User talk:DeLarge

There used to be an paragraph at Wikipedia:Talk pages recommending that conversations be kept contiguously on one page ("How to keep a two-way conversation readable").[1] However, after a judicious piece of redirecting back and forth, it has been wiped out. Nevertheless, while I know some people carry on conversations across two User talk pages, I find this ludicrous and unintuitive. Conversations started on my talk page will most likely be continued on my talk page, while those I start on other users' pages will be continued on their pages.

Qian Zhijun

Hi, Delarge! I would like to inform you that now Qian Zhijun and Little Fatty now have articles. Or rather, they are back. They both survived a DRV. An administrator speedied them since I had started the articles even though I had not started a discussion on whether there is enough evidence to allow subjects to be restored. I started a thread on the BLP noticeboard inquiring about this, the discussion moved to DRV, and after a lot of effort from not only me, but a Singaporean (User:Lonelydarksky) who helped translate articles in Chinese so I could use them as sources, the articles were restored as a result of the DRV. I must add that I cannot thank the Singaporean enough for helping me with this. The people involved in the 2007 discussions/etc not only failed to examine the sources to check for signs of in-depth analysis, but they also failed to consult Chinese speaking users to get their assistance.

After both articles were restored, to "Little Fatty" I added additional sources from academic journal articles that demonstrate notability from the academic world. Please take a look at them. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Anyway, I e-mailed Badlydrawnjeff. He told me that he felt strangely vindicated by the matter. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this from a distance, and was of course delighted at the outcome. Hopefully the successful DRV and article expansion will put this to bed for good. I also noticed the former Doc Glasgow (Scott Mac) has quit again, so that should end any further troubles. And I'm glad someone's let BDJ know; the way he was driven off this site after his many FA contributions was pretty unconscionable, and it does vindicate his original position. (albeit several years too late).

I may just reconsider my semi-retirement now... --DeLarge (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I took some steps to make sure that the articles would remain. After "Little Fatty" was restored, I found some academic journal articles discussing "Little Fatty" and cited them, just to cement the article's notability. At least three (Wallis and the two Cheung sources) discuss the "Little Fatty" phenomenon in depth. I also found that several books talk about it too.

I hope that Wikipedians learn from this DRV so they understand the correct way of dealing with notability issues involving foreign subjects. While the 2011 DRV had the new Chinese sources available (as for after the DRV, the four journal articles and the book sources all came in 2009 or later), I also believe that focusing the discussion on the article content and consulting a Chinese speaker helped achieve the successful restoration.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited List of motor yachts by length, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katara (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) 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn it, thought I'd checked all of them. You're quite a handy little bot, aren't you? --DeLarge (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for A (yacht)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on a fantastic article! --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I missed it on the main page, unfortunately, but it seems to have had plenty of views despite not being used as the lede item (with an image, which would surely have boosted it further). Anyhoo, next stop: GA-class. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Citroen C-Zero mess

This might be helpful Wikipedia:Notability (vehicles) as a reference point NealeFamily (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Mehh. That's just an essay, and not really germane to the issue. No-one's suggesting they're not notable, or that the articles should be deleted outright. I'm just planning on having them redirected to the "original" vehicle. --DeLarge (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Hi, DeLarge. I respect your reversions about website names and have contributed to dialog on the talk pages of the affected articles. I would only suggest that opening and closing the discussion at Slant Magazine on the very same day, and closing it in favor of one's own position, might have been handled more constructively. Generally these discussions stay up for a week, and generally aren't closed before someone who had made the move has had a chance to weigh in.

I'm respectful of your requests for formal discussion on what I had thought, perhaps incorrectly, where noncontroversial moves. I ask similar respect in that you reopen this one discussion; less than one day simply doesn't give enough interested editors adequate time to comment. I'm sure two editors of good will can work this out. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Initially, I only weighed in to point out that the nominator didn't need to go through the RM process, and only decided to offer a support vote midway through typing my comment. When he said he didn't feel comfortable being so bold, I stepped forward. In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have bothered joining the discussion, although if I only had one edit to make, undoing the move would have been it. Nevertheless, I've re-opened the discussion. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Very kind of you. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, De. I've been swayed to your point, given the consensus that agrees with it at Talk:Comic Book Resources and Talk:Comics Bulletin, so I'm withdrawing my requests. I do think we need to be consistent, so I hope you'll respect and support my note at those pages. I must say, it's been good working with an editor who can debate an issue calmly and rationally; even where I might initially disagree, it's nice to see the process working as it should. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No probs. However, you might want to consider your most recent page moves. I can assure you that the opposition to previous changes cannot be taken as an endorsement of your latest moves, per your apparent assumption here.[2]

First, check out WP:NCDAB, where three suggestions for a style of disambiguation are offered. One of them is indeed <X (disambiguation term)>, but the first suggestion says "When there is another term or more complete name... that is equally clear and is unambiguous, that may be used." For websites, using the TLD offers just as much accuracy, and seems to be a more common disambiguator than <X (website)>. So you can't really claim that your page moves are improving things, all they're doing is applying a different, arbitrary style.

Then—and this is the most important one—check WP:TITLECHANGES. Specifically, "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub."

I hope this clarifies the situation. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly understand if you don't want to support my move on those two articles. I'd like to address some assumptions in the above, however, in the hopes that you'll chose not to actively oppose them. I believe, for example, that calling these changes "from one controversial title to another" is assumptive: I don't believe there's anything controversial in calling a website a website. In regards to stability, if something is not the most correct title, then we shouldn't use it; continuing to have an incorrect or less correct title through inertia certainly isn't the intent behind promoting stability.

I also would disagree, strongly with a characterization of the disambiguation "(website)" as being "arbitrary". Going by points made at some of the aforementioned discussions, "Salon.com" would not be a more "complete" name any more than "Nabisco Inc." In both cases, the name of the company is the name of the company, irrespective of their product or medium, and ".com" and "Inc." are both appendages. "(website)" being a synonym of ".com" is by definition equally clear — with the additional benefit of not changing or appending to the actual name of the company.

I'm sure you have an open mind, and even if my points don't sway you to agree, I hope you'll at least concede there is nothing arbitrary or ill-considered here and perhaps allow other editors, if they wish, to be the ones contending the move at those two articles. Does that sound like a fair balance between our views? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "contoversial" was Wikipedia's, not mine; I was merely quoting a paragraph from the relevant guideline. (The important bit for me was the sentence I bolded.) I believe here it's being used in the WP context, i.e. an uncontroversial change is one that would fix a typographical error. Moving Salon and TMZ were edits another editor disagreed with, ergo they were controversial.

As for "not the most correct title", I think that is assumptive. What is actually wrong about TMZ.com or Salon.com? I appreciate that you personally feel one style is better, but the longtime, widespread existence of both approaches demonstrates that for WP as a whole, both are equally acceptable. That's why I saw your moves as violating the MoS. The irony is that to support your argument, you've used as a parallel the example of a companies, which do not have their legal status appended. This is true for Nabisco, which does not require disambiguation, but in fact WP:CORP's naming guidelines explicitly recommend it where disambiguation is needed. Hence Apple Inc. and Nike, Inc.; Apple (company) and Nike (company) are both mere redirects.

Asking for other editors' views would be a great idea, though I believe—given our disagreements, and the fact that your previous good-faith moves were heavily opposed—that a formal move request would be best done after you restore the pages to their original locations. I feel the weight of consensus should be borne by your side, as it were. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel a bit strange about your reply, since I don't follow your logic. My moves followed your own rationale for not having ".com" — that website names don't need them. You cited disambiguation as the reason for Salon.com and TMZ.com — but ".com" is not the only way of disambiguing, and since "(website)" and ".com" are synonymous, and "(website)" doesn't change the company's name, "(website)" is preferable according to your logic of removing them from Comic Book Resources and the like. It seems now as if you're simply determined to disagree with me no matter what. I'm afraid that seems unnecessarily contentious.

I didn't say anything when you went through several days' worth of my edits, looking for moves you disagreed with, with would seem to fall under the definition of wikistalking. Now, it seems you are continuing to have a very personal, directed issue with me, and intend to follow me around specifically to other articles I edit. I would ask you, please, not to shadow me in an attempt to force your own views on me in an WP:OWN-like manner. Your indication that you plan to follow me around is troubling. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)