User talk:Roman Spinner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


2006 and 2007[edit]

Discussion page content from years 2006 and 2007 is located at User talk:Roman Spinner/Archive 1 (2006 and 2007)

Disambiguation page descriptions[edit]

Hi, I have reduced some of your descriptions of the people on John Ford (disambiguation) because a disambiguation page should be more streamlined. We just need enough to tell one John Ford from another so the reader can select the correct page. THEN they get more information. I see you are doing many of these - have you checked WP:MOSDAB? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your involvement and desire to help. Both of us have been Wikipedians for two years and have thousands of entries. We would not devote so much time and intellectual (as well as physical) energy to this great project if we did not deeply feel the desire to advance the pursuit of knowledge. I have, indeed, read WP:MOSDAB and feel that I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline. Judging on a standard-size screen, at medium font size, I limit my disambiguation entries to avoid exceeding the one-line limit of 140 characters and spaces, although most of those entries have 125-130 characters/spaces. I realize that a strict interpretation would find such a limit to be still excessively lengthy, but in a number of disambiguation pages there are red-linked entries which require a longer explanation and thus unbalance the appearance of other entries which are quite abbreviated. It seems to me that as long as an entry stays under 140 characters and spaces, it should not be considered as violating WP:MOSDAB. In many cases I have reduced entries, placed by other editors, which have exceeded the 140-character limit, in addition to the standard Wikifying (limit of one blue link per entry, no initial "a", "an" and "the" articles, etc). In any event, I rarely return to the same disambiguation page once my contribution is committed to page history, unless there is/are some obvious (usually minor) adjustment(s) to be made. Those editors that feel the need to reduce the information within the entries to the bare minimum are, of course, fully within their rights to exercise that prerogative which will go unchallenged (at least, needless to say, by me). —Roman Spinner (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful response. To me, the longer the line, the longer it takes for the reader to determine if the entry is the one he wants. The extra stuff is redundant with what they get if they click through and it will be rare when the extra information is the whole information they are looking for: it is therefore better not to include it. (I didn't do much research into your contributions and did not mean "have your check MOSDAB" as a criticism, just wanted to make sure you had considered it). (John User:Jwy talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quite all right. I understand your perfectly reasonable position on this point. As for criticism, there was, also, none meant on my part. —Roman Spinner (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to Albert L. Becker[edit]

Thank you for improving the entry for Albert L. Becker. --Zippy (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for taking the time to write your kind note—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A note about "Date"/"Place" Categories (re: article page/discussion page)[edit]

Since you have such a praiseworthy record of repairing maladjusted categories over thousands of edits, I need to communicate with you regarding the placement of maintenance categories (which, as we know, denote the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death). Nearly a year ago, in late April 2007, following complaints by a few editors that those categories were creating visual clutter at the bottom of biographical article pages, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories arrived at a consensus. The ten "Date/Place of birth/death missing/unknown" categories were repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, such as ourselves, could continue to complete the missing information (dates and places were described as containing needed, but non-essential, or "defining", data). Only the absence of the years of birth and death (five "Year categories"—Category:Year of birth missing, etc.) was noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "non-defining" (Date/Place) categories was completed by COBot on June 132007 (as an example: the final entry COBot transferred on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that page's revision history). A number of recent Date/Place categories can, of course, be spotted on article pages and some editors still continue to place all maintenance categories there, but, in the eleven months that it has been observed, the primary intent of the consensus on the article page/discussion page category dichotomy has not been challenged at CfD. It is a subject I have been discussing numerous times over the past couple of years, so please feel free to contact me regarding any additional details.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I had somehow completely missed those CfDs & the discussion around date / place of birth / death - thanks very much for bringing me back up to speed! Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to be of help and thank you for all your efforts.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rectors of the İzmir Institute of Technology[edit]

Hi, I appreciate your great work in rectors pages. I just wanna thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silikonvadisi (talkcontribs) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my small contributions were appreciated and I thank you for taking the time to write me a note.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900)[edit]

The standard disambiguation used for footballers when John Doe (footballer) is insufficient is to use year of birth, as careers are much more likely to overlap. See the many Alan Smiths for an example. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your note and, after following your direction to the disambiguation page listing all past and present participants in English football carrying the name Alan Smith (only two of whom, plus the (manager) and (physio) currently have articles), I can see an argument for using years of birth when careers overlap, as in the cases of Alan Smith (born 1939) and (born 1940) or those (born 1949) and (born 1950). The other argument, however, has to be that with common names such as Alan/Allan/Allen/Al Smith or Thomas/Tom/Tommy Johnson, the brief parenthetical modifier needs to focus on the key term or series of terms which best encapsulate the essence of the individual's notability. The year of birth, in the case of footballers, or any others, would not seem to be as central to a career as the years of the career itself. That having been said, it is extremely unlikely that anyone looking for a footballer named Alan Smith would type Alan Smith (footballer born 1962) or Alan Smith (footballer born 1966) or, for that matter, my proposed style, Alan Smith (footballer 1980s and 1990s) (an additional five characters and one space). The theoretical seeker would, of course, only type "Alan Smith" and, upon reaching the disambiguation page, would scrutinize the additional information ("played for Arsenal", "played for Torquay United", etc.) as a guideline, thus obviating the need to click on each name to determine the correct individual. Finally, while it is true that some sportspeople may have similar or even identical names, I have not seen the practice of using years of birth as an identifier carried over to other sports or other professions. We have both been contributors to Wikipedia for years and have thousands of edits, although, since football is your specialty, I would not presume to set specifications in that field, except to initiate a general discussion as to standards which would be applicable to biographical entries, rather than to one specific area.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
As we both recognise, for the most common names, the title will end up being an unlikely search term and a lengthy title no matter what is chosen. On a personal note I like middle names as an identifier where known (this is the approach used in the disambiguation nighmare that is Lee Martin). One definite change for your approach would be the syntax – Alan Smith (1980s and 1990s footballer) would be more natural, but I maintain that length can become an issue. George Smith (footballer born 1919) would become George Smith (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). Of course, in such cases there is no such thing as an ideal title. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
More food for thought and valid points to consider—though many football (and sports, in general) careers are short, some extend over decades, and even a 12-year career, begun in 1939 and ended in 1951 would, of necessity, need to be described, using the more-logical syntax of your "George Smith" example as, indeed, (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). One specific solution might be my original idea for the move, which I changed at the last moment—exact career years. While many football careers overlap, virtually no careers of same-named footballers, or any individuals, begin and end in the same years as that of the other same-named individuals. Since on-line statistics for just about anyone who ever played professional football, baseball, cricket, etc. are readily available and the editors who supply the articles are sticklers for detail and, most likely, also have their own reference books, it should not be a problem. I originally set the move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900) to Tommy Johnson (footballer 1919–39) and just before clicking "move", changed it to "(footballer 1930s and 1940s)", thinking (probably illogically) that someone may mistake those for birth–death dates (not a problem, of course, in the cases of footballers whose careers lasted for only a brief period). The "George Smith" of your example would thus become George Smith (footballer 1939–51). The slight drawback in this idea is that for current footballers, one would have to title the article John Doe (footballer since 2001) and then move the article again once the career is over to indicate the end year. Since we use the format "(born 1950)", rather than "(1950–)", a qualifier such as "(footballer 2001–)" would seem to be unacceptable.
As for using middle names or middle initials to distinguish between or among same-named individuals, even where known, it may not always be desirable. As the rules for naming articles point out, the title should use the name by which the individual is best known to the public. The names of actors Edward G. Robinson and Leo G. Carroll are/were known only with their middle initials and may be difficult to identify if said without the initials. On the other hand, in disambiguating another common name, William Marshall, there was already a William Marshall (actor), so an editor titled the entry for the second actor with that name as William H. Marshall. The problem with such an approach is that the second William Marshall, who was "billed" as "Bill Marshall" early in his career, was best known as "William Marshall" and had never used his middle initial in any billing. Since he spent more time on television than in films, the eventual, much longer, though clearer qualifier became William Marshall (film and television actor). In the end, all William Marshalls are really accessible only through their disambiguation page. In the cases of Lee Andrew Martin, Lee Brendan Martin and Lee Robert Martin, I suspect that unlike say, actresses Jennifer Jason Leigh or Sara Jessica Parker, they were never known to the public by their triple names, nor did they ever use them, except possibly on passports or other such documents. The New Zealand politician William Lee Martin, better known as simply "Lee Martin" should probably be titled Lee Martin (politician) or Lee Martin (New Zealand) (American politicians have a strong identity to the state they represent, which may or may not be true in other parts of the world) so Lee Martin (North Island) or Lee Martin (Raglan) may also be possible. As this note is already overlong, I should end on this point.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for MetsBot's assistance in maintaining 12 of the maintenance categories[edit]

As the creator of Category:Year of birth missing (living people) (as well as Category:Place of birth missing (living people)), I was particularly gratified last November 6, upon realizing that MetsBot was extremely speedily performing the task that I had laboriously tried to carry out from May to October—replacing thousands of Category:Year of birth missing with Category:Year of birth missing (living people). I regret not sending a note of appreciation at the time and hope that this message can serve as a belated surrogate. A year ago, May 12007, on the day of the category's creation, I wrote in its newly-opened discussion page that its parent Category:Year of birth missing (created less than two years previously, on June 212005) had grown to contain 18,207 names, rendering it unmanageable. Previous suggestions to subdivide it by gender, nationality or profession could not reach consensus, thus leaving "(living people)" as what seemed to be the last, best alternative. My feeble attempts to manually populate the category, following its creation, managed a daily average of fifteen to twenty-five entries (by contrast, MetsBot completed sixteen entries in one second!). Even so, it took MetsBot from November 6 to November 9 (with "rest breaks") to complete the task, along with adding DEFAULTSORT where needed and attending to Category:Possibly living people.

The creation of the two categories was, in a number of aspects, an outgrowth of CfDs in which I had participated. Some editors continued to complain that although the 15 maintenance categories fulfilled the useful (and, arguably, necessary) function of denoting the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death, they were creating visual clutter among the "standard" or "real" categories at the bottom of biographical articles. As a result, in April 2007, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories, arrived at a consensus. Twelve of the categories (all ten dates and places, which were considered to contain needed, but non-essential, or "defining" data, plus "Year of birth/death unknown", which pointed out the lack of unobtainable, lost to history, facts) were to be repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, could continue to complete the missing information. Only the three categories indicating absence of years of birth and/or death which were theoretically capable of being researched (Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Year of death missing) were noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "Date/Place categories" (the two "Year unknown" categories were overlooked) was assigned to the no-longer functioning COBot on June 132007 (example: COBot's final transferred entry on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that talk page's revision history). To keep all of the categories together, the agreed-upon place for the newly-transferred categories was to be directly below the Wikitags/templated categories and, if already-present, DEFAULTSORT (seen as a more-precise sorting feature than "listas="). In the event a recent or newly-created biographical article does not yet have a discussion page, MetsBot may/would create it and place the transferred category or categories at the top of the page. Tens of thousands of these non-templated maintenance categories have already been placed on discussion pages (and continue to be placed manually) but, unfortunately, a number of well-meaning, persistent editors continue to add them to article pages. Hopefully, if/when schedule permits, the twelve categories listed below could be swept by MetsBot from article pages to talk pages and periodically (weekly?, monthly?, quarterly?) maintained to take account of newly (incorrectly) placed categories.

Taking into account the newly-appended (February 262008) innovation of hidden categories, some additional observations could be made. If the maintenance categories were capable of being hidden in 2006–07, the complaints about "clutter" would likely not have occurred (personally, I prefer to see all categories, setting my Preferences to "Show hidden categories"). I feel, however, that the "Hidden categories" feature does not render this transfer exercise moot. Unlike the nearly 1200 entries in Category:Hidden categories, virtually all of which are templated (and extremely specialized— Category:Start-Class Early Modern warfare articles) the fifteen maintenance categories are not templated and (I know I'm writing to an expert) mutually exclusive (I think) at a ratio of 4:1 (there is a sixteenth rarely used "outsider" maintenance Category:Year of birth uncertain, meant for individuals whose age is given in a newspaper/magazine story, but not the year of birth, thus leaving the uncertainty of one of two possible years), that is, at most, only 4 out of the 16 maintenance categories can ever be applicable to any single individual. In many cases, of course, none, or only one, of these sixteen categories is needed in a biographical entry. Thus, I would argue, due to the exceptional nature of these maintenance categories, they should not be hidden, but left on the article and talk/discussion pages for all to see and consider (this will likely turn out to be a minority view). Sorry about the excessive length of this note and, again, thank you for all your efforts on Wikipedia (Wiki-efforts).—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


A quick question. You say that "DEFAULTSORT is unable to recognize and sort non-English alphabet fonts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't appear to be true. I've seen that it simply lists ʻUtoikamanu under ʻ. Aridd (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

List of chess players reformatting[edit]

Just a quick note to say thanks for sticking with this—the article is split between the two styles and needs uniformity, so it's reassuring to see that you intend to see it through. When I get a spare minute, I'll try and help out a bit, as I can imagine it's tedious and therefore slow work. Thanks again. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for the note and the kind words. I tend to split my time among numerous projects and lengthy, unfinished, lists, and occasionally neglect to return for a proper conclusion. In this case, however, as you have appropriately pointed out, a list which is already part of Wikipedia, should have the same style throughout, and not remain in limbo of transition for extended periods of time. Unlike other lists, which must be created, this specific exertion is mechanical work which goes relatively fast and can probably be fully completed after about two to three hours of sustained effort. In any event, this project will be brought to conclusion by myself and/or others by next Sunday, July 20.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks for being as good as your word—and even finishing before deadline. Politicians and construction workers take note. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for your help and for being so considerate as to write another note. Words of encouragement are always appreciated.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Your kind defence of the AfD-nominated 'The Snapdragons' article did not go unnoticed either. It seems that the effort was not wasted, as the result was a resounding Keep. I have to admit it is a poorly referenced article and with so little related material on the net, I'll need to check if there are any specialist books at the library. In the meantime, thanks again for your unsolicited and helpful support. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My vote was, indeed, unsolicited. As an infrequent visitor at AfD, I learned about The Snapdragons' submission for deletion only by accident, while visiting your talk page to leave a comment about List of chess players. Over the years I've spent with Wikipedia, one of the great pleasures has been the wealth of knowledge about people, subjects and ideas which flows in on a continuous basis. Whether it's philosophers, footballers, chess grandmasters or singing groups, they are all part of the whole in the grand scheme, and if they stake any claim to notability, as The Snapdragons clearly did for the two years and nearly four months of the article's existence, they have earned their place in Wikipedia and I'm glad to have happened along at the right time and place to cast a proper vote.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)[edit]

What do you think the consensus now is / should be about the relation of this category to Category:Living people? Should individuals be categorized with both? I've left the question at the category's talk page, and would value your input. Dsp13 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I went back and corrected my edits to comply with the policy. To avert confusion in the future, I think it would be prudent to put a policy notice on both category pages--something to the effect that "Category:Living persons is mandatory for all articles about living people, even those also categorized under Category:Year of birth missing (living people)." Stepheng3 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

William Spaulding[edit]

  1. If there's going to be another William Spaulding article, shouldn't it be created before moving things?
  2. Once the new article is created, there's no reason to move the existing one. The disambiguation page can be named "William Spaulding (disambiguation)", as such pages usually are in this situation.
  3. If there are only two William Spauldings, there's no need for a disambiguation page. A disambiguation link on the "William Spaulding" article leading to the other one is sufficient.
  4. "D.C." should not have a space.
  5. Granted, the D.C. William Spaulding isn't that significant, so if the other one is more notable, making that one the main "William Spaulding" article might make sense. There's still no need for a disambiguation page as long as there are only two.

KCinDC (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I appreciate your helpful message and immediately corrected the error. In my aspiration to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions for individuals (spaces between initials in main title headers such as W. A. Cleveland and O. A. Hankner), I occasionally misapply the rule to such obvious non-space examples as "D.C." and "U.S.". Regarding your first point, the article on the college coach William Spaulding was created on July 21, 2006, two years before the July 29, 2008 debut of the entry on the Washington, D.C. elected official. Since the main header for the earlier Spaulding gave him a middle initial, without including a redirect to the name without the initial, there was no impediment to your later creation of an entry entitled simply, "William Spaulding". As for the creation of a disambiguation page from the primary target, those, as you know, are the exception rather than the rule, used only when the primary target is a highly prominent individual, such as George Washington or John Ford (a recent disambiguation page controversy on Talk:Jonathan Edwards, is continuing to equate the influential historical figure Jonathan Edwards with a same-named track and field star). Finally, the matter of the two-person disambiguation page. Over my years on Wikipedia, I have been a believer in the efficacy of the hatnote. However, as those brief disambiguation pages proliferated, I decided to join the trend rather than fight it (you can see my February 2008 failed attempt to dismantle the one-person disambiguation page for Myrna Williams in the link at Talk:Myrna Williams). Moreover, some editors apparently feel that there is an implied greater prominence accorded to the earlier-created (usually, although not in the case of William Spaulding) article which then directs the reader, via the hatnote, to the "inferior" or "less-prominent" other individual. The most obvious example of a seemingly-unavoidable two-person disambiguation page presented itself (between June 14, 2003 and August 7, 2004) to readers who, instead of entering George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush, typed simply George Bush, although a number of other, related and unrelated, individuals with that name have since been added.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I noticed the William H. Spaulding article after I wrote that. If the disambiguation page is the established way, then I guess we're done (it does offer the advantage of making it easy if a third William Spaulding comes along), though the other way seems pretty common and does save some users from having to go through a disamb page. I'll fix the links to the William R. Spaulding. (By the way, I remember trying to find guidance about initial spacing for personal names in the MOS a while back, but I didn't have much luck.) —KCinDC (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Veronica Moser[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Veronica Moser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Moser. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Horrorshowj (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chauncey Holt[edit]

hello Roman Spinner. Thanks for improving the Holt article. Were you already familiar with his story? Wim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talkcontribs) 07:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wim, for your note. I came upon the entry quite by accident since, as a veteran Wikipedian, I have a self-assigned task of regularly examining the usually-empty Category:Dead people. This time I found three names—Harold Brainsby, Marcella Grace Eiler and, the most fascinating of the three, Chauncey Marvin Holt. I have not previously heard of these individuals and subsequently tried to contribute whatever minor reconfigurations, adjustments and additions I could to elucidate details. In this way, Wikipedia is a daily learning experience and as a result of you devoting so much time and energy to this subject, we have more knowledge of such little-known aspects of this endlessly-unfolding story.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman, Ah I see,thanks for the expalanation. Chauncey Holt was also the triggerman that gunned down Bugsy Siegel for Meyer Lansky. He never admitted that publicly, although he hinted at in various interviews by giving details of the hit, but I know this from former associates of Chauncey Holt. Should I add this information? The problem would be I cannot reference it. Those sources want to remain unidentified. Although in the film Chauncey said this:

VO: The mob WAS worried about Siegel’s mishandling their money in Las Vegas. The brotherhood, who had put up 6 million dollars. They became a bit concerned about their money. Sowe went out to talked too Siegel again and to look into the rumours that he and Virginia Hill had been swirling away money for their retirement. So we went out and talked to all the vendors. The principal one, ageneral contractor was Dale Webb. We talked to him Webb and we discovered at once that Siegel hadn’t paid Dale Webb nearly as much money as he had said. Soo it was obvious that he was stealing. So we came back and shortly after that they had a big meeting in Havana, where every mob figure in the country came in.. Lucky Luciano came from Italy. They came to Havana to have this conference. They had a conference about what they were going to do about Siegel. Lansky pleaded for him. He said he served us long an well, why don’t we use this as a little piece of the action and let him get out. Lansky and I made another trip to California and he told Lansky and I right to our face that we could shove it. That he Flamingo was his, and that he was keeping it, and of course he had a violent, violent uncontrollable temper. And so as far as that went, that was his death warrant. VO: The last conversation was on 19th of june 1947. A day later Siegel was dead. On the 20th we followed Siegel around all day. Barbershop to his lawyer he went over to a place Fauntain avenue meet a girlfriend. He didn´t seem to have a worry in the world. (a picture footage of Siegel’s slain body is being shown) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talkcontribs) 07:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We cannot name Holt as the hitman since, as you point out, there is no direct evidence. However, his own words in the film then become the source for extrapolating his role in the killing. You could write something to the effect of:------Still another aspect of Holt's eventful life is his self-admitted key role in one of the most notorious killings in Mob history—the 1947 gunning down of Bugsy Siegel. In Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite, he hints at being the triggerman by describing the details of the hit in such a manner as to leave little doubt of his role: =blockquote of your quotation above=. In the end, however, although anonymous sources have confirmed that he was the hitman, Holt himself never publicly admitted his direct responsibility for Siegel's death-------. Someone may ultimately challenge this portion of the text, but the blockquote should stand up to scrutiny since it is a direct quotation of Holt's own words. Also, in the English Wikipedia, libel/slander concerns are primarily aimed at biographies of living people, although, of course, truth and accuracy must remain undiminished. I hope this helps.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort on talk pages[edit]

Hi, there. You've been adding the defaultsort template to talk pages lately. Are you sure it is intended to be used there? LarRan (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity, courtesy of your inquiry, to examine some of the details involving the use of DEFAULTSORT. In the period between the appearance of English Wikipedia's first article in January 2001 and the introduction of the categorization system in May 2004, numerous discussions raised competing issues as to the technical details surrounding the immediately obvious need for an orderly arrangement. As categories multiplied in 2004, 2005 and 2006, each one had to be individually alphabetized through the use of piping and surname (in biographical entries) or piping and title (without "a", "an" or "the"). The thousands of templated categories on discussion pages did not have individual components compatible with piping and thus remained unsorted (or, rather, sorted by given names and titles with definite and indefinite articles, as well as hundreds of Unicode symbols [accents, umlauts, diacritical marks, punctuation, letters from the Icelandic alphabet, etc.]). The development of DEFAULTSORT in January 2007, obviated the need for individual alphabetizing, streamlining the process of categorization and, simultaneously providing the first opportunity to bring alphabetical order to the neglected templated discussion-page categories (a measure of their neglect and lack of usable elements may be gauged by the fact that despite having thousands of entries, most did not even contain a table of contents [some are still bereft of one]). A sorting feature specifically designed to be used within the discussion page templates came into use in April 2007, shortly after the introduction of DEFAULTSORT. The feature, listas, is programmed to work in the same manner as DEFAULTSORT, and generally does, but both are technically imperfect and developed sorting issues. Due to various programming quirks and peculiarities within individual templates, some respond only to DEFAULTSORT, some to listas and some to neither. A partial list of the unresponsive templated categories can be found here. Hundreds of thousands of biographies have not even been furnished with listas (332,845 at last count) and can be found at Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Manual addition of DEFAULTSORT improves the situation somewhat but, due to its own technical issues, it must be positioned below the Wikitags, and will be unable to perform its alphabetizing function if placed above. There are numerous other details concerning this matter and if you would like to discuss them further, I would be glad to do so, but since your question was so brief, I felt that an equally brief response, "yes" would appear inadequate. It should also be noted that these additions of DEFAULTSORT are a continuing process begun in May 2007.—Roman Spinner (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your exhaustive reply. I justed wanted to be sure that it wasn't by mistake. Cheers. LarRan (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of conversations relevant to this matter and I would give you the links to them if I could remember where they were. Here is a summary of them combined with what I have learned in resolving DEFAULTSORT Conflicts:
Many WikiProjects use the "listas" parameter. If the "listas" is present the DEFAULTSORT is redundant. If "listas" is missing or is blank the DEFAULTSORT is set to the PAGENAME. If DEFAULTSORT is put under one of the Wiki-tags that has a blank or missing "listas" the DEFAULTSORT will work but it will cause an error message to appear and will put the page in the Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts category.
I am working to resolve the conflicts. In most cases it means putting the "listas" parameter in a tag that lacks it but wants it. In some cases it means that I also have to delete the DEFAULTSORT as some users have been using it incorrectly. The last case I remember was of an "Alexandros V", the 5th Alexandros in a dynasty, whose DEFAULTSORT was "V, Alexandros".
There are editors and admins who are working to fix the way "listas" works. Some of the proposed "fixes" will exacerbate the situation. Until a valid fix is implemented the best course is to put the listas parameter in the tag immediately below the error message. It is sometimes necessary to repeat the process. There is a Cypriot militant nationalist who is in WP Biography, WP Cyprus, WP Greece and WP Military. Each tag reset the sort and created an error message if its sort did not match the previous sort.
That is an extremely long-winded summary of what is known and is transpiring with the listas parameter. The very short version is to use DEFAULTSORT on the article but listas on the Talk page and to put the listas in every tag that wants it.
JimCubb (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Just to clarify, you're a bit wrong about what Wikipedia's disambiguation practice is. We only disambiguate by province or state instead of country if there's been another person in the same country who's notable enough for an article. That is, if there had been notable politicians named Andy Mitchell in multiple Canadian provinces, then we'd use the province to disambiguate them, but if there's only ever been one Canadian politician named Andy Mitchell, then we use Canada. And in fact, in his case he's the only notable politician of that name from any country, so it didn't even need the "Canadian" qualifier at all.

To summarize, we always disambiguate by the highest level at which the title is unique: just occupation if they're the only one at that level, then country occupation if they're not the only one at the occupational level, then province or state occupation if they're not the only one at the country level. I hope that helps a bit. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion[edit]

The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Wikipedia a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth unknown[edit]

Hi. Are you saying that this category should be placed in talk pages? Do you have a link of this decision? Which category about the a person's birth should be place in the main article instead?

PS I can run my bot to move this category in the talk page but I would like to be sure what I am doing is right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoćemo gusle[edit]

Why did you move article Hoćemo gusle to We Want Gusle? As far as I know, the names of the music albums should not be translated. (for example, see Mes Courants Électriques) Vanjagenije (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the late reply. Although I attempted to briefly state the justification for the move in my edit summary, the subject obviously requires a much greater elucidation to serve as a possible guideline and point for future discussion. As most Wikipedia editors know, it has been a longtime policy to retain the original spelling of names and places rendered in the Latin alphabet, including accents, diacritics and occasional no-Latin-alphabet characters, such as letters from the Icelandic alphabet (for example, Þórður Friðjónsson). As always there are exceptions—individuals from past centuries known in English and some other other languages by their Latinized names: (Nicolaus Copernicus and variations thereof in other Western European languages, rather than Mikołaj Kopernik and variations thereof in other Slavic languages). Original place names are generally retained except for major world cities and other key geographical designations which have traditional names in each language. Myriad discussions on talk pages of various locations present arguments for the use of local or traditional names (Talk:Kraków, especially the archived section, with arguments for the retention of the long-used English form, Cracow). There are also orthographic disagreements over Tbilisi/Tiflis, Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Peking and numerous other designations, as well as political disputes over name usage, perhaps best exemplified by Macedonia naming dispute which, as in the case of issues raised in Hoćemo gusle, stems directly or indirectly from unresolved matters inherent in the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Various components of the Manual of Style set out consensus points on these issues. Among them are List of alternative country names, List of country names in various languages, Names of European cities in different languages, Help:Page name, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming conventions and its subdivisions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) and particularly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In discussing the specific topic in question, the name of a work of art, the primary guidelines appear in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)". This must be understood as requiring the main title header to state literal English translation of titles for which no standard or well-known English-language appellations exist. Redirects, of course will still enable editors to find the work in question via its original title. Although this is the English Wikipedia, exceptions are made for some, but not the majority, of titles in the five most-commonly used Western European languages, German, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Rare exceptions are also made for well-known titles in Japanese and other non-Western languages.
Works of art, in a wide definition, include novels, plays, poems, works of non-fiction, operas, songs, music albums, paintings, sculptures and myriad subcategories thereof. Only Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera formulated naming conventions stating, specifically, "The name of the opera should be in its original language except:
  • When the opera is commonly known in English-speaking nations by another title (i.e. The Marriage of Figaro).
  • When the opera's full original title is widely known in an abbreviated form (i.e. I Lombardi).
  • If the opera's title is rendered in its original language, capitalization should follow the usage in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and New Grove Dictionary of Opera.
  • If the opera's title is rendered in English, use standard English usage."
The "original language" indication, it should be noted, applies primarily to German, French and Italian operas with exceptions for works in other languages, such as Russian, which use the name of a character—Boris Godunov, or Yevgeny Onegin (which is generally performed in English-speaking countries under the title which uses the protagonist's Anglicized given name, Eugene Onegin). A well-known title which does not lend itself to easy translation, Khovanshchina, is another rare example. Operas with titles in Polish, Czech, Hungarian and other languages are known almost exclusively under their English-language titles (The Haunted Manor not Straszny dwór, The Cunning Little Vixen not Příhody Lišky Bystroušky and Bluebeard's Castle not A kékszakállú herceg vára). Examples, needless to say, can always be found within Wikipedia of editors using original titles unknown to English-speaking audiences, such as Ero s onoga svijeta, as well as Szibill and Zsuzsi kisasszony, which played in New York as Sybil and Miss Springtime, respectively. These titles and a number of others should eventually be moved to English-language headers.
The titles of books, plays and films adhere to English almost entirely. The only exceptions are for easily-pronounced well-established titles in German, French, Italian and Spanish such as Das Boot, Les Misérables/Les Miserables, La Dolce Vita and Volver. A handful of recent Spanish-language film titles such as Amores Perros and Y tu mamá también/Y tu mama tambien have also remained in their original form. As for the rest, it's The Blue Angel not Der blaue Engel, In Search of Lost Time/Remembrance of Things Past not À la recherche du temps perdu, Big Deal on Madonna Street not I soliti ignoti and The Spirit of the Beehive not El espíritu de la colmena). Another handful of classic titles in other languages includes India's Pather Panchali and Aparajito (the third film in the Apu Trilogy, Apur Sansar, however, is known in the English-speaking world as The World of Apu and should be moved to that title) and some Japanese titles such as Ugetsu, Kagemusha, Ran and Dodes'ka-den (thus rendered on film posters and in film reference books, not the Japanese transliteration, Dodesukaden, as it currently stands).
As previously stated, this is an extensive topic and more will be added in subsequent discussions. As to titles of record albums, even if the Wikipedia community were to accept WikiProject Opera's "original title" standard (no such consensus currently exists), it would still only apply to German, French, Italian and Spanish titles. The process might include Alizée's French album, Mes Courants Électriques, which you gave as an example of a foreign-title album retaining its original title, or it might not, that proposition will need to be tested to determine community consensus. However, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Romanian, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish and Slavic-language titles (as well as others too numerous to mention) face an extremely high hurdle.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deletion[edit]

Per WP:BLANK, please do not simply remove content from redirect pages. Instead, if you feel they are inappropriate, nominate them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. GlassCobra 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Wortley Montagu (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)[edit]

I am not at all clear why you have changed the title of this article. The previous name was perfectly acceptable, but I supsect that you are an American, who does not know that persons with knighthoods are incorrectly addressed if their name is not prefixed by "Sir". Furthermore, being a Lord of the Treasury was only a short event in a long career. Why not Edward Wortley Montagu (Ambassador)? Articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer (if they had one), even if it was only granted at the end of their life. Would you be kind enough to undo your interfering? Just because Americans have no significant titles of honour, there is no reason why you should engage in imperialissm to force your views on other coutries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate your vexation at such a seemingly inappropriate change. I did elucidate the reason for the move in the article's revision history and you may also glance at the Edward Montagu (disambiguation) page, which has as its initial entry, Sir Edward Montagu, not Sir Edward Montagu. Similarly, even such familiar personalities as Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Philip Sidney are named without their knighthoods in the main title headers of their Wikipedia articles. As I've indicated, the Wikipedia Manual of Style directive regarding these matters is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage #5. Titles of Knighthood. You are, indeed, correct that "articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer", but solely in a specifically circumscribed form, i.e., "Sir Edward Hyde East, 1st Baronet". Stand-alone salutations, honorifics and knighthoods are not utilized in the context of Wikipedia. As to the parenthetical qualifier, it was simply a judgment call in using what appeared the most distinguished title. If the already-existing redirect, Edward Wortley Montagu (diplomat), or not-yet-in-existence Edward Wortley Montagu (ambassador), Edward Wortley Montagu (MP) or the full Edward Wortley Montagu (Member of Parliament) seems more fitting, than such a move can also be effected. If you have additional concerns in this matter, I would welcome further communication.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
You have misunderstood our long-established policy; see WP:NCNT.
  • We almost always use peerages. The handful of exceptions are those cases like Bertrand Russell and Anthony Eden, where the title is hardly ever used to describe the subject.
  • We almost always use titles of courtesy, as the name by which the subject is most commonly known.
  • We usually use baronetcies, to distinguish from the other baronets of the same family.
  • We use knighthoods to disambiguate when necessary, before going to parenthetical disambiguation.

Come and discuss these by all means; but please stop inventing guidelines in a field in which our practice is consistent and well-documented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We are all here for the same reason—to advance knowledge. Idealistic, yes, but we would not devote so many hours, days and years to this project if our ultimate goal was any less noble. That said, the sheer number of contributors and conflicting agendas cannot help but lead to mutually exclusive goals which may or may not be resolved in arbitration. I welcome input from a veteran editor who has spent years participating in these discussions, and is certainly more than qualified to weigh in on the subject. Putting aside all other titles of nobility which are not part of the current controversy, we can examine logically the single sentence under 5. Titles of Knighthood, which is.
That sentence, originally added in July 2004, states, "'Sir' may be used in article titles as a disambiguator". The fact that other than for a correction from "maybe" to "may be", the sentence has managed to exist for over four-and-a-half years, may indicate consensus or, simply, disregard, but a rule in the Manual of Style cannot be ignored. I intend to submit it for deletion for, in its present state, it trivializes knighthoods and reduces them to mere disambiguators for knighted individuals who bear common names. Furthermore, it actually negates the entire paragraph, which takes pains to explain that even the universally-known Sir Walter Raleigh should be listed as Walter Raleigh. Are we then to understand that all it would take for the famed historical figure to regain his knighthood in the main title header is for, say, an actor or footballer named Walter Raleigh to appear on the scene thus enabling the first Walter Raleigh to use "Sir" as a disambiguator? Rules should be based upon firm principles and not serve simply as sorting devices. Such deviations ultimately open Pandora's boxes to endless similar disambiguatory exceptions such as "Doctor", "General", "Cardinal", "Professor" and others such as "Master" and "Sheik", which continue to appear and continue to be moved to the name alone, with the titled name remaining as a redirect. Perhaps the Wikipedia community wants to retain the rule, but I doubt it, judging by the fact that as fast as they appear, these titled individuals find themselves moved.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Page moves and disambigs...[edit]

Hello there. There's a new discussion at an Australian notice board on some of the page moves that you are doing. Some doubts have been raised. Would you be kind enough to contribute before going further? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as names change, politicians move seats, so disambiguating by seat name (which is meaningless outside the jurisdiction in which it falls anyway) would lead to all sorts of confusion. Also, seats in different jurisdictions may have the same name - for example, the seat of Moore in Federal parliament, and the Moore in the state parliament (the same goes for Stirling, Perth, Forrest, Kalgoorlie, Swan, Canning, Fremantle - and that's just in my state alone!) I am aware of parliamentarians who have held as many as 5 different seats during their political careers, and considering redistributions every 8 years or so usually rename a great number of seats, at least 2 isn't even uncommon. Orderinchaos 06:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving Roger King[edit]

Well done moving the article on the politician Roger King and creating a disambiguation page. That's a much bette way of handling these things than just having a hatnote on an article.

However, there were two problems with the way you did it. The first is that the article name you chose (Roger King (Birmingham Northfield)) was not the normal format. The convention is to disambiguate by occupation (e.g. Roger King (politician)), and if that name is not available to add a nationality (e.g. Roger King (British politician)). Adding a constituency name is over-specific, and should only be used if the preferred forms of disambiguation are already in use. However, that's now been fixed by another editor.

The more important point is that you didn't fix the incoming links. The move screen says clearly "Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double redirects (using "What links here") after the move. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. " ... but you didn't do that, leaving all the links which used to point to the politician going to disambiguation page.

Please when you move pages can you make sure to fix the incoming links? Navigation popups makes it a relatively simple job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Play of the Week[edit]

Hi Roman,

Just wanted to leave a note on your talk page to thank you for all of the work you've done on Play of the Week. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome and my thanks to you for taking the time to send such a kind note of appreciation. Encouragement is always welcome and, in view of my modest (and still unfinished) effort on Play of the Week, I also thank you, in turn, for your monumental multi-year contributions to the compendium of knowledge regarding paleontology and, of course, the history of early TV programs. Now, those explorations into the past are projects truly worthy of praise!—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Geraldine Brooks[edit]

Thank you for looking at the disambiguation issue here. It had appeared to me (from a very quick review suggesting that there might be 10 times more Google links to the author, although I didn't really go into it carefully so that finding could be misleading) that Geraldine Brooks (writer) is considerably more prominent, at this point in this history, than the actress, and appears to have more links leading to her. As such, I might have thought the cleaner solution would be to keep Geraldine Brooks as referring to the writer with a hatnote on her article leading to Geraldine Brooks (actress). But I will leave that to you. If we do keep the change as you've done it, however, there are several dozen internal wikilinks to the writer that need to be fixed, most notably including the hatnote at the top of Geraldine Brooks (actress), to avoid double redirects. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me and expressing very valid concerns regarding the creation of the disambiguation page and the move of Geraldine Brooks to Geraldine Brooks (writer). You are, of course, correct about the need to attend to the hatnotes as well as the incoming links in what links here for both individuals and I will take care of those matters today. In point of fact, an examination of the 92 links (63 of which are article links) leading to Geraldine Brooks, indicates that 18 of these belong to the actress. As to comparable prominence/notability, the actress belongs to an earlier generation and died when the writer was 22 years and had not yet attained fame, thus they were never in name competition as, for example, contemporaries Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932) and Elizabeth Taylor (novelist) (1912–1975)/Elizabeth Taylor (athlete) (1916–1977). The actress was, however, a lower-lovel celebrity between 1947 and her death in 1977, co-starring (as female lead) in studio films, appearing on magazine covers, TV talk shows and receiving nominations for major acting awards (Emmy, 1962; Tony, 1970). In my extensive library of film and television reference books, she receives numerous entries in virtually every volume and, in the online index to The New York Times, of the 567 "Geraldine Brooks" entries, 1 to 6 (1901–31) are for earlier individuals (including the same-named author of the 1904 book, Dames and Daughters of the French Court), 7 to 344 (1946–79) are to the actress, including posthumous showings of her film and TV appearances, and 345 to 567 (1979–2006) are a mix of revivals for the late actress, 82 entries for the writer (starting with 363, 10 February 1983) and four minor references to others bearing the name. A separate index covering the years 2007–09 shows the writer predominating with interviews and book reviews, but with the actress' name continuing to appear regularly in TV listings. Unlike the case of Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932) being the indisputable primary target, there is no clear notability comparison here. The actress was a minor star and celebrity in her day, while the writer is a Pulitzer Prize winner currently known in literary circles and to segments of the reading public. I will leave that judgment to others. In the meantime, there are incoming links to be adjusted.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bem Le Hunte[edit]

Thanks for sorting that article out for me, At first, I found some faults in what you've done, but I guess its for the better. Do the excerpts of reviews need to be in there? --Flashflash; 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It was good of you to drop me a note and I extend my apologies for the delayed reply. As we devote considerable portions of our time to the advancement of knowledge through Wikipedia, the appreciation of an article's usefulness can be judged by the frequency of its page visits as well as the frequency of helpful revisions within its text. I appreciate your comments and, regarding reviews, feel that anyone who offers any work or activity which engenders the commentary of critics, should have excerpts of those reviews included in his/her biographical profile in order to present a compendium of balanced views. For artists, in particular, reviews of paintings, sculptures, musical compositions and written works, especially if those works do not have their own individual Wikipedia entries, present a rounded image of the subject, with the quotation, of course, best selected if it specifically refers to the subject's own persona, rather than simply to the work being reviewed.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, was just checking. Thanks again :) --Flashflash; 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrian P. Burke[edit]

You moved this article to "Adrian Burke", although all the sources given in the article refer to him always with the middle initial. Please refrain from doing unnessary and unencyclopedical moves, referring to "newspaper search predominance." Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your annoyance at a change within the main title header of an article you created, your dogmatic insistence on what you perceive to be an encyclopedic approach and your description of my move as "unnessary and unencyclopedical", betrays a basic misunderstanding of the use of the middle initial in American public life and, particularly, its use by American public officials.
Although some actors use a middle initial as part of their name (Edward G. Robinson or Leo G. Carroll, who were never billed as "Edward Robinson" or "Leo Carroll") and some public officials are most frequently referenced with the middle initial (Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson), others, perhaps inconsistently, are indicated without the middle initial (Richard Nixon not Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford not Gerald R. Ford). If one were to insist on your encyclopedic approach, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would have their entries titled James Earl Carter, Jr. and William Jefferson Clinton, their legal names, which they used to take the oath of office. In official announcements and biographical sketches, public officials are designated by their full name (South Dakota Senator Timothy P. Johnson, who is referred to in newspapers and most public occasions as Tim Johnson). The article on New York Governors Thomas E. Dewey and George E. Pataki, lists the former with the middle initial, not as Thomas Dewey, but the latter as George Pataki. Controversially, some editors insist on using middle initials as disambiguators, especially in the case of common names such as "John Kennedy". There are at least thirty names in John Kennedy (disambiguation), some disambiguated by middle initials, others by parenthetical qualifiers. It is indeed desirable to use middle initials in cases where the individual himself or herself used or was known by such an initial, but inappropriate where that was not the case.
There is more to be said on the subject, which may be expanded upon in future communications if you so desire. Returning, however, to the immediate topic of Adrian P. Burke, while there are good arguments for the use of the middle initial, including its use in the title of his memoir and in a number of newspaper references announcing milestones in his career, a larger number of newspaper articles, referred to him simply as Adrian Burke. You will find many or even most official references giving the full name (including middle initial or middle name) of public officials even when the official himself never used the full name. I was recently involved in a lengthy discussion regarding main title header James Stewart (actor) versus Jimmy Stewart, as the actor was affectionately known. Since, unlike Jimmy Carter, James Stewart rarely referred to himself as "Jimmy" and was not billed in a single film as "Jimmy Stewart", the main header, quite properly, indicated him as "James".
Finally, if you insist on using middle initials in main title headers, you must create redirects to the name without the middle initial. Until I created the redirect, Wikipedia users typing Adrian Burke or Adrian Paul Burke (which, as of this writing, is without a redirect) will find that there no such article. Most users, as I'm sure, you will agree, do not usually type Harry S. Truman when accessing the article on the president, but simply type Harry Truman and the same would be true for Adrian Burke not Adrian P. Burke. I suggest you return to your previous articles and create redirects for those which (almost all, most likely) are bereft of those essential links.—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter - Thank you for your support[edit]

Your post is extremely well-written, cogent and comprehensive. It is unfortunate that it is also futile. The category will not be re-populated unless some very heavy-duty admins step in, restore the category and ban User:MSGJ.

Again, thank you for joining the fray.

JimCubb (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. I think you are right in assuming that Category:Biography articles with listas parameter will not be repopulated. I would bet that this time the change will not be made because of the warning that the template should not be changed without very strong consensus due to the effect it will have on the servers.

By the way, the three losing battles I have fought – {{WikiProjectBanners}}, {{lifetime}} and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter – have all involved deprecation. Who decides that a template or category is deprecated and are there any procedures governing that decision.

Thank you again.

JimCubb (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Talk:James Robinson[edit]

Hello Roman Spinner, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Talk:James Robinson) without specifying a CSD category. So for future reference I've deleted it as {{G6}} as non-controversial maintenance. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied (it also saves us admins from having to think too much). Thanks again! and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Julie Payne[edit]

In "moving" (a totally inappropriate word, but we seem to be stuck with it) the articles on the two actresses known as Julie Payne to bear the parenthetical qualifiers "1960s actress" and "post-1960s actress" respectively, you wrote in your edit summary, "neither performer used a middle name and/or initial as part of her stage name." As was previously discussed here, somebody was credited as "Julie K. Payne" in a 1991 episode of the Chris Elliott/Fox network sitcom, Get a Life. With that date we can be reasonably certain that she isn't the daughter of John Payne and Anne Shirley (who has, IIRC, has at least as many credits in the 50s as in the 60s), but since we have three different sets of birth dates/places (Terre Haute, IN, September 11, 1940; L.A., CA, July 10, 1940; and Eugene, OR, September 11, 1946), this might be, as theorized in that thread, a third woman. Why would the Oregon JP use an initial that long after the second gen. thespian quit the business, and only once? One might speculate that we have one woman born in Indiana and raised in Oregon with the two years of both confused to give September 11, 1940 for Terre Haute and the same month and day in '46 for Eugene, but this Eugene newspaper article says she was born in "Sweet Home," and does not identify it as out of state. So that's out the window. (I've put your talk page on my watchlist pending the outcome of this discussion, so you can reply right here and I'll know.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to communicate with me about the Julie Payne entrtes, thus providing an opportunity to explore the matter in greater detail. There are two distinct issues at the forefront of this discussion — use of middle names or initials in main title headers and, crucial to the subject, distinguishing among individuals who are known by exact same names. As an illustration of the first topic, a few weeks ago I moved Walter Kelly (comedian) to Walter C. Kelly, since that is how the star vaudevillian and occasional movie actor was always billed [his middle name was Charles], presumably to disambiguate himself from all the other Walter Kellys of this world. The names of Edward G. Robinson and Leo G. Carroll would look very odd without the middle initial which was an integral part of their stage name and their identity as an actor. Well-known non-entertainment-industry personalities with common names such as William Douglas also adopted the use of a middle initial (William O. Douglas) and, outside a specific context, would be virtually unrecognizable without it. Similarly, highly recognizable full names such as John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith or George Bernard Shaw would lose their distinctiveness, individuality and, very likely, recognition, if referenced as "John Mill", "John Keynes", "John Galbraith" or "George Shaw". Occasionally, a distinctive middle name, followed by the surname, is used instead of the full name but, unless it becomes frequent practice, such a reference may seem forced. On the other hand, two of my other moves — Dawn Evelyn Paris to Anne Shirley (actress) and Joanna Cook Moore (birth name Dorothy Cook) to Joanna Moore exemplified an opposite problem from that presented by Walter Kelly (comedian), whose name needed the middle initial instead of a parenthetical qualifier. Research of records from those actresses' eras indicated that neither used her birth name as her stage name, although Dawn Evelyn Paris, during her period as a fairly well-established child and adolescent actress named Dawn O'Day (name redirected to Anne Shirley (actress), at least used her birth given name.
The other, more important, matter of a duplicate name is of key importance to actors, since any uncertainty or confusion about identity may represent the difference between success and failure in the profession. Names are registered with acting unions Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) which prohibit newcomers from using stage names of current members. In same cases even a similar name presents a problem — in 1960 Mike Kellin filed a grievance with SAG and AFTRA against recent member Michael Callan whose name he perceived as sounding too similar to his own, but a union committee decided that since the 38-year-old character actor and the 25-year-old lead hopeful were not competing for the same roles, there was enough difference to allow Michael Callan to retain his name unchanged. Using the IMDb to research the career of virtually any actor, one almost always finds numerous other entertainment industry personalities with the same or almost-same name. In the case of established actors, the other same-named actors are usually one-role or bit-part non-union players. They may also be players from other countries, usually Britain or Australia (English actor James Lablache Stewart was obliged to change his name and became Stewart Granger), or they may be actors from another era. Silent film supporting performers named James Mason (whom the IMDB lists as "Jim Mason" and Wikipedia as Jim Mason (actor) despite the fact that he was never billed as "Jim Mason") and William Holden are two examples of actors with the same names as future stars. Names which become available at SAG or AFTRA as a result of their previous possessors' retirement (with resulting non-payment of dues) or death are infrequently revived with new dues payments by other individuals who want the name for their own use, but the Julie Payne case is one of those rare examples.
Continuing from that last sentence we can try to elucidate the heart of the matter. Julie Payne (1960s actress), the daughter of film and TV leading man John Payne and the previously-mentioned child performer, later leading lady, Anne Shirley (actress), despite being billed in two 1960–61 sitcom episodes as "Julie Ann Payne", appears in SAG and AFTRA membership guidebooks and 1961–67 casting guidebooks (available at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts) as "Julie Payne", which then constitutes her official stage name. Also, as far as can be determined, other than three half-hour TV series episodes in 1959, the remainder of her career lasted from 1960 to 1967, at which point she must have stopped paying her SAG and AFTRA dues, thus losing exclusive use of the name "Julie Payne". In 1968 or 1969, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress), must have gained membership in SAG and AFTRA and, having already performed with the improvisational comedy troupe, The Committee, using her birth name, made a decision to continue her acting career under that name, despite its previous use by another actress. Judging by the fact that Wikipedia's own article, South Eugene High School, lists her among "Notable alumni", class of 1964 (my experience with high school and college articles is that alumni keep a close watch for accuracy) indicates that the correct birth year is 1946, as originally listed in IMDb, and the birthplace is in Oregon. Whatever presumption might have existed of her birth in Terre Haute and moving with her family to Oregon at a young age, is dispelled by the link on Talk:Julie Payne to the July 1976 interview with her in Eugene's newspaper, The Register-Guard, in which her age and place of birth are specifically indicated. One must therefore assume that one of IMDb's associates, attempting to correlate the two actresses named Julie Payne, conflated their data, thus assigning to both the earlier birth year, 1940, along with marriage to Robert Towne in November 1977 and the birth of one child. The single "Julie K. Payne" credit in a 1991 episode of a sitcom, must be presumed as a mistake, fluke or one-time experimental billing, and the listing of Terre Haute as the birthplace, which has been copied by other sites is, likewise a mistake. Ultimately, lacking direct confirmation from either Julie Payne, one is forced to make some assumptions, but the preponderance of evidence, including this Birth Records Search, confirms the conclusions.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Far more than I expected, and with all due respect, very little of it news to me. I do feel that dismissing Terre Haute and the initial in Get a Life simply by declaring each "a mistake" is ill-advised (and for the latter, "fluke" is merely another way of saying mistake, and "one-time experiment" just doesn't make any sense to me, at least that's how I feel about both in this context). As soon as (if) a station or channel I receive reruns that series, I'll pay attention to the airing sequence and find out if it is indeed the Oregon Payne in that episode and whether or not the initial is there. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
My previous three-paragraph posting is, indeed, overlong, with the first two paragraphs concerned not with the main topic of identity, but with examination of the stylistic appropriateness in using middle names or initials as opposed to parenthetical qualifiers. The last paragraph, which did focus on differentiating the two Julies, attempted to elucidate what was already discussed on Talk:Julie Payne and Talk:Julie Payne (1960s actress). As far as the central point is concerned, it seems to have been agreed upon that despite what is written on IMDb's biographical pages for the two Julies, Robert Towne obviously did not marry both women in November 1977 and have one child with each of them, but his status as the April 1975 winner of the Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) did ensure that his marriage to (and subsequent divorce from) the actress (or recent, but no longer active, actress) daughter of then-still-living former movie stars was covered in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and a number of other publications.
Lacking celebrity parents, celebrity husband or attention-attracting film and television parts, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress) has had relatively little press coverage in her 40-year show-business career. She was cast in supporting roles as a regular in three 1983–86 TV series, but each series was canceled after less than three months. The only specifics come from a 33-year-old interview in the Oregon near-hometown newspaper. The link to Birth Database, which I provided in the previous posting, does not connect to specific searches but, for the record, it does list one Julie Payne, born July 10 [not August 10, as was indicated in a couple of other references], 1940, last residing in Los Angeles. It also has two listings for Julie K. Payne, born September 11, 1946, last residing in Studio City (first listing) and in Sherman Oaks (second listing). Although I could not find any references which confirm that the "K." stands for Kathleen, the existence of the middle initial in the Birth Database listing does seem to confirm that "Julie Payne (post-1960s actress)" and "Julie K. Payne" refer to the same person. While IMDb lists seven women named "Julie Payne" and two more whose extended name includes "Julie Payne", acting credits are indicated for only four of those names, two of which we already know and the remaining two (possibly the same person) seem to be non-union, non-professionals with a single bit part in obscure non-union productions.
Ultimately, over the last four decades, since 1969, only one performer, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress), has had SAG and AFTRA legitimacy to use the name. Therefore, in view of the Birth Database confirmation that Julie K. Payne, born September 11, 1946, lives in the Hollywood area of Studio City/Sherman Oaks, there can be virtually no doubt that the Julie K. Payne in the 1991 episode of the sitcom Get a Life is the same Julie Payne who holds rights to the name. The likely explanation is that although her stage name is "Julie Payne", she may be in the habit of signing her checks and contracts with the addition of her middle initial "K.", to differentiate herself from all the other holders of that name, starting with those listed in IMDb. In constructing the end credits, the production office must have inadvertently used her work contract signature instead of determining her standard billing. Any other explanation, including the sitcom's use of a non-union performer who has virtually the same name as an established actress who has been appearing in TV shows and films for over twenty years (since 1970) is difficult to accept.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary page moves[edit]

Please stop moving the pages of VC and GC recipients from format (VC). This is a well established and discussed disamb. Please have the courtesy to discuss any change on the Milhistory talk page and seek consensus prior to any further moves Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me on this matter. In view of the inconsistent use of the disambiguating parenthetical qualifiers "(VC)" and "(GC)" in main title headers such as David Russell (George Cross) and the numerous uses of other qualifiers such as "(soldier)" remaining in incoming links, I did not realize that the subject was previously raised in discussions or that any form of consensus had been reached regarding the proper form of these specific disambiguating qualifiers. Since you profess knowledge of such discussions and/or such consensus, it is customary to provide appropriate links to MOS or WikiProject topics in one's initial communication to bolster one's argument.—Roman Spinner (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if any formal consensus has ever been reached, but my experience of doing quite a bit of work on VC and GC related pages is that these are the most common forms of disambiguator. They are well known abbreviations and postnominals for the respective awards, adn the preference is to keep disambiguators as short as possible, so it seems to me that they are the best choices. Like Kernel Saunters, I would ask that you refrain from any further moves until this has been sorted. Simply working through List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign and its sublists, and the equivalent GC lists shows that the simple VC or GC form is the most common, even if not universal. Because of the way many VC pages were created by migration from another website, rather a lot use full names rather than normal disambiguation in fact. David Underdown (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "(VC)" and "(GC)" have always been used as disambiguators here. There is absolutely no need to change this. I'll add my request to that of the other two gentlemen. Please refrain from these page moves. Can I also point out that using your own previous edits in the edit history to justify further moves is not really good policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scaled down in proportion to the volume of response generated on the talk pages of Wikipedia's hot-button controversial issues, a three-message mini-chorus of disapproval (with more to come, possibly) does indicate a lack of support to a significant enough degree that any further such moves would not be advisable. Some additional points, nevertheless, can be raised. The use of "(VC)" and "(GC)" as disambiguating parenthetical qualifiers seems to be a leftover from Wikipedia's earlier years when post-nominals such as "(OBE)", "(KBE)", "(MP)", "(SJ)" or "(PhD)" were appended as disambiguators, while other editors preferred using a pre-name title or honorific such as "Sir", "General", "Doctor", "Professor", "Father" or "Sheikh", even in instances when its function as disambiguator was obviated by the subject's unique name. While Wikipedia users expect a parenthetical qualifier to impart some basic form of information regarding the subject, such as "(writer)", "(footballer)" or "(politician)", if one is able to create a more-detailed description to place the subject within a group or sub-group receiving specific coverage in Wikipedia, such as my move of Thomas J. Kelly (US soldier) to Thomas J. Kelly (Medal of Honor recipient), then choosing greater specificity should become the prime prerequisite in formulating the parenthetical qualifier.

Unfortunately, except for acronyms which have entered popular culture, such as "FBI", "CIA" and "MI5", the great majority, including "VC" and "GC", tend to be obscure to most people, thus, ironically, making the earlier, unsatisfactory, generic main title headers, "John Kirk (soldier)" and "James Kirk (soldier)", more informative than the current versions, "John Kirk (VC)" and "James Kirk (VC)". While it can be pointed out that, in a broader sense, the content of the parenthetical qualifier matters little in its practical application, since all names with qualifiers are ultimately sorted out in disambiguation pages or hatnotes, an encyclopedia is still symbolized by its style and uniformity, as exemplified by one of the entries in Henry Kelly (disambiguation), which lists a possessor of that name as simply, Henry Kelly (VC), with no further description, thus, theoretically, rendering it meaningless to most users, while a listing which could be used as an alternative, Henry Kelly (Victoria Cross recipient), would at least provide some minimal information even to those who have no specific knowledge of what Victoria Cross represents.

Finally, points have been raised regarding Wikipedia's purportedly traditional use of "(VC)" and "(GC)" as disambiguating qualifiers. While a small number of those can be traced back to 2005, with other qualifiers being changed in 2006 and 2007 to reflect that formulation, the majority of main title headers carrying such varied disambiguators as "(soldier)", "(Ireland)" or "(Georgia Cross)" have continued to be revised through 2008 and into 2009. In any event, given that the transformation of headers using qualifiers "(VC)" and "(GC)" is nearly complete, some uniformity in this regard is on its way to being achieved, thus leaving the basic topic of the qualifiers' appropriateness for those who wish to revisit it in the indeterminate future.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there are big differences between using "(GC)" and "(VC)" and, for example, "(OBE)" and "(PhD)". In the former case, the disambiguator will almost always be the reason why the individual is notable, whereas in the latter case this is not true. Nobody is inherently notable for having an OBE or a PhD; they are inherently notable for having a GC or VC. There is absolutely nothing obscure about the abbreviations VC or GC; in fact, it is common practice to describe a recipient as "a VC" or "a GC". Certainly everyone who knows what the Victoria Cross or George Cross are is also likely to know what the VC and GC are. If they don't know what they are then "("Victoria Cross recipient)" is no more helpful to them than "(VC)"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Precisely, as I said VC and GC are sufficiently standard to suffice, if you're searching simply from the box, the connection to Victoira Cross is pretty obvious, and if someone ends up on a dab page, there'll be more description there. Being bold is all very well, but if you're going to move large numbers of particular classes of articles, some disucssion first would generally be helpful - by defintion all VC winners are covered by the MILHIST project, so that would ahve been a good place to start, or the VC or GC articles themselves. David Underdown (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer)[edit]

Kindly do not interfere with massive amounts of work done by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing by arbitrarily changing the name of an article. 1I do not care what your opinion is as to "common usage", and ask that in future you show enough good manners to consult on the Project talk page. You know nothing about Thoroughbred racing and know nothing of the reasons the full name of Thomas Joseph Kelly was used. Thanx for your cooperation. Handicapper (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for the nearly-four-week delay in replying to your post. Your choice of "Handicapper" as user name presumably serves as an indication of expertise in the subject of horse racing and, therefore, since you state that I "know nothing about Thoroughbred racing and know nothing of the reasons the full name of Thomas Joseph Kelly was used" and that my "arbitrarily changing the name of an article" from Thomas Joseph Kelly to Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer), does "interfere with massive amounts of work done by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing", I will limit my "interference" in that subject to narrow procedural grounds.
As the creator, you naturally feel protective of the article's contents which, you may note, I did not revise. As to the main title header, you, yourself, refer to the subject throughout the article as "Tommy Kelly" or "T. J. Kelly" and, not even once, as "Thomas Joseph Kelly". Although Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) indicates that "article title should be name by which subject is most commonly known", some Wikipedia editors have the notion that it is somehow "unencyclopedic" to entitle articles with names such as Johnny Carson, Billy Crystal, Babe Ruth or Sammy Sosa and that those biographical entries must instead be titled John William Carson, William Edward Crystal, George Herman Ruth and Samuel Peralta Sosa, respectively. Moreover, while the 16th president, although affectionately known as Abe Lincoln, did not sign documents with that name, preferring to use A. Lincoln, presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton did sign bills and other documents with those names, rather than as James Earl Carter, Jr. or William Jefferson Clinton. In fact, many current and recent political figures and a majority of sports figures are known to the public as "Bob", "Dick", "Dave" or "Tommy" and would be virtually unrecognizable if referenced by their full names.
Since Wikipedia articles should be written and titled in such a manner that all users, and not solely specialists in the subject, are privy to the information contained therein, your insistence on retaining Thomas Joseph Kelly as this article's main title header, but keeping the reasons to yourself, runs counter to such a purpose. At the very least, you could have added an explanatory sentence to the article, stating something to the effect of, "although inducted into the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame as 'Tommy Kelly' and referenced in the press as 'Tommy' or 'T. J.', he was proud that his Purple Heart citations indicated his name in full, and preferred to sign himself as 'Thomas Joseph Kelly'". While still not fully acceptable (Johnny Carson would remain as "Johnny" in his article's header, even if he did sign his checks as "John William Carson"), some explanation would at least exist.
Finally, not all moves of article titles are controversial and thus do not require the WikiProject procedure that you insist upon. Since you objected to this move, however, any further steps in that direction, would, indeed, need to be discussed both on the article's talk page and within the WikiProject's talk page. This brings up a related point. As a veteran editor, you must know that Talk:Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer) should not have been redirected to Thomas Joseph Kelly, but to Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly, As a result of your move on January 5, Thomas Joseph Kelly has been bereft of a talk page since that date, with the resulting lack of a place to indicate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tags or discuss the suitability of the title. Also, you must know that If you are unable to revert a move because of an immovable redirect, you should not perform a revision-history-obliterating cut-and-paste move as you did with Thomas Joseph Kelly, but use RfD or discuss the matter with an administrator, explaining why you feel that Thomas Joseph Kelly is a more appropriate name than Tommy Kelly (racehorse trainer) and request the deletion of the redirect so that the article may be properly moved.—Roman Spinner (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
RE: Thomas Joseph Kelly - I always give way to editors of those articles managed by a defined Wikipedia Project especially for individuals who have a clear and demonstrated high input and expertise on the subject. Thomas Joseph Kelly is one of the most common full names in the English language, thanks to horny Irishmen and the Holy Roman Church. There are five Thoroughbred racehorse trainers with that exact name and until I determine which ones warrant a Wikipedia article and figure out how to label them, then allow me and the Project to do what we know for one in the Hall of Fame pending resolution. Organizing disambig pages is so far down on the order of importance at Wikipedia, that such consideration is quite properly warranted. Second, though, is that of the thousands (yes thousands) of trainer names I have inserted in Wikipedia with an appendage, none where their article has been done are labeled with the very broad term, "racehorse trainer." [1] [2] (For now, mine is actually worse) You move the page, and it cant be reversed by any of the current knowledgable Project members. So, why would you arbitarily decide to compel me (us) to adhere to your title? If your level of concern is so great, then why not show the Project consideration with a question on the Projects talk page. And no, I did not create the British ones with that poor title but, as I practise what I preach, leave it alone pending resolution by the Project. Thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI - I think your assertion that "In fact, many current and recent political figures and a majority of sports figures are known to the public as "Bob", "Dick", "Dave" or "Tommy" and would be virtually unrecognizable if referenced by their full names." is, but not always, an incorrect opinion unless you believe Wikipedia's shelf life is short. History shows that wildly popular and regulary used nick names disappear within a generation or two. And, there are clear situations where fans and newspapers etc. call someone by a nickname when the person themselves do not. An example, is the article created as "Bobby Frankel" that I moved to Robert J. Frankel. Why? Well, I put the reason in his article with a reference to his own words. Conversely, I changed Shoemaker's article to Bill Shoemaker as he authored his memoirs under "Bill." Question, should we change the Wikipedia article to Teddy Roosevelt because he was most known as that name during his time. Today, one rarely here's him called Teddy although FDR gets used inside paragraphs and, almost always as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, never Franklin Roosevelt, but Wikipedia is currently using Franklin D., something rarely ever used by anyone at anytime. So, is it not a matter of using a disambiguation page to a proper name in certain cases, rather than a widely used public nickname that no one will ever know within a few years. Was not William Shakespeare known best by the "public" in his day by a nickname? It’s all a matter of time. Handicapper (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your well-reasoned explanation which, as far as I am concerned, puts the matter to rest. Had I taken the time to glance at Category:American horse trainers or Category:American racehorse owners and breeders, I would realized that few of those articles contain qualifiers and none have "(racehorse trainer)", thus leading me to follow the already-existing examples of John Dickerson (trainer) or, alternately, Chad Brown (horse trainer) since, in his case, one or more other editors insist that he was not known to the public as Chad C. Brown, or did not normally use his middle initial. [Among those racehorse owner and breeders who have other business interests, Jess Jackson (wine) seems to have a particularly awkward qualifier. Your "(viticulturist)" is much preferable. Perhaps "(wine entrepreneur)" might be an acceptable compromise]. With that said, I should like, with your concurrence, to recreate the Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly discussion page and add to it the BLP (listas=Kelly, Thomas Joseph; living=yes) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing tags along with our above-contained exchange on the subject in the unlikely, but possible, scenario of another user/editor having similar concerns. If you would prefer to add the tags yourself or if you would rather not have this exchange replicated on the Talk:Thomas Joseph Kelly discussion page, please let me know and I will leave it to your best judgment.

As to your second post, regarding nicknames, it is a subject I have been writing about for years and participated, last June and July, in a lengthy discussion on Talk:James Stewart and Talk:James Stewart (actor) regarding the use of the affectionate nickname, Jimmy Stewart, now the prime target of the Jimmy Stewart (disambiguation) page, versus the actor's own preferred form, James Stewart, which is now rendered as James Stewart (actor) on the James Stewart disambiguation page, which has no prime target. For "serious" personalities, which usually meant political figures, widely-known affectionate short forms, such as Ben Franklin, Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt were not used in newspaper stories and were generally confined to editorialists, columnists and humorists, Mark Twain, in particular. Jimmy Carter made minor history by becoming the first president who actually instituted his nickname as an official presidential name, although he still took the oath of office under his legal name, James Earl Carter, Jr., with Bill Clinton following the same route regarding his own name. I, too, would have preferred Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt [the only well-known venue which comes to mind for that form is the centrally located Parisian rapid transit station, Franklin D. Roosevelt (Paris Métro)], however, to assure uniformity among articles which numerous editors may have wished to call Dwight David Eisenhower, Lyndon Baines Johnson or George Herbert Walker Bush, some form of consensus developed around the use of middle initials, even in the case of FDR, where the full name would have been more appropriate [there is still inconsistency, with the article on Richard Milhous Nixon entitled Richard Nixon]. Finally, your mention of Bill Shoemaker, who appeared in newspaper stories referenced primarily as Willie Shoemaker, is an excellent example of someone who indicated his own preference through an autobiography. I faced a similar choice in titling my article about Bill Lawrence (news personality) who, in his twenty years as a New York Times reporter, was always bylined as "William Lawrence" or "W. H. Lawrence" but, upon moving to ABC News, became officially known by his long-standing nickname, "Bill", and wrote his memoirs as "Bill Lawrence". There are obviously many additional examples, but sufficient for the day...—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Renaming disambiguation qualifiers[edit]

Please stop renaming "just for consistency" because it still isn't consistent. Just because you've found some Australian footballers with (Australian rules footballer) as their disambiguation qualifier, doesn't mean they all should be. I prefer (Australian footballer) as the official name is Australian football, but Australian rules football is a common and less ambiguous name. Are you going to change all (singers) to (jazz singer) or (pop singer) and all (politicians) to their (country/state politician)? Of the 895 pages in Category:Players of Australian rules football with disambiguation qualifiers, 500 have (footballer), 230 have (Australian rules footballer) and 116 have (Australian footballer). I think that unless (footballer) is ambiguous with a soccer/rugby/american football player, then it's fine. I can't see any other John Kennedy, Jr. who are footballers, so why bother?The-Pope (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to communicate with me regarding this matter. I can allay your concern by assuring you that, as far as this move is concerned, I never had any further intention of changing hundreds or even a couple of qualifiers for footballers, singers, politicians or any other profession for the sake of consistency or for any other sake. Rather than presenting examples in my move/edit summary of other entries which use the parenthetical qualifier "(Australian rules footballer)", I should have noted that the move of John Kennedy, Jr. (footballer) to John Kennedy, Jr. (Australian rules footballer) merely served to elucidate the subject from John Kennedy (English footballer) and John Kennedy (Scottish footballer) who appear next to him on the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page. The other edits associated with this move merely served to adjust incoming links. While, as you point out, there is no other John Kennedy, Jr. who is a footballer, the reason to bother is that all four John Kennedys (the fourth being John Kennedy, Sr.) who were/are footballers, appear under subheader "Sports competitors" on the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page, thus highlighting the uneven nature of their qualifiers. Since the son of the 35th president of the United States is entered as John F. Kennedy, Jr., and not merely as "John Kennedy, Jr.", John Kennedy, Jr. (Australian rules footballer) is, theoretically, able to stand alone and has no need of any qualifier, but, since most Wikipedia users were apparently judged unlikely to enter the middle initial "F.", while the John Kennedy, Jr. might-have-been-disambiguation page, exists solely as a redirect to the John Kennedy (disambiguation) page, the use of the qualifier was effectuated. An overlong explanation, but one which can serve as a referral point for future discussions.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the db-move template[edit]

Hi there. I've just done the delete/move that you requested on La Notte. For future reference, if you use {{db-move|page to move to|reason}}, then that template provides a link for the admin. They just need to click on the link and tick delete, and the deletion and move is all completed. Just makes it a bit easier. GedUK  07:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Placement of Missing Birth/Death Information Category Tags[edit]

Back in April 2007 there was a CfD for Date and Place of Birth and Death that resulted in the tags' being placed on the Talk page. I only learned about that decision 2½ years later and have railed against it, privately, ever since.

Where is the CfD that put the categories back on the article page, where the information is generated and where all the other Birth and Death information category tags are placed? JimCubb (talk) 01:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me regarding the placement of these maintenance categories and would also like to take this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies for having neglected to initiate communication in response to your earlier postings. I had been using Wikipedia since its first year, 2001, but did not become a contributor until January 2006, seven months after the initial two of these maintenance categories, Year of birth missing and Year of death missing, were created in June 2005. An additional eleven related categories came into being between March and November 2006, while the last three, Year of birth missing (living people), Place of birth missing (living people) and Date of birth missing (living people), appeared in May 2007. I created two of the latter, "Year (living people)" and "Place (living people)" and described some of the reasoning behind the creation in my May 2, 2007 comment at the newly-instituted Category talk:Year of birth missing (living people)#Category history. A maximum of only four of these categories can be logically appended to any single biographical entry — 1. Year or date (but not both) of birth, 2. Year or date (but not both) of death, 3. Place of birth and 4. Place of death, while most entries use none of them or only one, possibly two.
All of the foregoing notwithstanding, a few editors continued to submit these categories for deletion, positing that their presence created clutter amidst article categories. The deletion and subsequent restoration of some of these categories (one of them, "Cause of death missing", was deleted in March 2007 and never restored), prompted the April 2007 CfD you mention, proposing that only the three "defining" categories — Year of birth missing, Year of birth missing (living people) and Year of death missing were eligible to remain among article categories, while the remaining twelve should be repurposed to the discussion page, where they would be out of sight and, unfortunately, out of mind. As has already been pointed out, had the "hidden category" option existed back then, it would have obviated the need for such actions.
Three years after that April 2007 CfD, an April-June 2010 CfD came to the conclusion that the 2007 arguments for retaining the twelve categories on the discussion pages of biographical entries had become outmoded/outdated and presented no objections to the restoration of all entries in Category:Articles missing birth or death information to article pages. An associated deletion discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June 9#Category:Date_of_birth_unknown, with relation to Date of birth unknown and Date of death unknown.—Roman Spinner (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. What no one seems to have noted in the discussions about the placement of these category tags is that the data which trigger the tag are only on the article space unless there is a dispute. This ties in with you regret that putting the tags on the talk page puts them out of mind. When a tag is on a different page that its triggering datum the tag is begging to be poorly maintained.
I have little to no sympathy for those who complain that there are too many of these categories. No more than four of them will be on any page. There should always be three category tags for living people and four tags for dead people. There will never be more than that. Compare that to the "People from " tags on mediocre sports figures, who play in one place for a couple of years, another place for a couple of years, a third place for a couple of years and so on. There some articles where the list of "People from " tags is longer than the article.
Thank you again for you reply. If I ever get back to Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and find one of these tags on the talk page I will move it to the article space and feel good about it. JimCubb (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sergeant Hathaway[edit]

Noting your speedy deletion request on Sergeant Hathaway, I've gone ahead and just plain deleted the title as G7, and so with the title clear, you are now free to place whatever you would like at that title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

Redirect deleted, move when ready. CIreland (talk) 10:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Colour My World[edit]

Although Chicago is an American band, the official spelling of the song is "Colour" according to the band's official website, and the actual albums in which the song appears. We obviously go by what the song is actually called in this case. freshacconci talktalk 07:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Stahl[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article John Stahl has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not assert notability and is an unreferenced biography of a living person (WP:BLP).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kubanczyk (talk) 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of John Stahl[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on John Stahl, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

After viewing Google's cached version of the John Stahl stub, I certainly agree with the decision to have it speedily deleted. However, since I never edited John Stahl, the above notices on my talk page regarding that deletion must have occurred as a result of some type of confusion or error.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Paul Young[edit]

Hi, now that Paul Young is a disambig, could you help fix the links that now need to be pointed to the correct article? This tool makes the job much easier. Thanks, --JaGatalk 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder and will continue attending to the Paul Young links until all of them are properly adjusted.—Roman Spinner (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Circle of Love[edit]

Generally, when there are only two subjects with the same title, we use hatnotes, not disambiguation pages, to direct readers to their desired article. Now that you've done it anyway, could you at least go and change all the wikilinks that used to direct to the album that now direct to the dab page? You created quite a few redirects. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me and I will gladly allay your concerns as well as elucidate my reasoning on this matter. I support the use of hatnotes and frequently apply them to articles. However, when confronted with Circle of Love and Circle of Love (film), one is forced to conclude that the two-sentence stub comprising Circle of Love is the primary topic, while the parenthetically-qualified stub about Circle of Love (film) is of secondary importance. Two years ago another editor questioned my addition of the parenthetical qualifier "(writer)" to Geraldine Brooks and my subsequent creation of the Geraldine Brooks disambiguation page containing Geraldine Brooks (actress) in addition to Geraldine Brooks (writer). Although articles rather than stubs were at the forefront on that occasion, I explained my actions (User talk:Roman Spinner#Geraldine Brooks) presumably to the satisfaction of those who were interested. WP:TWODABS provides an instruction specific for the question you have raised regarding a two-topic disambiguation page: "...if an ambiguous term is considered to have no primary topic, then that term should lead to a disambiguation page". Finally, thank you for the reminder about the "quite a few redirects" to the dab page, to which I'll attend today. There are six, according to my count: 1981 in music, Steve Miller (musician), Abracadabra (Steve Miller Band album), Greatest Hits 1974–78, 2011 in hard rock and Steve Miller Band discography. Heart Like a Wheel (disambiguation) should probably count as a seventh. If you find any others or have additional concerns, I will welcome further discussion.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say I disagree somewhat with the hatnote / dab page quandary, despite the information at WP:TWODABS - I suspect that sentence is mainly concerning terms with more than two articles. A hatnote at the Circle of Love album article would have provided the same effect as the dab page, with the bonus that half the people would have found what they were looking for immediately; the other half would have had to make the extra click to the film article. With the dab page, everyone has to make one extra click and nobody finds what they want immediately. It doesn't matter that there's no obvious primary topic - just have one of the two articles (it really doesn't matter which) with the straight Circle of Love title and put a hatnote on it leading to the other one. It's a lot less work, with a perfect result for everyone looking for one article, and no extra effort required for anyone looking for the other article.
There are still a few redirects to be fixed: Steve Miller (musician), Greatest Hits 1974–78, Heart Like a Wheel (disambiguation) and 2011 in hard rock. There don't seem to be any others. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick Note[edit]

Thanks for contributing to Gates of Paris. Your additions are welcomed. BlindMic (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

My appreciation, likewise, for your thoughtfulness in writing the kind note above. It is a rare and very welcome gesture. While we are on the subject of the Gates of Paris disambiguation page, I would like to add a general suggestion, if I may, regarding the format of disambiguation pages. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Individual entries (MOS:DABENTRY) specifies the following details relevant to our subject:
  • Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments, with no final punctuation (commas, full stops, semicolons, etc.).

  • Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line. For example:


but not

  • The link should not be emphasized with bolding or italics, although titles (such as for books and movies) may need to be italicized to conform with the style guidance on titles. If the article's title contains both a title and a clarifier, use a piped link to quote or italicize only the part requiring such treatment, as opposed to the entire link (as in [Gates of Paris (film)|Gates of Paris (film)], which presents the film title in italics, without changing it), but cannot be used in [City gates of Paris|The city gates of Paris], since the main title header is City gates of Paris, not The city gates of Paris, and therefore the piped link hides the actual title and presents a (slightly) different title in its place.
  • The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. The thinking behind keeping description to a minimum is: it is only for helping the reader find the right link; being on an obscure page, it will not be used for reference, and will not be well maintained. (I have measured my descriptions to a single line of text on 16X9 screen at 75% Times Roman font. Descriptions formatted on smaller screens and/or those using larger fonts will, consequently, expand to a second or even a third line. To keep descriptions to a minimum, certain conventions may be adopted, including date contraction [1998–99, instead of 1998–1999] and since, as indicated, these are sentence fragments, avoidance of all articles ("a", "an" and "the") [in keeping with the French subject of this disambiguation page, it can be noted that unlike French linguistic specifications, those in English indicate use of definite and indefinite articles only when the text demonstrates the need for it (book/film titles such as "The Bridge over/on the River Kwai")].
Since you restored the definite articles "the" as well as multiple links and punctuation (indicating end of sentence) to the Gates of Paris disambiguation page, I realized that you may not be aware of these portions of the WP:Manual of Style and decided to bring them to your attention. Please feel free to contact me at any time and, once again, thank you for the note.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Cache is the correct title for the article, not Hidden[edit]

Perhaps you are unaware that we are to use the most common title. Any English language title doesn't trump the more common title. Cache is more common than Hidden and this has been discussed before. Thanks for correcting yourself. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

John Waters (British Army officer)[edit]

Hi. I notice that you have moved John Waters (British Army officer) to John Waters (British general). Under WP:MOVE discussion should really take place on the relevant talk page before page moves are initiated. Indeed the page move should not take place until there is agreement. In this case I don't see how the change helps distinguish from an American officer - the article title includes "British" before and after the move. The vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer) - the use of (British general) is most unusual. Please can I respectfully suggest that we move the article back? Dormskirk (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I welcome your kind comment and appreciate the fact that as the creator of the John Waters (British Army officer) article, you contacted me before initiating further steps. First, as to the move itself, having performed numerous moves, I have noted that over 90 percent of those are non-controversial "housekeeping" adjustments which do not require discussion or consensus. If a discussion questioning the appropriateness of a disambiguating qualifier already exists on the subject's discussion page, then, of course, any projected move should solicit consensus before being initiated. In the same vein, a tendentious move such as James Jones (politician)James Jones (convicted criminal), even if true, should not proceed. In the present case, however, the talk page contains no discussion and the qualifier "(general)" is analogous to such numerous other instances of use as Samuel Breck (general), John Cochrane (general), Joseph Conrad (general), James B. Davis (general), Thomas Duncan (general), James Ferguson (general), John Garland (general), Michael Hayden (general), John McAuley Palmer (general) or William Wells (general). In the rare instance of two same-named generals, more-specific qualifiers such as James Jones (American general) and James Jones (Australian general) may be used or, in another rare occurrence of both generals having the same nationality, James Jones (Australian Air Force general) and James Jones (Australian Army general) could be considered or, simply, James Jones (Air Force general) and James Jones (Army general).
In this instance, if there were no other generals named John Waters, then John Waters (general), would have sufficed, since all the entries are, in the end, sorted out at the John Waters disambiguation page. However, since an American general also bearing that name is likewise listed on the disambiguation page, the additional indication of national identification seemed appropriate even if due to the American general's use of his middle initial, he requires no parenthetical qualifier. Perhaps you may prefer that this article be moved to John Waters (Commander-in-Chief of the British Army) or John Waters (British Army Commander-in-Chief), each of which contains a few letters more than John Waters (British Army officer), but is more-appropriate to his rank, since describing an Army leader as "officer" may be comparable to using such qualifiers as "(politician)", "(legislator)" or "(MP)" for an individual who also served as "(president)" or "(prime minister)". Moreover, a number of those who are disambiguated as "(British Army officer)", such as Thomas Evans (British Army officer) or John Graham (British Army officer) never rose to the rank of general. However, if you still feel that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)", this entry should also remain as such, I will list the article in WP:RM and, within a seven-day period, barring lack of consensus, the main title header would be eligible to revert to its original form. Please let me know if such a resolution would be acceptable to you.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the care with which you have answered my point and the sincerity of your argument. Nevertheless I still believe that since "the vast majority of British Officers have the distinguisher (British Army officer)" and therefore this entry should also remain as it was. I am content therefore for you to list the article in WP:RM. Thanks again. Dormskirk (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Roman Spinner! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only. 
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles S. Johnson, 1990 Colorado University football, different from Charles Everett Johnson[edit]

Good evening.

Colorado Buffaloes football, in 1990, had two different players named Charles Johnson. One of them, Charles Everett Johnson, was a starting wide receiver who later played for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the NFL. Charles Everett Johnson has had a wikipedia page for a long time, although the name of the page has occasionally been changed.

The other Charles Johnson, Charles S. Johnson, was the backup quarterback on the 1990 team. He never played in the NFL, but he was a pivotal figure on the CU team in the "disputed national championship" season of 1990. He was the quarterback who took the snap on fifth down in the infamous 1990 game at Missouri, the down on which the winning touchdown was falsely recorded. He was also named the Most Valuable Player of the very last CU game of the 1990 season, namely the 1991 Orange Bowl. In both cases, Charles S. Johnson was the quarterback because the starting quarterback, Darian Hagan, was injured.

In 2006, I noticed that links on the Fifth Down page and the Orange Bowl page were referring to Charles Everett Johnson's page when they should have referred to Charles S. Johnson instead. However, at that time Charles S. Johnson did not have a wikipedia page. So I wrote one. I also placed explanatory material on the pages of both players, pointing out that CU had two players in 1990 who should not be conflated, although both were named Charles Johnson. (This material still exists on Charles Everett Johnson's page, by the way.) I also made sure that this distinction was absolutely clear on the Charles Johnson disambiguation page.

Just today, I noticed that my work from 2006 had been undone -- there is no longer a page for Charles S. Johnson, and a note on the Charles Everett Johnson "talk" page indicates that you (in 2008) changed the Charles S. Johnson links to point to the Charles Everett Johnson page. And I have also noticed that the disambiguation page no longer mentions Charles S. Johnson.

I would like to re-do the Charles S. Johnson page now. However, I am wondering how in the world I can protect it from future deletion.

Since you appear to be a savvy wikipedian, let me ask you -- how can I proceed here and prevent future mishaps like what has already occurred? What more can I do to prevent erroneous deletions and erroneous link revisions?

Even if Charles S. Johnson is "non-notable" (a sentiment with which I do not agree) it is certainly wrong to attribute his accomplishments to Charles Everett Johnson.

Sincerely, Paul Haynes Paul (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with your frustration over the confusion and subsequent deletion regarding the entry in question. If you would open the entry for the sociologist Charles S. Johnson and click on Charles S. Johnson (football), the redlinked title in the hatnote (or click it from this redlink), you will see that on 12 November 2008 Roman Spinner (talk | contribs) moved Charles S. Johnson (football) to Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) ‎ (all references are to "Charles Johnson", not "Charles S. Johnson"; entire career spent at University of Colorado also involved other sports and basketball commentary). Clicking Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) will show that on 2 September 2009 Levineps (talk | contribs) moved Charles Johnson (University of Colorado) to Charles Johnson (Quarterback) and on 17 October 2010 Explicit (talk | contribs) deleted "Charles Johnson (University of Colorado)" ‎ (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page). Clicking the redlink for Charles Johnson (Quarterback) will show its move to Charles Johnson (quarterback) and clicking on the redlink for Charles Johnson (quarterback) will show that it was moved to Charles Johnson (American football, born 1969) due to naming conventions. Clicking on the redlink for Charles Johnson (American football, born 1969) will show that it was changed back to Charles Johnson (quarterback).
Ultimately Charles Johnson (quarterback) was deleted over notability concerns, but this main title header seems the most logical and, moreover, it is analogous to Charles Johnson (wide receiver). If you wish to recreate the Charles Johnson (quarterback) page, I suggest using the Charles Johnson (wide receiver) page as your guideline, including adding the appropriately revised infobox and categories as well as a couple of links to statistics website(s). I hope that helps and if you have any further comments or questions, I will welcome any and all communications.—Roman Spinner (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


Just a quick note - your edit summary (though it is over two years ago) gives the change to Dodes'ka-den as "while Dodesukaden is a transliteration of the Japanese title"

Transliteration means "translated literally" - The film's title was first Dodesukaden, the UK and USA title may well have been Dodes'ka-den, but the English transliteration was Clickety-clack. There is also an issue that the DVD and Bluray boxes I have seen seem to have it as Dodes'kaden (corrected 10 March). Chaosdruid (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me regarding transliteration, a subject which, as you've probably noticed, in addition to having its own article (Transliteration) is frequently discussed on the talk pages of Wikipedia articles and occasionally becomes heatedly contentious. In the years you've edited Wikipedia, you would have seen them in such venues as, for instance, Wikipedia talk:Romanization and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), while you must have reviewed the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Foreign names and anglicization and, for our purposes, at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles#Determining common usage.
Since, in transliterating, the attempt is to transform letters of the alphabet, or words, into corresponding characters in the Latin alphabet and, more specifically, characters corresponding to their usage in the English-speaking world, transliteration cannot be exact and thus Dodesukaden, Dodes'kaden, Dodes'ka-den are all sufficiently close in pronunciation as to be considered correctly transliterated. However, since all English-language film guides as well as the definitive Criterion DVD edition have apparently settled on Dodes'ka-den, I moved, in January 2010, as you pointed out, the then-main title header Dodesukaden to the one in most general usage, Dodes'ka-den. Translation of the Japanese-language title into the English language was not yet part of the article in January 2010, but there was, and still is, within the article, an explanation which indicates that the title represents a sound so, perhaps, that was deemed to be sufficient. I am ready to discuss the matter further should you so wish.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I am interested in how transliteration works though. While I appreciate there is a general misuse of the word, transliteration seems almost impossible to me in non-European based languages. It does seem a little bizarre that some of the Japanese film titles would end up so far from their translated meaning - For example Ran:
It appears that the transliteration is Ran, which may have had a remarkable effect on Google's translation engine. You may be aware that Google uses a method of translation which relies upon other peoples translations. For example, if there are 100 translations of "Shfoomalppy" -> "Weird" (90) "Strange" (10); Google translations will use "Weird". Ran seems to be affecting translation engines, some of which give "Ran" as the translation of the Japanese "Ran" (乱).
I have found a large range of translations, meaning that it is somewhere in the region of: n. uprising, rebellion, war or revolt; v. be disturbed, be disordered or be confused. Unfortunately it would seem that Japanese translation engines are not very reliable at agreeing presently (unless you know of an authorative one?). Chaosdruid (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the orthography of, for instance, such inscrutable-seeming word/letter representations as those used in Chinese, Arabic, Persian or Hebrew, but it would seem logical that any language would try to match the sound of a spoken syllable and attempt to recreate it, to the best of its capability, in its own native script. General interest publications occasionally take up the subject, usually during high-profile travels by world leaders ("To the Chinese media, is Obama "aobama" or "oubama"?" {with 21 comments} or a slightly different version of this article at LiVEJOURNAL with 19 other comments).
I agree that Ran has the potential of causing somewhat greater confusion than other well-known Eastern film titles such as Pather Panchali, Aparajito or Ju Dou, since "ran" is a very common English word and the Japanese title is apparently meant to be pronounced "RAHN", rather than "REHN", but this short, snappy title is the only one by which this film is known in the English-speaking world and, according to the 21 interwiki links appended to the Ran article, this title remains unchanged throughout the world, although it is most likely referenced by some variation, such as Kurosawa's Ran. As to the precise English-language translation of Ran, there probably is no single word which will satisfy those who understand its Japanese use and insist that, as in the manner of other foreign terms, such as Weltschmerz, the meaning should be contained in a phrase. There is, again, more to the subject, but any additional comments may be left for future postings.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bushra Ansari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amanat Ali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The link to Amanat Ali had existed prior to my edit, but while making revisions, I accidentally deleted the disambiguating qualifier {Amanat Ali (singer)}, which I have now restored.—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


Please see WP:USPLACE, which states that only US cities on the AP list that are their primary topics can go without the state name. Ishpeming is not on that list, so it needs to be moved back. Imzadi 1979  04:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I just wanted to clarify why some of your moves on these US cities are being reverted: WP:USPLACE has historically been heavily debated as to which cities get the state modifier, and which do not. For example, there is a whole page of archived discussions here dating back to 2006. And the last time it was heavily debated was an RFC archived here. The so-called "AP Stylebook" rule is the current compromise. Since the AP Stylebook says that Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Detroit, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Seattle do not need the state modifier, those respective Wikipedia article names do not have it either. On the other hand, Ishpeming, Carson City and Fort Worth are not on the AP Stylebook's list, so those articles normally have the state in their titles.
And yes, the subject of moving some of those article like Carson City and Fort Worth over their redirects, to fully comply with the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, was discussed in that last debate but there apparently was no consensus to do so.
And also yes, IMO it is not the best compromise, but there is segment of American Wikipedians who would rather have all articles on US settlements have the "city, state" convention, like what the US Post Office and some other federal government agencies normally use. And so it was decided to follow a reliable source like the AP Stylebook instead. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I welcome your kind postings regarding the proper use of guidelines at WP:USPLACE and, of course, barring any revision in the consensus which has remained unchanged for at least half of Wikipedia's current lifespan, the plurality/majority view (and the stylebook) must be respected. Had I considered the changes before making them or solicited views on the subject, the matter could have been avoided. If/when any future discussions on this topic are instigated, I will participate but, for the present, since the three place name changes have been undone with little fuss, at least my misstep is corrected. Once again, my appreciation for your well-presented and detailed explanation.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Au revoir les enfants[edit]

Hello Roman. I declined your proposed speedy of the redirect, since the current title was reached due to a move discussion in December 2010, at Talk:Au revoir les enfants#Requested move: Au revoir les enfants (no comma). I was the closing admin for that discussion. If you believe that the capitalized version is better, you should open a new move discussion. It is clear that the film is promoted using lower case in French. The question is how to do it in English, and the guidance of our own manual of style should be preferred. Our manual covers the topic at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (France & French-related)#Works of art. It recommends there that we should follow the capitalization rules of the French Wikipedia. The relevant parts are:

  • "If it is more well known by its title in French, then French should be maintained (with redirects from the English title)."
  • "if the title is a sentence, only the first letter and proper nouns are capitalized (e.g. fr:La vie est un long fleuve tranquille)"

According to our style page, we should follow the lead of the French Wikipedia's rules even when they disagree with how the film is marketed in English.

  • "Titles which adhere to these rules may however differ from the actual form of capitalization adopted by the author, the cover's graphic artist, or the publishing house."

If you still believe that the film should be in upper case, consider opening a new move discussion at Talk:Au revoir les enfants. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I thank you, Ed and welcome your most helpful and detailed explanation. I understood the December submission to be limited to the deletion of the comma in the title and not intended to expand into de-capitalization of its verb and noun. Inasmuch as it did so expand, I feel that a revived discussion would, indeed, be in order so that users may re-articulate, express more fully and clarify the arguments raised in the previous discussion on the wider implications of this topic at Talk:La Strada#Upper or lower case. Suffice it to say that since films are, indisputably, works of art, one may ask to what degree is it fair, if at all, to request that films receive an orthographic derogation from other works of art or that the orthography of French film titles be derogated from the naming strictures generally applied to original titles imported from Spanish, Italian or other national cinemas. All of these matters were examined at length in the La Strada discussion and, doubtless, will be discussed at length again. I would gladly receive such a discussion and appreciate your suggestion that it be initiated—Roman Spinner (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Catherine Brown (disambiguation)[edit]

Hello, Roman Spinner. First I'd like to thank you for all the hard work you do on WP, especially the area I mainly work in, dabs. However, over the years I'd changed much of your work and seen much of it tagged for clean-up, and I should have messaged you earlier to let you know why, in case you weren't watching the pages. MOS:D#Individual entries states that: The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. You spend a lot of time adding detailed bios to go with the entry, but nearly all of these get deleted over time, because they make it hard to see the woods for the trees, and it takes ages to find the right entry. Again, thanks for your hard work. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

It was most considerate of you, Boleyn, to devote the time for composing such a thoughtful communication regarding my most recent disambiguation effort and I thank you for it. A small number of editors have contacted me over the years to comment on this subject and I always gladly welcome such feedback. In fact, I mentioned to User:Jwy when he posted in January 2008, above, at User talk:Roman Spinner#Disambiguation page descriptions, that I feel we would not devote so much time (nearly every day since January 22, 2006, in my case) and intellectual, as well as physical, energy to this great project if we did not deeply feel the desire to advance the pursuit of knowledge. In light of your own years of dedication to the project, I regret any difficulties which may have been encountered in reading and/or navigating through my disambiguation listings. I am well aware of the guideline referencing the brevity of each entry, and I measure them, one by one, so that none would exceed a single line of text as it is seen in Times New Roman (no relation) typeface on a 16x9 screen. I realize many other screens employ various ranges of sizing and formatting, but such unavoidable discrepancies would, of course, be evident in the context of all entries under any circumstances. In view of the increased number of names within the Catherine Brown page, perhaps those entries should have been categorized under specific section headers, an arrangement which, while losing the overall chronological order, has the advantage of clarifying the relationship of each entry to another similar one. I will therefore resort them now under headers and if you then feel that the first arrangement represented a more cogent approach towards researching the desired entry, then the second version can always be reverted to the first or to any other, along with, of course, a reinsertion of the {cleanup} template. Thank you, once again, for your kind sentiments.—Roman Spinner (talk) 08:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

John Nielsen[edit]

Hi Roman Spinner. Thanks for moving John Nielsen to John Nielsen (racing driver) and converting John Nielsen to a disambiguation page. This is just a friendy reminder/request to remember to update the incoming links when performing similar moves/conversions in the future. I and a couple of other editors have fixed the links for John Nielsen. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

You and the other Project members were very kind to have attended to the John Nielsen links. After having completed the three racing templates and one list, I was distracted with other tasks and neglected to return in due time to work on the remainder of the links, of which there was still a considerable number. I thank you and the others for taking the time to finish the job.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. DH85868993 (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

James Carnegie (Member of Parliament of Scotland)[edit]

Just letting you know I've requested that your move of 18 June be reverted, but that's only because I can't think of any better suggestions for the article title. Your contributions would be welcome at Talk:James Carnegie (Member of Parliament of Scotland)#Requested move. Opera hat (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

William Jackson (presidential secretary)[edit]

You moved the article William Jackson (secretary to William Jackson (presidential secretary). However, Jackson is almost certainly more notable for his role as secretary to the United States Constitutional Convention than he is for his job as a presidential secretary. The original page name indicated both positions. I wish you had raised the question on the talk page before moving it. Since your move cannot be undone, I've had to submit a move request on the article's talk page. Fishal (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lefke[edit]

Hello Roman Spinner, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lefke, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Judging from the page history, it looks like deletion might be controversial. Please use a requested move. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I did not offer a sufficiently detailed explanation of my request----the deletion of the redirect Lefke was not meant as a deletion of Lefke itself, but only as a means of moving Lefke (disambugation) [the user who created this page obviously meant "disambiguation"] to Lefke, thus enabling Lefke to continue as a main title header without the unnecessary parenthetical qualifier, "(disambugation)".—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect templates[edit]

I have noticed that you create and edit many redirects. I have three comments about your use of redirect templates:

Gorobay (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Your dedicated labor in establishing order amidst misapplied and misnamed redirect templates is much appreciated and I thank you for providing specificity in the case of templates indicated above.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You’re welcome. Gorobay (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Peggy Stewart[edit]

I'm worried by your move of the article on the cargo vessel Peggy Stewart to The Peggy Stewart, and all the many associated changes. While superficially an attractive idea, this is not the way Wikipedia normally treats such names— the preference being to omit "The" (e.g. Mayflower) but to add a post-nominal clarifier in parentheses where disambiguation is needed and no alternative indicator such as "USS" can be applied (e.g. Matthew (ship)). David Trochos (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gloria J. Romero[edit]

I only just saw you'd worked on the the Romero article and redirect page a year+ ago. I came upon the subject in the last month. I came to feel since she was a former legislator now who'd moved into different noteworthy activity that swapping the content to Gloria J. Romero from Gloria Romero (legislator) -- with the redirect going in the opposite direction -- was the better way to have it. I'd have drawn your attention to my proposal before doing the swap if I'd noticed your earlier involvement. You may wish now to take a look at it all. I hope my adjustments hold up, of course, but am open to alt. ideas. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your consideration in notifying me regarding your move of Gloria Romero (legislator) to Gloria J. Romero. The intention of my original move, In July 2011, was to restore the article's main title header to the original name form, "Gloria Romero", under which this article was created in April 2006. On April 24, 2008, a user moved the title to "Gloria J. Romero", and it remained as such, until I moved it back to "Gloria Romero". There was no explanation by the user in April 2008 as to the source for the middle initial "J.", but no references, including Gloria Romero's own campaign website, State Senate directory or linked newspaper and magazine articles list her as "Gloria J.". The sole reference, in fact, is the Ballotpedia entry, created in February 2009, which copied Wikipedia's main title header, the same header, as has been pointed out, that had been moved to "Gloria J.", a few months earlier, in April 2008. Some other post-2008 online sources simply copied Wikipedia's "Gloria J."-titled entry, but no primary sources, including the subject, herself, used "Gloria J.". I was forced to add the parenthetical qualifier "(legislator)", since the creation of a Gloria Romero disambiguation page in April 2008, precluded the use of the pre-April 2008 title of "Gloria Romero". The qualifier "(legislator)" seemed the most appropriate because subjects of Wikipedia biographical entries are primarily disambiguated by a qualifier which describes subject's greatest claim to notability. Clearly, becoming the first woman to hold the leadership position of Democratic majority leader of the California State Senate, was an extremely notable achievement and, with all due respect to her education reform activities, those cannot compete in terms of notability. However, if you would not object to a longer parenthetical qualifier, the article can again be moved to reflect the revised future main header, Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist). The article cannot remain as it is, in any event, since Wikipedia:Copy and paste move must be addressed in that it erases the article's "Revision history" and denies access to users in viewing past versions of the article. Please let me know if you would prefer the main title header to be Gloria Romero (legislator), Gloria Romero (legislator and education reformer) or Gloria Romero (legislator and academic).—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for all this and for tracking me down. (Glad I tracked you down, albeit after the fact.) The question has occurred to me why you didn't remove the "J." from the article; I think it should be in this light. I've just Googled and have to agree the evidence for the "J." is scant and non-direct. I don't partic. like the long qualifiers. Gloria Romero (former legislator), maybe? I think I could live with that. I don't think her more recent efforts rank with legislator, though notable. I don't know if there's any protocol for "formers". I could also live with a return to legislator, I guess, though it doesn't feel good, haven't encountered another like this. As to the cut-and-paste, I did consider it, in my way, and thought since both pages still exist and the "trail" between the two is clear, then no history has been erased.
A note at my talk and a little time may be necessary again but I'm not gone and would like to help work this out. I considered just reversing what I'd done and removing the "J." but that seemed precipitous without your thoughts. And I do like "former" better. I guess I like the long qualifiers better, too, "education reformer" or Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist) the best of those. Cheers and thanks again. Swliv (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply and willingness to arrive at alternatives. I normally don't change the longer names and middle initials within the articles themselves, unless those appear to be clearly incorrect. The lead sentence of a biographical entry usually lists the subject's entire birth name, as in the stub I moved a couple of days ago (from Mick McGuire (footballer) to Mick McGuire), which begins, "Michael James McGuire (born 4 September 1952 in Blackpool, Lancashire, England), is an English footballer who played as a midfielder in the Football League." Even though Mick McGuire is his best-known public and professional name, his birth name, Michael James McGuire, opens the bio entry. Of course, it would have been more appropriate if the Gloria Romero article began with "Gloria Jane Romero (born...", or "Gloria Josephine Romero (born..." or "Gloria Juanita Romero (born...", rather than with the less-clear "Gloria J. Romero (born...". However, in July 2011, as well as now, I have no reason to believe that the middle initial "J." is incorrect, even if it is not part of her public name in the same manner as some public officials and, in particular, certain presidents (John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon, George W. Bush) used their middle initials. In moving the article titles, I usually don't edit the articles themselves, unless I see something which is clearly incorrect. Thus, I will leave the "J." in the lead sentence, but if you think that it clashes with the no-"J." main title header, please feel free to remove the "J." from any and all instances that it appears within the article itself.
As for your mention of any protocol for "formers", I tend to rely on WP:Relative time references, WP:As of and WP:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language which discourages the use of such terms as "former", "current" or "recent". Senators, congressmen and other legislators from past centuries are long gone, but are still described with qualifiers "(senator)" or "(politician)". If a living legislator is disambiguated as "(former legislator)", would the same legislator, following his/her death, have the qualifier changed to simply "(legislator)", because he/she now belongs to the ages? Dispensing with such adjectives as "former" or "retired", while still describing the subject's circumstances within the article, itself, obviates the need to deal with details of that nature.
Regarding the copy-and-paste move, you are correct, of course, that nothing has been lost and the original history is still contained within the revision history of the Gloria Romero (legislator) redirect, but the date of the article's creation, the name of the user who created it and the number of revisions along with associated comments are no longer directly available and must be accessed through indirect means which may be beyond the immediate ability or comprehension of some users. Ultimately, as stated in Wikipedia:Copy and paste move, "[T]his is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)".
Finally, if you think that Gloria Romero (legislator and education activist) is, indeed, the best of the proposed qualifiers, then I will move it (along with the original revision history) to such title within 24 hours.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your thorough attention to my somewhat more offhand comments. Agreed on all fronts and glad you're going forward with the move. I linked to this exchange at the article talk page the other day, for completeness as I saw it. All best. Swliv (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.S.C. (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I had used B.S.C. on earlier occasions, but this time, neglected to indicate British Society of Cinematographers|B.S.C.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Hill dab page[edit]

   I intended to leave you a qualified endorsement of BOLDness on your part re Hugh Hill, but it turns out i think you've enuf experience here that the emphasis belongs on caution against reckless editing. I hope you'll study WP:Dab and WP:MoSDab ... and you might also be able to learn from the example of Boleyn's oeuvre.
--Jerzyt 23:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It was most considerate of you to take the time to contact me and I appreciate your original intention of the qualified endorsement. Reckless editing should, indeed, be discouraged and we can always learn from MOS and from examples of others. Boleyn was also kind enough to contact me somewhat earlier (User talk:Roman Spinner#Catherine Brown (disambiguation)) and I was likewise grateful to receive that input. It should be noted, however, that, as I indicated in my October 13 edit summary at Hugh Hill ("limiting entry to single blue link"), the red-linked entry below
had, at that point, in addition to the red link, two blue links. Also, in the same edit summary, although I pointed out and corrected ("hyphen→endash"), I see that Sir Hugh Hill, 1st Baronet has had his hyphen restored and, in addition, two of the remaining three entries now also contain hyphens in the vital dates.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
   Hmm, as an off-the-cuff and preliminary response, let me own up to never entering en-dashes and not always succeeding in preserving them. I do often notice longer-than-hyphen dashes, without knowing which they really are nor how to duplicate them except by cutting and pasting, so likely it was i who made that mess. I just skimmed wp:dash, i think for the first time, and i'll have a good look as well at it and the preceding (hyphen) section. Do you know off-hand why the bulky but IMO more editor-friendly &...; structures seem so little used?
   It sounds like i mis-attributed some of what you saved; i'll have another look at that page when i'm at least 12 hours fresher than now; perhaps i was hasty, even reckless [wink].
--Jerzyt 05:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Passions characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the reminder and have made the correction, with the edit summary stating: "adjusting link for Michael Woods, the actor playing Minor Passions characters#Dr. Ackland, so that it points directly to Michael Woods (actor), thus negating redirect to the Michael Woods disambiguation page"—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Jill Kelly[edit]

The disambiguation link for this article seems funny. Is there more than one Jill Kelly in porn? I suppose you want to disambiguate her from the person in the CIA mess?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
14:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I welcome your posting since it presents the opportunity to elucidate the reasoning behind my addition of the disambiguating qualifier "(pornographic actress)" to the "Jill Kelly" entry. As you pointed out, the instant massive publicity generated by the events surrounding the similarly-named Jill Kelley, may naturally indicate that some, possibly most, users would input "Jill Kelly", rather than "Jill Kelley", thus first encountering the entry delineating the pornographic actress as well as the hatnote, which should point them to the Jill Kelly (disambiguation) page where the link to the Jill Kelley article can be found under section header "See also". That is still the case now, as far as the contents of the disambiguation page are concerned, except for the fact that the page is no longer called Jill Kelly (disambiguation), but simply Jill Kelly, thus obviating the need to initially enter the pornographic actress' article. You are correct, of course, that for over nine years, from its creation on August 7, 2003 until the creation of the Jill Kelly (disambiguation) page on November 11, 2012, Jill Kelly was the sole Wikipedia entry bearing this name. However, in the aftermath of the creation of the disambiguation page, the parenthetical qualifier, "(pornographic actress)" has to be appended because the name, Jill Kelly, is now occupied by the disambiguation page. As we can easily determine, most disambiguation pages do not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and therefore do not require the use of the qualifier, "(disambiguation)". With all due respect to Jill Kelly's standing in the pornographic industry, her stature, such as it is, simply does not rise to the level of a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
The disambiguator should be "(actress)", since there are no other actresses with that name, hence no further disambiguation is necessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
You would be correct under ordinary circumstances, especially since this actress has done has some minor acting in non-pornographic films. However, her overriding claim to notability consists of, as her infobox points out, starring roles in adult films "534 as actress" and also "50 as director". Thus, per established practice, as can be confirmed by entries requiring disambiguation in Category:American female pornographic film actors, the parenthetical qualifier is enhanced to "(pornographic actress)" to distinguish the women, as well as the analogously-styled men from "standard" actors and actresses who are found in "standard" acting categories.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Man That Got Away, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The One That Got Away (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

These reminders are always appreciated, although in this case, the link was intended, having been deliberately added to highlight the analogous use of the initial cap in "That". When I submitted the then-redirect The Man That Got Away for deletion in order to enable the move of The Man that Got Away to The Man That Got Away, I cited as example the proper capitalization of "That" as it already exists within all the entries seen on The One That Got Away disambiguation page—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation page style - Less is generally better :-)[edit]

Hi there,

I thought you should know that I've cut down some of the text you added to the "That's My Boy" disambiguation page. While interesting, I felt that it was far more then necessary for a disambiguation page.

Disambiguation pages are not articles in their own right, but navigation aids intended to distinguish similarly-titled articles and subjects. Generally, they should only include the information necessary to clarify things this way, and no more. Anything beyond that is better placed in the article itself.

If you're unfamiliar with the style guidelines for disambiguation pages, you may find the "MOSDAB" article useful.

Hope this helps! All the best, Ubcule (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for devoting the time to compose your comment and for your longtime commitment to improving Wikipedia. Over the years, a few editors have left messages on my talk page regarding this matter and, rather than reword my answers to them, permit me to provide links to a couple of these communications:
—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"Eliza Allen Houston" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Eliza Allen Houston". Since you had some involvement with the "Eliza Allen Houston" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Senator2029let's talk” 10:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


When correcting disambiguation messes like the one you fixed at George Read (Canadian politician), you might want to cite WP:INCOMPDAB in your edit summary, as this policy succinctly explains why we don't have disambig pages with parentheticals in the titles (except, of course, for the word "disambiguation" as needed). Cheers! bd2412 T 02:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A most helpful suggestion and I thank you for it.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 11:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, please note that when you turn an existing link into a disambiguation redirect, you should fix all the article links pointing to that redirect. I did this for George Read (Canadian politician), which was easy because all of the existing links were intended for George Read (Alberta politician). In fact, I invite you to join our monthly disambiguation competition - the next one starts Tuesday! Cheers! bd2412 T 13:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, my gratitude for your continued help and, particularly, for finishing the task on the George Read disambiguation links which I had left undone. I also appreciate your introduction to the disambiguation competition and will be happy to participate.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suez (film), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Silver Lode, Annabella and Slightly Scarlet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A useful reminder, indeed. The links have been since adjusted so that these now point to Silver Lode (film), Annabella (actress) and Slightly Scarlet (1956 film), respectively.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:American female pornographic film actors)[edit]

Category:American female pornographic film actors), which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isle of Forgotten Sins, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Frank Fenton and Tomorrow We Live (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Glad to receive this notice. Both links (Frank Fenton (actor) and Tomorrow We Live (1942 film) have now been properly disambiguated.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Scream move[edit]

You realize moves are discussed for a reason yes? Scream the 1996 film is the primary topic, the other film was already clearly disambiguated, you had no reason to move that, there has been no complaint about locating the article and it was inappropriate for you to pull off a move without any form of discussion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I welcome your very prompt response regarding my move of Scream (film) to Scream (1996 film), thus disambiguating it from the same-titled Scream (1981 film). Prior to making a move, I always examine the article's talk page and move log to determine whether the article had been previously moved and whether such a move had ever been discussed or might prove controversial. Finding no such indication within the Talk:Scream (film) page, I made the move purely as a matter of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films)#Between films of the same name, which states, "[I]f the film is the primary topic, name its article after the film's title without any means of disambiguation. If the film is not the primary topic, name its article after the film's title with "(film)" added at the end". Since this feature is listed as Scream (film), rather than simply as Scream, which is an extensive disambiguation page, it would seem, according to the naming conventions, that a full, year-indicating qualifier, is indicated. Normally, such Manual-of-style-related matters are taken for granted without a discussion, unless there is a pre-existing controversy. If it is your preference to initiate a discussion and a vote on this subject, that is, of course, your prerogative. If you would care to pursue the subject further, I will always be here to respond.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Remember?, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Robert Taylor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Shortly before receiving this reminder, I had attended to another Robert TaylorRobert Taylor (actor) link within the same article, but passed over this link, which, along with the other overlooked link — German→[my original intention was for this link to point towards German accent] has been quickly repaired (as GermanGerman language) by another editor.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your old edit removed maintenance templates from Javed Sheikh. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A well-founded notice — removal of maintenance templates should, indeed, be properly justified in the edit summary. Nearly a year after my March 2012 edit, it is difficult to recollect how I arrived at the judgment to conjoin the deletion of the template with the edits that I made to the article itself, but in view of the fact that it is my standard editing procedure to explain all such actions, I can only assume that the deletion was inadvertent. I appreciate the template's belated restoration.—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Smith (American comedy actor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mr. Terrific (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Good catch---I'm glad that bots as well as individuals keep track of such oversights---this matter has now been properly adjusted. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Alfred Hitchcock Presents episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palm Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Hello, Roman Spinner. When you moved Geoffrey Cox to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.
Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Geoffrey Cox" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the posting, Russ. Reminders of this nature are always worthy of commendation since they reinforce the need/obligation as described above.
In the case at hand, prior to making the move, I did, indeed, adjust the two templates as well as the four lists which include the name of Geoffrey Cox (British politician) and intended to apply myself to the remaining links [fewer than 10] shortly after the move. The seemingly extensive number of outstanding links (which attracted the attention of DPL bot and caused the application of the "incominglinks" [more than 25] template) is due to the slow nature (two to five days) of redistribution as it pertains to templated links. Thanks to your reminder, I will attend to the few remaining links immediately and, as for that multitude of other links, I'm sure if we remain patient for a couple of additional days, those will take leave of their own accord. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 05:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: William Oakley[edit]

Hello Roman Spinner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of William Oakley, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: You must fix the incoming links before the page can be moved. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Oakley may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • writer and producer, known for his work (with Josh Weinstein) on animated series ''The Simpsons'' (executive producers and showrunners for seventh and eighth season (winning three Primetime Emmy

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Emjo Basshe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Orange County and Lafayette Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sally Jessy Raphael Show[edit]

If you really want to disambiguate for this show, please move the "Sally (1983 TV series)" to "Sally (talk show)". It is a talk show, and not an actual episodic television programme. (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sally (talk show) is, indeed, a useful as well as usable title and I was surprised to see it appear as a redlink in your posting, since it should have already been created as a redirect. I have just, therefore, turned your redlink, above, into a redirect to Sally (1983 TV series). As for your proposal, the consensus has been to disambiguate same-named TV series by the year of initial production, and/or premier broadcast, regardless of the program's genre. Thus, news, game, talk, variety, drama or comedy shows, whether shown weekly or daily, are initially defined as "TV series" and, subsequently categorized under their respective genres. Since there is an already-existing Sally (1957 TV series), my move simply changed the incompletely-disambiguated Sally (TV series) to the analogous Sally (1983 TV series), Moreover, the qualifier in Sally (talk show) is also incomplete in that it doesn't specify radio or television. I will, therefore, create still another redirect, Sally (TV talk show), to rectify that shortcoming. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Battle at Apache Pass may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *[[Beverly Tyler]] {Mary Kearney]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Battle at Apache Pass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Egan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Play of the Week, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Stuart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roman Catholic Diocese of Fargo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wahpeton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to There's Always Tomorrow may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • effect on the two films in which Douglas Sirk directed her" (''The New Yorker'', April 26, 2010)} ]</ref>, turns up unexpectedly and is now a glamorous fashion designer.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robert Neville (journalist), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PM and Vatican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Done —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Henderson may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • (footballer born 1898)]] (1898–1964), Scottish forward who played for Airdrie, Manchester United (1921–25 (36 matches, 17 goals), Preston North End, Clapton Orient, others

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rip Collins[edit]

If you want Rip Collins (pitcher) to be primary, the article needs to be moved to Rip Collins with the appropriate hatnote about the disambig page. Is this what you're trying to do? Keegan (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I submitted the redirect Rip Collins for deletion because it was blocking my ability to move Rip Collins (disambiguation) to Rip Collins. Since the Rip Collins (disambiguation) page has no distinctly identifiable consensus for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, there is no need for it to have the parenthetical qualifier, "(disambiguation)". Following the move, the entries on the Rip Collins disambiguation page can be then arranged thusly:

Rip Collins or Ripper Collins may refer to:

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hiawatha (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Jeff D'Amico[edit]

I don't know if I agree with the move. Jeff D'Amico (Brewers, Mets, Pirates and Indians pitcher) should be moved back to Jeff D'Amico in my opinion since he is the more known player having played 8 seasons compared to the only 1 season for Jeff D'Amico (Royals pitcher).--Yankees10 03:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reluctance to consider the use of such a lengthy qualifier. Perhaps Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1974) [previously moved: 00:32, 9 September 2009‎ Dewelar (talk | contribs)‎ . . (43 bytes) (+43)‎ . . moved Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1974) to Jeff D'Amico (Royals pitcher): Per WP:NC-BASE, team takes precedence over DOB where possible] and Jeff D'Amico (pitcher born 1975) might be acceptable alternatives for both players [these would be analogous to entries such as Rick Anderson (baseball, born 1953) and Rick Anderson (baseball, born 1956) or Alex Gonzalez (shortstop, born 1973) and Alex González (shortstop, born 1977)]. Comparable to the case of the other same-named players, each of whom has a disambiguating qualifier, neither of the Jeff D'Amicos seems to have sufficient historical standing to become a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you would still, however, prefer for the one who played 8 seasons to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, please let me know and I will put it for WP:RM and let the Project provide a consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I reverted for the time being, since even if neither pitcher is the primary topic, the qualifier is way too lengthy and is just silly. If you want to make Jeff D'Amico a disambiguation page for both, then that's one thing, but use the entries that already have consensus, like the ones you linked above. Wizardman 22:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of University of Texas at Austin faculty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert L. Mills (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Robert L. Mills has been disambiguated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seven Faces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ingenue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

ingenue has now been properly disambiguated. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oliver Unger[edit]

You removed the middle initial and moved the page for Oliver Unger. I was contacted by his son, Stephen Unger who requested the following: "During his entire life and on all his correspondence and on all his film credits he always used his middle initial. It is true that in a couple of the references he is listed without his middle initial, but they were mistakes. Oliver A. Unger is how he was known professionally and personally and it is how he would have wanted to be known historically." Can you revert your changes and restore the article to its original title? Monnaliza (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for the move. The article should, indeed, have remained at Oliver A. Unger and I will immediately attend to the steps necessary for the reversal of my original action. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 02:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much Roman! I love when the wiki process works and always a pleasure working with reasonable wikipedians.Monnaliza (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Since the main title header has now been restored to its original proper form, I will take this opportunity to also give my thanks to you for your kind words and your understanding. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guy Edward Hearn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hell's Heroes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bill Lawrence (news personality), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Implicit comma[edit]

Back in July, you moved Rocky King, Inside Detective to Rocky King detective, saying "as confirmed by existing episodes (a number of which are on YouTube"). I have seen the title credits at and completely agree that around the five-second mark the title credits appear completely lacking the word "Inside." But I would suggest that the article's title should be Rocky King, Detective. On-screen titles are sometimes stylized in ways that are not literally part of the title when mention in print. If we were being literal, the show's title would be

  • ROCKY KING     detective, that is, with ALL CAPS for the name and some extra space between the name and "detective", reflecting the space seen on screen;

If I got really OCD about this, I would also the title tilted to the left about 25 degrees, like it is on the screen.

Consider Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman: as seen at File:Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.jpg, the title as rendered on the DVD cover lacks a comma, yet the article includes the comma.

This is my case based on my understand of WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'm thinking of proposing that we move the article to Rocky King, Detective; what do you think? (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your observations and regret not having considered the orthographic implication of the lowercase "d" as the initial letter of the noun "Detective" within the title, particularly and ironically in view of the fact that, just five minutes ago, I submitted another in a continuing series of arguments in favor of the use of uppercase "W" in the currently ongoing discussion regarding the move of another title, A Boy was BornA Boy Was Born, at Talk:A Boy was Born.
The comma in Rocky King Detective (Rocky King, Detective), same as in Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman (Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman) however, is a problematic matter. Although stylistically and esthetically, the comma is warranted to set off "Detective" and "Medicine Woman", it does not appear on-screen in either case and, therefore, is not part of the title. According to your own section header, the comma is implicit, rather than explicit, and I am loath to insert or remove any punctuation which does not appear on-screen. In order to fulfill at least one portion of your comment, as well as comply with the Manual of Style regarding title capitalization, I will move Rocky King detective to Rocky King Detective, leaving the question of the comma in the title to be decided in a possible WP:RM discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I declined your speedy deletion request for Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman, as it may be a controversial rename. Using a google search,[3] there are a lot of reliable sources that seem to use the comma. If you go to the show's official web site and scroll to the actual text at the bottom of the page, it uses the comma:

DR. QUINN, MEDICINE WOMAN, a high-spirited, hour-long Western family adventure series from The Sullivan Company and CBS Entertainment Productions, is built around the exploits of Dr. Michaela ("Mike") Quinn...

After reading your comments here on your talk page and your edit summaries, I disagree with your conclusions. Just because it "does not appear on screen" may not always be correct. Some TV shows these days seem to being using what is similar to stylized text logos in their opening credits and title sequences. The actual title, with the correct spelling and punctuation, should appear in various text articles, press releases, and other pieces from reliable sources. The link from the official web site I just linked may be one such example. However, if you disagree, you are welcome to post on WP:RM. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've got some more examples of comma use: Inch High, Private Eye (compare File:Inch High Private Eye logo.jpg), Philip Marlowe, Private Eye (compare File:Philip Marlowe, Private Eye S1.jpg), Ace Crawford, Private Eye, Richard Diamond, Private Detective, Martin Kane, Private Eye, Mike Hammer, Private Eye, Pete Boone, Private Eye (and that's just the private eyes).
Sometimes colons are used: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective (compare File:Ghost Trick Phantom Detective cover art.jpg), Tom Sawyer, Detective (compare File:Tom Sawyer, Detective (novel).jpg), and Dan Turner, Hollywood Detective (compare File:Highadv60.jpg).

I think these examples establish that punctuation is routinely included in titles, regardless of the stylized renderings in cover art and opening credits. (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

One size most definitely does not fit all in situations where on-screen (as well as within video games and books) punctuation of titles is concerned (also addition of exclamation points) and they all must be considered on a case-by-case basis. I found so much inconsistency, however, that it only reaffirmed my conviction that the guideline for punctuation in titles should be based upon what appears on-screen. Stylized capitalization of individual words within the title of a work is, of course, a different matter, since capitalization has to be consistent and is guided by the Manual of Style.
As for the individual titles mentioned above, none of their articles' talk pages has a consensus-building discussion regarding specifics of main header punctuation, thus leaving the decision to the discretion of individual editors and to a potential subsequent discussion. Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman has no comma in its on-screen opening credits, on the DVD box set and on the three logos depicted on the show's website. The website's descriptive text, however, as quoted above, does insert a comma within the title, creating an obvious inconsistency which may come to some type of resolution at WP:RM. Among the "Private Eye" series, Ace Crawford, Private Eye and Martin Kane, Private Eye do contain on-screen commas, while Inch High, Private Eye, Richard Diamond, Private Detective and Philip Marlowe, Private Eye do not. I could not find opening credits for Pete Boone, Private Eye.
As for the other titles, Ace Ventura: Pet Detective does have an on-screen colon, but the video game Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective does not. When published in a magazine, Tom Sawyer, Detective did not contain a comma in the title, but the book edition and the 1938 film version do have a comma. In such a case, the book edition (available at Project Gutenberg) is presumed to take precedence over magazine installments. Finally, "Dan Turner, Hollywood Detective" was a judgment call for that article's creator. The book cover does not have a comma, so the article title probably shouldn't have a comma either, but since that is not the title of the book, but rather the name of the hero/protagonist, the comma at least provides a bit of esthetic clarity. There are obviously other examples, but sufficient for the moment… —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Year of birth missing listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Year of birth missing. Since you had some involvement with the Year of birth missing redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Screen Directors Playhouse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Michael Wilding, Richard Long, Frank Fay and William Talman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

ENGVAR listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ENGVAR. Since you had some involvement with the ENGVAR redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). John Vandenberg (chat) 02:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Night God Screamed, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Judas and Pinky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sharon Hugueny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lake Arrowhead and Eddie Fisher
The Young Lovers (1964 film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nick Adams

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2point4 Children may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • this title is indicated with uppercase "C" in all references which are appended to the article ([[IMDb]], [[BBC Online]], [[British Comedy Guide]], Comedy Guide, etc. Nowhere else is

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to This Is My Father's World may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[MOS:CT]]; analogous to [[This Is Tom Jones]] (not [[This is Tom Jones]]) and discussed at length ([[Talk:A Boy Was Born#"A Boy was Born" vs "A Boy Was Born" in the text]]. Deletion of this redirect

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Page moves including spelled out middle name[edit]

Please refrain from moving pages from the version with the middle initial only to the version with the spelled out middle name based on unreliable sources like "Find a Grave" or "Political Graveyard". The Congress Bios (also quite doubtful, full of numerous mistakes, but considred "reliable" by some) are being rewritten with the spelled out version, but the original version (including the original journals) had only initials. Contemporaneous newspapers, and original documents use the middle initial version only. Search engines will turn up zero results (except wiki mirrors) with the spelled out version. Please cosult the guidelines about WP:RS and naming conventions at MoS. Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

1. While I appreciate the concerns expressed in your posting, such a wide variety of individuals from wide-ranging time periods cannot be shoehorned into a one-size-fits-all middle-initial format. There are references to J. Q. Adams and John Q. Adams as well as references to F. D. Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the main title headers of their entries give their full names. Abraham Lincoln's signature was, primarily, A. Lincoln, but the header indicates his full given name. On the other hand, no one argues that John C. Calhoun should be indicated as plain John Calhoun or as the full John Caldwell Calhoun, even though he is listed as "John Caldwell Calhoun" at the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Inconsistencies abound — the main header indicates Lyndon B. Johnson, not simply Lyndon Johnson, but his successors are Richard Nixon, not Richard M. Nixon, and Gerald Ford, not Gerald R. Ford. The blue links to all of the above names, plus numerous others, demonstrate that there should be no concern over search engines' ability to find names, since each move leaves behind a redirect.
2. All sources are, in one way or another, inconsistent, but while The Political Graveyard, which is compiled by volunteers, may be somewhat unreliable, I'm surprised that you would consider Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, maintained by staff in the Office of the Clerk's Office of History and Preservation and the Office of the Historian of the United States Senate, as not meeting the standards set by WP:RS. While the Directory is now, indeed, listing all of its subjects with a full middle name, it falls to Wikipedia editors to provide references demonstrating which of those subjects, such as John C. Calhoun, should continue to be listed with a middle initial, rather than the full middle name. Likewise, Find a Grave, which depicts subject's name as it appears upon his or her own gravestone (and not necessarily the accompanying biographical write-up by contributors to, and editors of, Find a Grave), is among the most reliable primary sources that one can submit.
3. As for contemporary newspapers and other publications, those are also inconsistent, most frequently referencing subject simply by his given name and surname, without the use of middle name or initial. Many, if not most, Wikipedia entries for less-well-known political figures, append solely an external link to Biographical Directory of the United States Congress or additional links to Find a Grave and/or Political Graveyard. If you are able to append inline references to sources which meet WP:RS, indicating that subject was, indeed known by the use of his middle initial, then you should do so, otherwise, one cannot presume that the middle initial takes precedence over the full middle name or, in cases where subject opted not to use his middle name or middle initial, over the use of neither.
4. Finally, since you mentioned original documents, by all means, provide links to those in order to buttress your arguments and, if you possess any such documents yourself, consult the guidelines at WP:OR before using them. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
1. There's no problem with widely known people, anybody will find their article at whatever name, because we know it must be there. Lesser known people, like Jane H. Todd for example, who is listed as such everywhere in WP:RS had an article at Jane Hedges Todd. The middle name was nowhere listed, and did not appear anywhere in search engines, I stunbled about it after some time by chance at the existing Wikipedia article, because the version with the middle initial gave a red link.
2. The printed version of the Biographical Directory has in the vast majority of entries only middle initials, the Congress historian is now mirroring Wikipedia. Fond a Grave is good, when there's a photo of the gravestone, if not the content is doubtful. It's not a WP:RS for middle names, in about 98% of gravestones I've seen there the middle name is given as an initial. Political Graveyard is also not a WP:RS, but it's a good place to get info which then needs to be confirmed by other sources which fulfill the RS criteria.
3. When I say "original documents" that refers to the on-line available scanned copies of journals of the Houses of Congress and State Legislatures where the politicians are mentioned, mostly without spelled out middle names. Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) is meant as a reference work: Somebody who reads John A. Doe in some historical context, and wants to get more info on this person would look up John A. Doe, and would see no entry, or a red link, because he failed to type in the full name "John Artaxerxes Doe". The user would then have to use a search engine and only god knows whether he will get any results.
4. Finally, I'd like to quote from WP:Middle names: "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources..." If you have any doubt about reliable sources, please ask me. Kraxler (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Screen Directors Playhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rookie of the Year (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Screen Directors Playhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Talman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Roman. I hope you received the notifications on thr RfD for Lisa Walker, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker. You seem to be creating a number of redirects without looking at what links to them, and this is causing quite a few issues. I see you recently made some chances so William R. Cox has more incoming links not intended for him than those which are. I made a hatnote to the dab and to the main target of the incoming links, WIlliam Ruffin Cox, and resolved some of the incoming links, can you please resolve the rest? I also wonder if the writer is definitely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?

I also spent several hours yesterday resolving the edits you made to Elizabeth Walker. My main concern is that you were fully aware that your edits go against the guidelines. As you get notifications when I revert such edits, you must have had over 100 messages from me on this, and I know you also have from other editors. I don't feel good about reverting you - in fact I hate it, and hate feeling I need to send you a message like this - but your edits are disruptive and very dispiriting for other editors. I have asked you many, many times, that if you disagree with the guidelines (and you clearly do), then you should start a discussion on them. That way you may get what you feel is best - and you wouldn't spend so long making these unless you felt they made the pages better, would you? Hopefully, you would accept the consensus either way, and put your time and considerable energies to better use within Wikipedia. You are always polite, which is appreciated, but polite wording doesn't change the fact that you are ignoring other editors and the guidelines and you know you are causing lots of people a considerable amount of time correcting you. Yesterday, I spent 3 hours sorting out the wrongly redirected titles, incorrect entries etc at Elizabeth Walker. I shouldn't have had to do that.

I once again, beg you to look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial_title_matches (where you will see that linking to Mabel Walker's article, just because her (pretty much unused, even) middle name is Elizabeth is not valid. I have also directed you to MOS:DABENTRY on dozens of occasions in my reverts, as copied below: Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily.


Interval may refer to:

  • [Interval (mathematics)], a certain subset of an ordered set
  • [Interval (music)], the relationship between two notes


Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.

You must be aware that you don't keep to this at all - in fact I recognise a page you've edited immediately because of the short paragraph for each entry. I have said this to you countless times, but I'll try once again: the guildelines are borne out of the community's consensus. That should be respected and it is disruptive not to do so, especially on an almost daily basis. You have the right to challenge the consensus - of course - so please do so, or accept that you may disagree, but disruptive editing won't help and concentrate on other parts of Wikipedia there are enough projects where you must agree with the guidelines? And I appreciate the fact that you volunteer your time on WP - but right now, you're wasting a lot of editors' time.

I am also very concerned as to why you would create huge numbers of disambiguation pages in your userboxes, to try to get round the guidelines? You can't think you're really in the right, as you don't challenge it when editors revert your edits, and you have consistently ignored my suggestion you start a discussion on the issue. So why create a large number of disambiguation pages in the style you'd prefer? It seems bizarre to me.

I once again beg you to consider fully what I'm saying. I've been in the position where I've been sure I was right and carried on, not really open to listening to other editors on that issue - and I've realised later that, right or wrong, I was putting other editors off volunteering their time here. I monitor the changes on disambiguation pages, which means that every time I see your name, I know it's going to take me a long time to clean up the mess - invalid entries, overlengthy entries, invalid redirects - it sucks all the joy out of it for me, not that I'm doing it, but that you're deliberately doing it, and that you know that I monitor the pages and that I will undo your edits. I hate all this kind of stuff and I hate confrontation, but I have tried so many times, via Talk page messages, edit summaries in revert notifications etc. Please stop and use your talents elsewhere or in a different way. If you persist, I will start a discussion at RFC about it, but I would hate to do so. I want both of us to enjoy editing WP, and also the many other editors I've seen correcting your work. The idea of opening a discussion to criticise another editor makes me feel sick, but you cannot keep ignoring the consensus and it isn't fair that I spend so long cleaning up. You have told me before to just revert you, but I never want to remove the (small amount) of good entries often added - and as your dabs are hard to see the wood for the trees, it takes a long time to even read throgh the dab.

Please think over what I have said. I hope to see you starting a discussion on MOS:DABENTRY soon - you clearly feel strongly about it, so why not? If not, please, please stop this and move on. Again, I appreciate the effort you put in, but that doesn't give you the ride roughshod over others, and that is what you are doing.

Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Boleyn. I am most appreciative of your heartfelt posting and I thank you for the time you devoted to composing it and for the detailed nature of your arguments and presentation.
I did, indeed, see in notifications the ongoing RfD for Lisa Walker, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker and, as soon as I finish typing this reply to you, I will proceed there and present a detailed explanation as to why those redirects should remain. I do, always, observe whether the redirects I create engender any links and ameliorate, whenever possible, any inconsistencies. In regard to William R. Cox, I had already changed twelve misplaced links pointing to the incorrect William R/William Ruffin Cox and will, as soon as possible, attend to the remaining ones. While at it, I am most grateful to you for aiding in the effort. As to the question of which William R. Cox is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the answer is: neither. We don't have a William R. Cox sub-disambiguation page for William Ruffin Cox and William Robert Cox --- we only have the all-inclusive William Cox disambiguation page which should include both William R. Cox [sic] and William Ruffin Cox [sic]. As to the form of these two similar names, we are fortunate, in both cases, to have (at Find a Grave) photographs of the gravestones of both subjects, with one clearly engraved as "William R." and the other as "William Ruffin". Furthermore, "William R." was also the writer's pen name and all of his many writings always reflect that form, with none indicating "William Robert" (his article includes a link to Guide to the William R. Cox papers 1914−1980 at the Special Collections and University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries). On the other hand, while there is no denial that the Civil War general was occasionally referenced as "William R." (as evidenced by the two short-lived World War II liberty ships, SS William R. Cox (November 1943) and SS William R. Cox (December 1943) [there was also a third one, named simply William Cox]), the key sources, in addition to his gravestone inscription, include the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and the encyclopedia of his native North Carolina, NCpedia, in all of which, as well in a number of others, his name appears as "William Ruffin". Any other uncertainties are definitively resolved by your addition of the hatnote at William R. Cox, for which I again thank you, although the second hatnote, {otherpeople|William Cox}, is not really necessary per WP:NAMB.
And now, to your second point regarding having to spend several hours resolving the edits I made to Elizabeth Walker. I am mystified as to why it should have taken so long. If you had been satisfied with the five previously-existing entries on the page (as it appeared prior to my edit [last edited in April 2011]) a revert would have taken one second. If you accepted my addition of eleven new names (expanding from five to sixteen entries), but decided to delete the descriptive write-ups, the cut text function should have taken you less than a minute, and if you decided to eliminate some of the entries, that also should have taken no more than a few seconds. Incidentally, I am puzzled by some of your choices: why delete Elizabeth Claire Walker of the Los Angeles Ballet, but retain Elizabeth Walker of the New York City Ballet or why change Elizabeth Neff Walker to Elizabeth Walker (author), when a glance at the plentiful on-line reproductions of the covers of her books confirms that her pen name is, indeed, Elizabeth Neff Walker. Also, why keep Elizabeth Harrison Walker among the main entries, but consign Elizabeth Pupo-Walker of Tuatara (band) to "See also"? After all, some women hyphenate their maiden name and married name (or use a hyphenated family name), while other women use their family name as middle name without a hyphen (Hillary Rodham Clinton). Those who prefer to use a hyphen should be treated equally with those who do not, instead of being banished to "See also". While on the subject, why delete the family name of writer Elizabeth Oakleigh-Walker (pen name Elizabeth Buchan)? The birth names of numerous notable personalities appear as a standard feature in numerous disambiguation pages. An entire disambiguation page (Myrna Williams) was, in fact, created for only two entries: Myrna Williams (politician) and Myrna Adele Williams, the birth name of movie star Myrna Loy. As for Tippy Walker, although she was "nee Elizabeth Tipton Walker", her alternative stage name (billed more frequently than "Tippy Walker") was Elizabeth Walker (actress) (she never used "Tipton" as part of her stage name). Furthermore, why delete actress Liza Walker? I can only presume that you may have intended to include her either in your Lisa Walker or your Eliza Walker disambiguation pages, but since you haven't done so as of this writing, I am at a loss for an explanation. On a side note, since there are only two Wikipedia entries for notable women whose middle name is "Elizabeth" and surname is "Walker", Mabel Elizabeth Walker and Susan Elizabeth Walker, I would have thought they might be allowed to remain under "See also" for the sake of completeness, but I will leave such decisions for others. Finally, you inserted a duplicate entry under "Politicians": Liz Walker (politician) and Liz Walker, political candidate for Newton—North Delta are the same person. The redirect, Liz Walker (politician), which I did not create, should not be used since it discourages the creation of an article. My five-person list (under section header "Political figures") had public officials and a member of a political dynasty who were not all politicians:
  • Mabel Elizabeth Walker (1889−1963), American public official, known as First Lady of Law, or "Prohibition Portia"; served as U.S. Assistant Attorney General from 1921 to 1929, handling Bureau of Federal Prisons as well as violations of Volstead Act and tax collection; highest-ranking woman on Federal level
  • Elizabeth Harrison Walker (1897–1955), American lawyer and publisher whose political dynasty credentials as daughter of President Benjamin Harrison and his second wife, Mary Scott Lord Dimmick, extended into her own marriage to James Blaine Walker, grandnephew of 1884 presidential candidate James G. Blaine
  • Susan Elizabeth Walker (born 1951), British-born Australian political figure who represented electorate of Nedlands in Legislative Assembly of Western Australia between June 2001 and September 2008; member of Liberal Party since 1978, she was defeated in 2008 after running as Independent
  • Liz Walker (born 1954), Canadian environmentalist who, as candidate of Canada's Green Party, has contested British Columbia's federal electoral district Newton—North Delta in 2008 and 2011 Canadian federal elections; Chemical Technician at BC Hydro's Research and Development Laboratories during 1980s
  • Lisa Walker (born 1977), English Conservative councillor for Bramhall North (Stockport electoral ward) Metropolitan Borough Council; has chaired Bramhall & Cheadle Hulme South Area Committee and served on Corporate Parenting Working Party, Council Meeting and Licensing, Environment & Safety Committee
As another point, I doubt the usefulness of creating multiple sub-disambiguation pages (Lisa Walker, Elisa Walker). Such and other names (Beth, Lizbeth) are contained within the core name and, even if the given name is Lisa and not short for Elisabeth, the name is still basically the same. Analogous arguments may be made for numerous names which have variants (some women are actually named Kathy, Cathy or Kate, rather than as nickname for Katherine) or Ed, Edwin or Edward or Al, Alan, Allen or Alfred. Such sub-disambiguation often results in duplication and confuses, rather than aids, users.
Having put the subject of Elizabeth Walker behind us (for the time being), there is a pressing need to address some of your other concerns. As far as knowing fully well that my edits go against the guidelines, I support the guidelines and the concept that the write-ups should be brief, as I believe mine are. I count the characters in each write-up and limit myself to 100 characters and spaces, with a top limit set at 140 characters and spaces. Each write-up, as it appears on my 16x9 screen, set at medium (100%) font size, occupies no more than half a line of text. I realize that various users use different fonts, font sizes, screen sizes and formatting. Such matters, however, vary from user to user and present differing issues not simply for users of disambiguation pages, but also for users of all Wikipedia entries. Continuing with the main theme, I believe that disambiguation pages should be more than just a random jumble of similar names, but a rigorously arranged (in chronological order, by birth year or earliest period of activity for individuals from antiquity, or for those whose specific details are lost to history) listing which gives the names, vital dates, nationality and key point(s) of notability, which is especially useful for individuals who are not the main topics of their own Wikipedia articles. It would seem that any user would be happy to find all the details quickly at his/her fingertips without having to guess which entry is the correct one. Thus, I feel no need to start a discussion on the guidelines, which I do not consider to have violated.
Now to the matter of notifications --- since my first edit in January 2006, I have had five postings about the length of my descriptive write-ups, two of them (including the present one) from you, which I am most happy to receive. I tried to explain, each time, the reasoning and philosophy behind my edits and have had no further arguments. These five postings have been the sole communications I have had on this subject in my 8 years, 2 months and 23 days of editing Wikipedia. As for occasional notifications of other editors' edit summaries, virtually all of them give no reason other than a vague reference to MOS:DABENTRY, without explaining what was objectionable. I also hate confrontation and am chagrined that you feel I engage in "disruptive editing" and am "causing lots of people a considerable amount of time correcting" me and writing to me that I "ride roughshod over others, and that is what you are doing" and that "right now, you're wasting a lot of editors' time", without explaining what mistakes I made that would require such extensive corrections. If you "spent 3 hours sorting out the wrongly redirected titles, incorrect entries etc at Elizabeth Walker", then you must have considered such time to be wisely spent, rather than taking the simple step of reverting. Again, I cannot comprehend what it was that I did (which "wrongly redirected titles, incorrect entries" etc?) that would force you to devote such massive expenditure of time to correct my putative "errors".
You also note that I engage in such "disruptive" editing "on an almost daily basis", but the fact is that I correct and revise (such as Elizabeth Walker's "is the name of"→"may refer to", or multiple blue links or duplicate/incorrect entries), an average of only one disambiguation page per month (the previous one being the brief dab page The Hills Run Red on March 23, more than three weeks ago) and write about being "very concerned" as to the reason for my creating "huge numbers of disambiguation pages in your userboxes, to try to get round the guidelines". As a matter of fact, all of those disambiguation pages were not directly created for my userboxes, but were initially entered as my contribution to the main body of Wikipedia. Your words in relation to these userboxes are, "It seems bizarre to me", but there is nothing bizarre about these pages, nor am I trying "to get round the guidelines". The fact is, like you, I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. From January 22, 2006, until today, I have tried to make one or more edits every single day of these past 8 years, 2 months and 23 days, although I have occasionally missed a day or two. These disambiguation pages do not come easily to me and I spend hours, sometimes days, working on single long one (such as William Lawrence). After all that work, it would seem a waste that no Wikipedia users could appreciate a strongly-detailed disambiguation page with all the links tested, all entries in chronological order, with vital dates and nationalities clearly indicated and sorted (in the case of longer pages) by professions or genres. Surely, some users must feel that it is of use to them, since there are indications that the pages have been visited.
There is more to be said, but I will end this already-overlong response at this point and invite you to post on my talk page any time you feel you wish to discuss any of my edits or any other matter. I appreciate your many years of dedication to Wikipedia and despite any problems or disagreements, look forward to a long working relationship.
All my best, —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Roaring 20's (TV series).[edit]

The Roaring 20's (TV series) has been removed per CSD:G6. Please let me know if you have any questions. Nakon 05:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Article should not be moved[edit]

Bob Brown Greens leader is the primary noteability of Bob Brown compared to Bob Brown ALP MP. Therefore the article should not be disambiguated. Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Roman Spinner, I suggest that if you're really determined, you should join the discussion at the article's talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for specifying the disambiguation circumstances applicable to this biographical entry. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Reed College people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of Best Actress winners by age may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | <span style="display:none">Seventh Heaven, Street Angel and Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans]]</span>''[[Seventh Heaven (1927 film)|Seventh Heaven]]'',<br>''[[Street Angel (1928 film)|Street

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Perry Mason cast members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Sullivan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miracle in the Rain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Clock (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, title of Winston Churchill's My Early Life ...[edit]

Hi, I think there's been a bit of a muddle at My Early Life.

The book has always been known as My Early Life in the UK, no other title or subtitle ever having been used.

The book was ALSO published in the USA by Charles Scribner's Sons as A Roving Commission: My Early Life.

The current title has, I believe, never been used anywhere.

Would you be able to put the article back to My Early Life? - since it was an English book by an Englishman, it seems reasonable that that should be the primary title.

It would then be perfectly sensible to add a redirect from A Roving Commission: My Early Life and to mention that as a redirect target in the article's lead, as the American variant title.

with best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the titles can be verified at WorldCat. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
With my apologies, I will defer to your knowledge in this matter and take immediate steps to restore the title to its earlier, original form. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juano Hernandez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Shipman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wallace Akers[edit]

Hi. I see you've moved the above page to Wallace Alan Akers. I presume you've done this on the basis of the London Gazette references. Unfortunately your being on the other side of the Atlantic has misled you as to the correct form. When people are mentioned in a paper of record like that, their full name (including names they would not normally use) is given. This is so that there can be no ambiguity about exactly whom the King plans to invest as a knight or otherwise honour. However, as you'll see from the other two references, in everyday life he was merely known as Wallace Akers, and later Sir Wallace Akers (or just Sir Wallace). Please would you undo your move. Thanks in advance. RomanSpa (talk) 13:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind posting and will immediately put the Wallace Akers entry through the WP:RM process, thus properly returning it to its original form —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and have a good weekend! RomanSpa (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Boston Library Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microcosm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Screen Directors Playhouse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Dunn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Don May[edit]

Hello Roman Spinner. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Don May, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please clean up the incoming links before requesting a move such as this one. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Big Fisherman may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 1953, had also been adapted for the screen under the same title, ''[[The Robe (film)|The Robe]]''). The film was shot at [[Universal-International]] studios but released by [[Buena Vista]], the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Big Fisherman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buena Vista. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BNA Access[edit]

Hey Roman Spinner, I sent you an email about access to WP:BNA about two weeks ago, with instructions on how to register for access. Please follow the instructions in the email, Sadads (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

My thanks for the reminder and for the access. I will attend to the registration. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)