User talk:Tim Thomason/Double Aught Seven

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

Undeletion of Image:Beth Smith.png

I have undeleted the image as of now. Please provide source and license information to the image file according to image use policy. If you use the image as fair use then please follow all the policies and parameters. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then, Could I re-delete the image again, as you are not expecting of any use? Shyam ^(T/C) 06:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still you are not following Wikipedia's fair use policies. Please add fair-use rationale for Beth Smith to the image page. Thank you, Shyam ^(T/C) 06:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-deleted the image. Cheers, Shyam ^(T/C) 07:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roman numerals.

Hi. Just so you know, I really really doubt that Roman numerals are appropriate usages to add to disambiguation pages. The usual rule for these pages is "what did the person really mean? Would a person reasonably type this in to find an article on that subject?" Somebody interested in the year 601 would be incredibly unlikely to type in DCI to find it, for example. It's a fair topic in an article on a number for sure (see 1729 (number) for example which has its Roman numeral representation), but not really for a disambiguation page.

I'll add that when I first got to Wikipedia, I made my share of additions to disambig pages I now would never add (ridiculously minor characters in fiction and so on). SnowFire 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply adding Roman numeral meanings on existing disambiguation pages, with the possibility that someone might incorrectly write (transcribe) some Roman year/number on some page somewhere. I wasn't creating any new disambigs, I was just adding it on the bottom or in an appropriate section.--Tim Thomason 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you weren't creating new pages. My worry is disambig page clutter- if every possible "this got used somewhere by somebody" meaning was added to a disambig page, then the page can become too long and the actually relevant items will get buried. Again, to put it another way - the only way I can see this helping is if for some reason someone honestly did not know that DCI was a Roman numeral and entered it into Wikipedia straight, which I find highly doubtful. Someone who wanted to know about the year 601 would never try and find it via its Roman numeral representation, and someone interested in Roman numerals in general and how to compute them would go to the main page on Roman numerals. There's no need to create a backlink to Roman numerals on every combination that could possibly be a Roman numeral.

If you want, we can easily get a third opinion over at the talk page at Wikipedia:Disambiguation? SnowFire 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, no need to revert everything (unless you want to, natch); I was just worried you'd put a lot of work into adding that information to every disambig page that could also be a Roman numeral. SnowFire 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]