cities or states. (There is not much room for confusion about what's what with "Chicago" / "City of Chicago" or "San Francisco" / "City and County of San Francisco".) But I do not think it works well when these conventions are not widely understood or known, which is the case with Michigan townships. There is no indication in the infobox what the two names are supposed to be, and the confusion is compounded by the (automatic) formatting that makes the actual, official name less prominent than the colloquial name. Those cues are at odds with one another and the non-local reader possesses little or no external information that would make it clear. The best they can do is read the article to figure out which is the real name and which is the common one, and in my view any time you have to read the article to figure out an infobox, the infobox is a failure.
Is this helping? JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
How about this. . . . I will go through all Michigan municipalities (cities and townships) and change them so that the lede and the title are the common name and the infobox only states the official name. See West Bloomfield Township, Michigan for a model. How does that look to you? Wikipedian77 (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's great, thanks. The only thing I'd do differently - and I do not think BKonrad would object - would be to include the formal name in lead, e.g., "West Bloomfield Township, formally 'Charter Township of West Bloomfield', is a charter township...". I think that is cleaner and more complete. However, with the clearer infobox that may not be necessary. (I would also remove the modifier, "affluent", as unnecessary and slightly POV. Income stats are clear in the Demographics section below, and - well, we wouldn't use "impoverished" to describe a less fortunate area, maybe Mount Morris Township, Michigan.) Thanks for an interesting discussion - I've learned a lot about Michigan townships! JohnInDC (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Once you star an RfC, you cannot delete it if others have commented on it. You can withdraw your request and ask an admin to close it. You can never remove another editor's comment on an article talk page. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you don't even have to have an admin close it. See WP:RFC#Ending RfCs. If you need help with any of the technicalities, give me a shout. Always happy to help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies! I was not aware of this rule when it comes to move requests that you started. I will make sure to not do so again. Out of curiosity . . . what is the policy on your own user talk page? —Wikipedian77 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I hope you'll forgive my stepping in - the broad rule is, you can do what you want on your own Talk page but there are things to look out for. Check out Wikipedia:OWNTALK#User_talk_pages for more. JohnInDC (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh this too. JohnInDC (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Short version. You can take anything you want off your own talk page expect notices about blocks or restrictions currently in effect and sockpuppet notifications. Gtwfan52 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Wikipedian77 (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Since I was not involved in the debate, you had stated you wanted it withdrawn, and the only !vote opposed moving, in essence agreeing with the position you now hold, I closed it for you. And before you thank me, Thank you. It gave me a nice easy thing to do my fist Non-administrative closure on. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this page, Wikipedia:Archive, very helpful when my own Talk page started to get too big. JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michipedian/Archive_1&oldid=1077908791"