User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Rose-Marie (1933 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rose-Marie (1933 film). Since you had some involvement with the Rose-Marie (1933 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thinking of England (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've suggested a speedy delete at the RFD page. --Zach425 talk/contribs 10:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Re: [1] Who, exactly, refers to Michael Jordan as 'Jordan'? -- (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not so much anymore, but when he was playing, most any reference in newspapers to "Jordan" that wasn't about the country was about Michael. olderwiser 11:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
That was usually the case when his full name was used early in an article, or strictly within the framework of a an article discussing NBA basketball. Also "Air Jordan" was used both as an early nickname for Michael Jordan (it goes back to his high school days) and the name of a brand of shoes associated with him. Also, many newspapers omit first names in their headlines (like "Chamberlain," "Mikan," "Erving," and "Bryant").B.Wind (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Will stop importing supporting artwork. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinequaoui (talkcontribs) 15:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bkonrad. You have new messages at Talk:Farmington Hills, Michigan#Notable residents.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


I know you have probably seen the orange new messages bar and expecting to see someone moaning, don't worry, I'm not! I want to thank you for making a sensible move! I did consider this myself, and it would have been my next move had he decided to carry on. Anyway.. kudos to you! Note, the same user is also POV pushing at Franklin Jeni (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add Franklin to my watchlist. olderwiser 02:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll be heading to bed shortly, but I've warned (via edit summary) that if he continues to POV push in this way I will take the matter to ANI. If you feel in my absence that this is appropriate, feel free to do this yourself, and link to this page showing my support :) Failing that I'll do it in the morning if he continues. Jeni (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, wait, its me that gets the ANI thread, so predictable! :-) Jeni (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Dave Knudson now redirects to disambiguation page

Since we have multiple (>1) people with the same name whom the vast majority of the Wikipedia universe does not know, I have disambiguated the guitarist of the indy band and fine-tuned the disambiguation of the South Dakota politician, then repointed the Dave Knudson redirect to the dab page. I have no objections if you wish to "swap" the names of the redirect and the dab page and then delete the resulting redirect (especially if we encounter another Dave Knudson worthy of a Wikipedia article). Of course, if you think that an AfD discussion for the article on the South Dakota politician is appropriate, I have no objection to that, either... B.Wind (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He's (possibly) running for governor, so he actually has a relatively high profile at the moment. The dab page should be at the base name though and the dozen or so mistaken links need to be repaired. If no one else has done so by a little later, I'll try to get to it. olderwiser 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Got the disambiguations - someone else started the move process. B.Wind (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I just moved the disambiguation page to the base name. olderwiser 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Since it appears we are at loggerheads, I thought that rather to go into an edit war, it would be better to extend the discussion to a wider Wikipedia audience for consensus. Thus the redirect is posted at WP:Redirects for discussion. While I tried to summarize your contention objectively in my nomination, you are welcome to contribute (and correct any misapprehension on my part) there. B.Wind (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay to remove the references-needed banner on the Robert Conley page?

Wikipedia editor MLauber says I need more references "about" Robert Conley on the Robert Conley Wikipedia page; yet, the references that are there are primary source material, from highly credible sources (The New York Times Archives, NBC News Archives, NPR online, Carnegie Foundation), and fully supporting the who what, where, and when of the simple, factual claims made. I think the page looks well referenced and ready for normal treatment. May I ask you to sanction the removal of the "additional references needed" banner? Also, after MLauber redesigned the sections of the page, collapsing four sections into one, there are those four "edit" boxes all in a row, that probably should also only be one now, no?

Sincerely, Sinequaoui (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article in general is much improved. I didn't add the {{BLP sources}} tag to the article. I'm not overly familiar with the standards for biographies of living persons. You might want to ask at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to have someone who deals more regular with such material take a look. olderwiser 12:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Loo disambiguation to Toilet

See Talk:Loo Mitch Ames (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Verona - amateur radio society of the Netherland Antilles

Why did you delete this reference?


Disambiguation pages are meant to help readers distinguish Wikipedia articles with titles that might be confused. There is no article about the amateur radio society to disambiguate. olderwiser 10:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Draw (album)

Hi, I see you added a link to Draw (album) on the disambiguation list at Draw. Please create an article for this album, as links in a disambiguation list ought to lead to existing articles. Thanks! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems a legitimate redlink according to MOS:DABRL. If the redlink offends you, then it can remain as a simple mention with a link to the artist. olderwiser 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll read up on MOS:DABRL. Thanks very much for the MOS link. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hydros

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Hydros, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Luce (name)

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Luce (name), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Luce. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

More on Augustus disambig

Now that I got you on the line I left a message on the discussion page.Dave (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary Topics: Why and Which

Hi, I've been working on User:Jwy/Primary Topics: Why and Which for a while (more off than on). I'm hoping it will shorten debates by identifying some of the issues involved in a neutral manner. Before I bring it to more wide attention, I've been getting input from others who have been active in this area (JHunterJ has had a look). Could you have a look and give some comments (or even edit)? Appreciate it. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


Several immediately relevant pages, such as Outline of energy, Energetics and several energy-related lists are missing from the disambiguation, while the main definition mentions only the default page, which looks futile. Meanwhile the bio and psycho energy articles are rather poorly defined and arguably pages not containing the word "energy", such as vitalism and metabolism ought to be the first port of call in this regard. If an ordered presentation of the large number of energy-related articles cannot be mentioned and defined upon the disambiguation page then perhaps such a page cannot cope with its necessary function and the word energy should, in the first place, direct to one of the "outline", "list" or "index" pages that exist, which may then be rewritten for the purpose. I have not even mentioned the parlous state of the several overlapping "philosophy of energy" pages, which perhaps ought to be my first concern. I'd be curious to know what improvements to this rather unsatisfactory state of things you might refrain from summarily reverting? Redheylin (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are intended to help readers distinguish between articles that might share the same title (or be reasonable confused). They are not generally an appropriate forum for providing an overview to all the possible meanings of a term. Outline of energy, Energetics and several energy-related List of energy topics could very well be included in the see also section. I'm less convinced that vitalism or metabolism would by likely subjects for someone entering the term "energy" into a search or by editors linking that term, especially if they are described in context on another page that is linked from the disambiguation page. olderwiser 18:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand the use of disambiguation and that the page is correctly set up for that purpose. I accept the need for disambiguation where places, song titles and so forth are concerned, but am suggesting that perhaps the present format is inappropriate (IS the quantitative physical concept more usual than the bio-psycho usage?) and am therefore suggesting that the primary page be an annotated list with hatnote to the above "proper-noun" disambiguation, the articles on the term itself being presented more fully and helpfully on the primary page. Perhaps it was inappropriate to move in that direction on the present page, yet the present arrangement does not give ready access to the most elementary information available. Partly this is due, as I say, to overlaps - I am not sure there should be an article Energeia in the first place, since the Greek term is the direct source of the English one. Using "see also" does not offer sufficient explanation either. Redheylin (talk) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The article about the physical force is at the undisambiguated title Energy. By definition, it is the primary topic for the term. If you find that arrangement unsatisfactory, the solution is to request a move. olderwiser 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Zoe page edit

Why did you feel it necessary to erase my edit of the word Zoe?

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you look at...

the deletions that Hippo43 did on the Administrative divisions of New York, I believe that they should be kept, I have not been able to find a suitable source for them, as I know he has a tendency to be very strict in his interpretation of what a "suitable source" is and I am sure whatever I personally use to source them will not meet his standards. I am glad you fought for and kept the deletion done by Ricky. I cant stand those who go around to articles they dont know about and delete anything that's been tagged as "citation needed", and dont want to stick around to contribute or improve the article, they just move on to the next article with a template. ARGH!Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to start name-calling

Feel free to tell me on my talk page, rather than through edit summaries. I was looking into the legal issues myself on Lexis and Westlaw, which has noted that home rule has decreased in large part throughout the last few years, starting with some caselaw in 1989. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. You might want to do your research before deleting an otherwise reasonable section. olderwiser 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some questions about your edit to Allen County Courthouse

Hello. In this edit by you, you said in your comment the edit was for the reason of "unnecessary extra links" - but in fact it appears that instead of merely removing the links, you decided to REVERT my substantive edit to a previous, and, I believe, a factually inaccurate version of the article.

Although I understand the reasoning behind the removal of wikilinks (thank you for reminding me of this, by the way), please provide a reason as to why you reverted my edit instead of simply removing the wikilinks, if that was your motive.

Additionally, your edit also added two factual claims that differed from my edit. In an effort of good faith and assuming my below actions are incorrect in your viewpoint, I am asking you to explain the following changes you made if, in fact, they are not mistakes by you:

  1. That Allen County Courthouse (Indiana) is located in a place called "Fort Wayne, Ohio" - if this was your intent, please provide a reference for this (or for that matter that such a place as "Fort Wayne, Ohio" with a courthouse exists, because I cannot find one).
  2. The reasoning as to why you removed Allen County Courthouse (Indiana)'s designation as a U.S. National Landmark and replaced it with that of "listed on the National Register of Historic Places" - which is true (as it is of all national monuments, albeit a less significant fact).

Instead of simply rolling back your apparently faulty edit without informing you of my action or reasoning behind this, which I consider to be exceedingly rude form, I am letting you know beforehand what actions I will be taking:

  1. I will rollback your last edit on this article, since I assume you did not mean to insert the false claims I've enumerated above into the article.
  2. I will remove the wikilinks to Fort Wayne and National Landmark - which is what I assume you were trying to do to begin with.

In the future, when you revert an editor's contribution, I do hope that you consider to take the time - in the wikispirit - to make a quick notation of this action on that editor's discussion page. This accomplishes two things: 1) It keeps the collaborative spirit of this project alive, and; 2) it allows that editor to double check your edit to ensure that in your well-meaning move, you don't make the article worse than it was before you altered it (as apparently happened in this case).

Wikipedia is stronger when we collaborate and look out for (and learn from) each other.

Thank you - Davodd (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm a lot of words for a simple matter. 1) Fort Wayne, Ohio instead of Fort Wayne, Indiana was simply a mistake -- I hadn't noticed that part of your edit. And similarly, I hadn't caught the that you changed it from NHRP to a National Historic Landmark. Sorry for being careless in not examining your edits more closely. olderwiser 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


I'm totally up for discussion on this one, but my concern in this case is the unbelievable number of possible disambiguations that we could be looking at here. For instance running "niagara -falls" on Google produces 11,700,000 hits [2]. Is there a limit on what we can consider to be a "legitimate" disambiguation in instances like this where a single word is just so common in the language itself, that an attempt to differentiate *all* the usages would simply be overwhelming? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your question is. A disambiguation page helps identify articles that might otherwise have the same title. If there are articles that are known as simply "Niagara", those article should be listed on the disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages are not about trying to disambiguate every possible usage that a web search might turn up. olderwiser 22:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting me?

Bonjour! Why do you keep deleting me from the Notable People of Wyandotte, MI page? I was born in Wyandotte, MI and have a thriving career in Interior Fashion. What type of citation is needed? Thanks - Monette Sainte-Marie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Okay now I signed - Monette Sainte-Marie (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Having an article in Wikipedia that meets the criteria for notability would be a good start. At a minimum, providing citations to reliable sources such as books or newspapers is necessary. Similarly, simply writing that you are notable does not provide a reader any indication why you are notable. Also, since you are writing about yourself, you might want to make sure your edits are not a conflict of interest. olderwiser 20:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Adair (name)


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Adair (name), and it appears to include a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I note that you recently performed a split of material to the article Adair (name), and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Split sets out, when we split material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Split from Sourcearticle". Then, we note the split as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material split to destination article", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been split remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this split, but I wanted to let you know for future use. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. :) Theleftorium 18:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:R from disambiguation

Hello Bkonrad, you created {{R from disambiguation}} back in June, noting confusion regarding the names of the templates and that redirects were already transcribing it before you created it. {{R to disambiguation page}} certainly is one of the more misunderstood redirect templates, intended as it is only for those redirects with "(disambiguation)" in their name, created as targets for intentional linking to disambiguation pages which lack "(disambiguation)" in their name, so that the linking doesn't wind up on a disambiguation needed page. (I'm about to start correcting the 957 incorrect uses of it -- about 4% of total use.)

Given the confusion that already exists about this template and the fact that all the other templates with "to/from" pairs, such as {{R from scientific name}}/{{R to scientific name}}, are not synonyms but are complements, would you consider deleting {{R from disambiguation}}? Only 24 redirects currently use it (5 incorrectly), and I would be happy to convert them to {{R to disambiguation page}}. I've also written a script to periodically scan for redirection template errors, so I'll catch future transclusions as well. (I just turned up a dozen misspellings of this template, my favorite being {{R to disambiguation page per WP:FURTHERDAB}} in Jackson College (disambiguation) (now fixed).

Several people are working on cleaning up the redirect template mess, including improving the documentation. If you'd like I can speak with others to see if they also feel that {{R from disambiguation}} tends to further muddy the waters. Cheers! -- ToET 15:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Thanks for undertaking the cleanup. 2) I've no opinion about deletion. I won't oppose if it is nominated for deletion. olderwiser 15:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:World domination

Hi. I noticed you just Reverted the Content DAB page. There's a discussion here []. Would you please come and join the discussion and explain your position? Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

aside on NRHP-related dabs as SIAs

You commented "Regarding NRHP lists, I agree these would be better served by being set indexes, but for reasons that are not clear to me, Doncram seems to feel they are not appropriate." I am happy to discuss, but don't want to detract from the other discussion by replying about this tangent there. The option of using SIAs was discussed in the previous "long discussion" a year ago. Basically, the point is to provide disambigution, no one wants to create an actual list-article linking schools or houses or whatever that randomly have the same name. There is a complete system of NRHP list-articles organized by county and city, instead. It was also pointed out by JHunterJ that a disambiguation page would be necessary, even if a SIA page is created. I am not sure if that applied to all circumstances, but certainly if there is another usage, say if there is a band named "Smith House" included in the Smith House disambiguation page. And there are many NRHP-related dab pages where there are many non-NRHP items. I would not want an unstable system of SIAs where the addition of one non-NRHP item required creating a completely duplicative dab page. The SIA vs. DAB distinction is subtle. And I believe it was JHunterJ that pointed out relabelling as an SIA would not change the actual fact that a page is really a disambiguation page, and would not exempt it from MOSDAB rules. I'll watch here in case you'd like to discuss further. Thanks for your constructive involvement in the wt:MOSDAB discussions. doncram (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The pages of NHRP-only lists are in essence SIAs. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying no one wants to create an actual list-article linking schools or houses or whatever that randomly have the same name. Look at other set index types of pages, such as mountain indexes or ship indexes. Most of these are little more than plain lists with some latitude for more links than would typically be found on a disambiguation page. It is largely a shift of emphasis. Where the purpose of disambiguation pages are to disambiguate articles (which is where NHRP-redlinks seem to garner the most objections); the emphasis with set indexes, in contrast, is on completeness. I agree that mixed use pages would present a problem, but it could be addressed (as often done with mountains) to include only blue links on a disambiguation page, include everything on the SIA list and include a see also to the SIA list from the disambiguation page. Also, while I'm not sure of the context JHunterJ might have made such a statement, but set index articles are not disambiguation pages and are not subject to the same rules as dab pages. olderwiser 16:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand SIA pages are not subject to same rules. That just relabelling dab pages as SIAs in order to avoid dab page rules does not change them sufficiently, is just mislabelling them, was the compelling point previously made by JHJ or someone else. I'm not sure really how different an SIA has to be to be acceptable. The ships SIAs actually have some coherence and some editors interested in developing/maintaining them, as a ship name is often part of the common history of many ships, successively given the same name by one nation as part of honoring the previous ones. There's explicit relationship between the items, and there are ships editors interested in explaining and documenting that. For places that end up getting NRHP-listed, the common name is more often by coincidence and I don't believe there are editors interested in maintaining an even more complex system of dabs and sias covering them. SIAs as list-articles of churches or other places named X tend to be attract directory-building editors and are unpleasant to be associated with, in my experience, too, while the MOS:DABRL rule is actually helpful in defining clearly what entries are allowed in dab pages. Few editors want to get involved in subtle distinctions of dabs vs. sias and in forever battling in open-ended, poorly defined SIAs. And SIAs created to satisfy a temporary concern would be a wasteful exercise, probably: they would probably be deleted eventually when all the redlinks were made into articles. Forcing a bunch of NRHP editors to value subtle distinctions between dabs and sias and to work to maintain such distinction with hundreds of hours of work would be unproductive.
Honestly, I want to do the least work in this area possible. Since red-link entries are explicitly allowed by MOSDAB, and since the dab page system i have worked on complies well enough with MOSDAB according to consensus obtained a few times now, I think i have done enough. I myself don't want to embark on creating a duplicative system that would be even more costly of time to develop and to maintain. I hope this helps you understand more about where i am coming from. doncram (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Five

The band - This entry in the disambiguation page now has an article (or the start of one).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusferret (talkcontribs) 04:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, however it doesn't meet the minimum threshold to avoid speedy deletion. In particular, 1) there is no indication of why this group was notable (see WP:Notability (bands)) and 2) it is unverifiable because there are no sources provided. I'll refrain from using speedy deletion, though I will tag it for proposed deletion. This gives an article a chance to be improved before it is deleted. However, with the article as it is now, it may well be speedy deleted by someone else. olderwiser 12:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

- Now its pretty clear that you are being a pedant. I will update the the article - the band was notable by the criteria cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusferret (talkcontribs) 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it is also pretty obvious that you haven't read the links I mentioned above, particularly WP:Notability (bands) and WP:CITE. olderwiser 22:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the links as I mentioned. I also mentioned it was a work in progress. You conveniently ignore that. Rufusferret (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing convenient about it whatsoever. You say it is a work in progress, but there is nothing (as in absolutely NOTHING) to indicate that. olderwiser 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Henri Bertrand (1892 –1978)

There is a problem with the disambiguation page.Henri Bertrand (1892 –1978)is redirected to a molitary officer. I have just written (as a translation) a correct page Henri Bertrand (Entomologist I forgot to close the bracket. Perhaps you could fix this Robert akaNotafly (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Please do not re-write the fallacy that outside of the British Isles corn is normally a term for the most popular cereal crop of a region. I have seen no evidence to substantiate this. In fact, I provided a link, wikt:Talk:corn#Non-IE.2FUK_English, which refutes this. Thank you for you effort and consideration. :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) :)--Thecurran (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but please check your standard dictionaries. That is the definition given. Your original research does not invalidate what reliable sources say. olderwiser 18:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not OR. I have just searched for "corn definition" in several different countries to get their standards and, except for notes on the specifically British variant, the meaning is maize. Please do not confuse the standard British dictionaries as the only standard dictionaries. Since you wish to continue this claim, please read some more non-British standards and WP:PROVEIT. I understand this may take some time so I will neither revert you nor make any other edit for some hours. I want to get off of your back and give you some space. :)--Thecurran (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what dictionaries you are referring to. I'm an American and tend to use American dictionaries (all of which prominently mention the sense referring to any of several cereal grains). The argument presented at Talk:Corn#Non-IE/UK English, based on Google results is original research. olderwiser 19:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of "Indian corn", throughout Eastern North America, I have always heard of it as the heirloom vegetable that is an uncultivated variety of maize, often differing widely in colour, sometimes called "flint corn" and the original source of popcorn. I just searched the Smithsonian Institution's website to see how "Indian corn" is employed at the National Museum of Natural History. It keeps coming up with the meaning I just explained that is briefly treated in the "Naming conventions" section but not with any more generalized meanings of maize.

In order to verify what you were saying about "corn" in general though, I searched for "corn definition" in many different countries.,,, and use maize. uses maize and says "Indian corn" is a synonym., thefreedictionary, and, a US standard use maize, say "Indian corn" is a synonym, and bear caveats that it means grain in the British Isles., a British standard and use maize and bear caveats that it means grain in the British Isles., a US standard uses grain and specifies that usually in the British Isles means something other than maize but in Australia and the New world it means maize., a British standard says that it means grain in the UK and maize in the US, but scours no other areas., a British T-shirt company uses grain. I also did an easy to verify quick search for "Indian corn" in many countries and found it only led to maize in Great Britain and Ireland and led to "flint corn" elsewhere. After reading all these, I still find it difficult to agree with your view. It seems the grain variant of "corn" and the maize variant of "Indian corn" are only employed when the British or Irish are expected in the audience but that for the rest of the planet, "corn" means maize and "Indian corn" means "flint corn".

Could you please stop reverting me on corn without substantiating it? Even in the dictionaries you recognize, there is a note of the regional variation I keep trying to add. It would be pretty easy to disprove me by finding a local dictionary outside of the British Isles that defines "corn" as a grain other than maize. Without doing so, you simply are providing unverified, unreferenced original research that simply does not convey the full reality to the audience, which is chiefly unfair to them. BTW, it is not simply much of the English-speaking world but most of the world; full stop. :)--Thecurran (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already provided Merriam-Webster, which casts the variation in very differently than you are trying to do. You are the one attempting to insert an unprovable spin. Restricting usage of the generic sense to the British Isles is unsupportable. Although less common, that sense is used elsewhere. Also, your revision introduces additional links that are unnecessary for disambiguation. olderwiser 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "Outside of the British Isles, the term has essentially become synonymous with Maize (aka Indian corn)." means "usually outside of the British Isles, it means maize". Besides this being a fact nobody has disproven, it certainly is not "Restricting usage of the generic sense to the British Isles". Why do you misinterpret this clear literal meaning? I am surprised that in today's edition of Merriam-Webster the term, "New World and Australia", has coincidentally disappeared. Either way, Princeton and MacMillan clearly state what I have said and my text still does not contradict the current Merriam-Webster. I have yet to see a single byte of information that contradicts my view aside from the British T-shirt shop, which appears strongly to have a very limited hinterland. Please just accept that every once in a while we happen to dig our heels into the side of an argument that turns out to be wrong. I am not saying that you as an editor are wrong. I respect your work and dedication. Because of that, I have been and am still prepared to summarily give up my claim; my research was initially a project to find out why other people would disagree. In the end though, all of the evidence just bolstered my point. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Thecurran (talk) 09:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that you failed to convince anyone with your arguments. olderwiser 13:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad, you are specifically denying the research of Princeton University, 12.5% of the Ivy League, and a colonial college, as well as the worldwide Macmillan Publishers. Your only support is Merriam–Webster, which is largely limited to the US yet still agrees with me on the British Isles and the largest extent of the New World but is silent on the rest of the globe, our actual area of contention. It is extremely difficult to reach WP:CONSENSUS when you constantly keep reverting me within hours without giving other editors a chance to see both sides. I politely request that you specify whether or not you will continue this specific effort to know if my energies would be best spent elsewhere. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it might be helpful if you read WP:GOOGLETEST#Uses_of_search_engine_tests. :)--Thecurran (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I am not the only one who has been reverting you. Googletest is a useful tool for many purposes, including determing if a primary topic exists. However, determining regional usage in the way that you are attempting to do so is not one of them. That falls into the category of original research. olderwiser 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Based on this last comment not addressing the other references, I am about to assume you will continue this specific effort. Please specify if this is not the case. :)--Thecurran (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, so far I have not seen anything very convincing. I think you are either mis-using google, or perhaps simply not explaining what you are doing with it such that simple-minded folks like myself can understand. olderwiser 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not call yourself simple-minded. I have affirmed before that I appreciate your wisdom, effort, and consideration. If you do wish to test the validity or reproducibility of my results, please try the following:
  1. Search for Google India with your regular search engine.
  2. Follow the link to .
  3. Select the pages from India option, near the search bar.
  4. Type corn into the search bar.
  5. Press the Google Search button.
  6. Read the result list at the search page, . This is all you really need; feel free to stop at this step.
  7. Type the URL, into the URL bar.
  8. Go to the URL.
  9. Verify for yourself that gives the same result list as .
  10. Heed the following meanings of the URL components:
    1. http:// ≡ Use hypertext transfer protocol decoding (for web pages) to read, specifically
    2. ≡ the worldwide website of google 's commerce in India, specifically
    3. search? ≡ a search where
    4. hl=en& ≡ the header language equals english &
    5. cr=countryIN& ≡ the country resource equals the country, INdia &
    6. q=corn ≡ the queried text equals corn
    7. source=hp& ≡ the source equals that of highest priority (the default option) &
    8. &btnG=Google+Search&& the button pressed in Google equals the Google Search (the default option) &
    9. meta=cr%3DcountryIN ≡ the meta-context equals the country resource equals (%3D is URL code for =) the country", INdia (the default option when cr=IN)
    10. | ≡ or
  11. Repeat the process using Google UK, instead of Google India
  12. Read the resulting URL,
  13. Use induction to realize that gives the same result as, etc.
Cf. ISO 3166-1 alpha-2#Imperfect_implementations for an explanation of the British ccTLD inconsistency. BTW, sarcasm is not my strongest suit so I heavily apologize if I come across in a demeaning manner rather than my intended, informative manner. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for insinuating that you did not look outside of British sources. I clearly erred. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

For each country, I made sure that I only searched pages within that country to see if a primary topic existed. I searched within countries that together contained most of the world's population, most of the world's English users, and most of the world's native English users. I found that outside of Ireland and the UK, English users more regularly associated "corn" with maize than with any other cereal crop. I also found that in all of the countries except those two, "corn" regularly meant maize and rarely meant anything else, unless it followed the words, "seed" or "guinea". Even with those two countries excluded, the total still makes up most of the world. I did not measure if "maize", "sweet corn", or other terms were more commonly used than "corn" to define maize. This might be the case in many countries. The point is simply that "corn" usually means maize when neither the British nor the Irish are concerned. :)--Thecurran (talk) 05:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazarene (word) must take precedence over Nazarene (title)

Hello Bkonrad,

I've followed the Nazareth-Nazarene discussion daily for several years, and insist on a broad, inclusive treatment of the subject which includes non-traditional uses of "Nazarene" as attested in history. After all, this is Wikipedia, not Conservapedia.

FYI, the Nazareth (word) page predated the Nazareth (title) page, which is a recent (faulty) creation by Kauffner, one which restricts discussion to the traditional position: Jesus "the Nazarene." However, there are other uses of "Nazarene" which are equally-- and perhaps even more-- important (i.e., Gnostic and Mandean). All seminal usages belong in a discussion for people who want a representative and unbiased treatment of "Nazarene."

That discussion cannot be found at "Nazarene (title)" which by definition discusses the term only in relation to Jesus "the Nazarene." That narrow page should now be abandoned.

On the other hand, the "Nazarene (word)" page discusses "Nazarene" in a variety of historically attested contexts-- traditional and Gnostic. The lion's share of discussion will still go to Jesus "the Nazarene" from Nazareth, but room will be made (as it must) for other historically-attested uses.

You want to replace Nazarene (word) by Nazarene (title), and that procedure is backwards. It replaces the greater with the lesser and is hence unacceptable. The resulting loss of important factual information may please conservatives, but the facts of history are important to critical to reasoning people who don't depend on faith for their answers.

Renejs (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Nazarene#Nazarene (word). Most of the content you put into Nazarene (word) duplicates content from Nazarene (title). If there is a problem with the title of that article, then propose a move via WP:requested moves. Please do no copy and paste content from one to the other as it disrupts the edit history which is necessary for attribution per the license used by Wikipedia. olderwiser 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I've submitted the Nazarene edit war for mediation: (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironton's Pine Lake Iron Company's director was Cherrie not "Cherry."

Pine Lake Furnace, Pine Lake Iron Company, Ironton, Charlevoix county. General office. Rookery Building, Chicago. One stack, 50 x 11, built in 1880-1, and put in blast in February, 1881; hot blast; ore, Lake Superior; specialty, malleable and car-wheel pig iron; annual capacity, 27,000 gross tons. Brand, " Champion." R. M. Cherrie, President; H. C. Dolph, Treasurer.

The railroad spur where it split off the C&WM main line just south of Charlevoix,to Ironton was called "Cherrie." There was one publication that mentioned "Cherry" but every other official publication gives the correct name as "Cherrie."

Please update your Ironton, Michigan post.

C. E. Ervin —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference for Ironton, Michigan

Pine Lake Iron Company's President is R. Cherrie.

Reference found at Google Books:

Directory of iron and steel works of the United States and Canada, Volume 12

By American Iron and Steel Institute, American Iron and Steel Association

Ref for Cherrie not Cherry

Reference for Ironton, Michigan

Pine Lake Iron Company's President is R. Cherrie.

Reference found at Google Books:

Directory of iron and steel works of the United States and Canada, Volume 12

By American Iron and Steel Institute, American Iron and Steel Association  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

OCLC outside linkage to worldcat website

A discussion about whether of not the infobox books template should include outside linkage from the OCLC number is posted here. You are being notified because you posted in a discussion at infobox books about this template functionality. Please stop be and include your input into the issue at the link. Thanks. -- (talk) 06:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Undine pages

As you've noticed we are having some problems with Undine (Henze), Undine (ballet) and Undine. User:Crazy-dancing has now broken the 3RR rule etc. I've been trying to persuade him to do his work in userspace and then show it to the discussion at Classical Music here. Any help you can give him would be much appreciated. --Kleinzach 14:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why undo the edit?

Sir, why did you undo my update of the Treaty of Paris (1783)? It's a fact that the 11th President of the Congress of the Confederation, Thomas Mifflin, signed the Treaty on January 14th, 1784, which ratified the treaty. Why undo the edit? Lucas Duke (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I shouldn't have used rollback -- but your edit was ungrammatical and I was unable to parse it in order to rephrase. For one, a reliable source is needed that Mifflin signed the actual treaty rather than the instrument of ratification or proclamation. I'm not aware that ratification involved application of additional signatures to the treaty beyond those who participated in negotiations.
But beyond that, even assuming that he did sign, what is the significance of Thomas Mifflin having signed in relation to ratification by the Continental Congress? Does his signing mean something above and beyond ratification? olderwiser 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)