User talk:Guillaume2303

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

Speedy deletion and page backups

I have started a project to add notable members of the South African entertainment industry to Wikipedia, and as a start, I have added stubs for key people in an effort to kickstart the gathering of evidence for each person. One of these, Al Prodgers, was speedily deleted, and this has presented a problem: the original page is no longer accessible, and the research done so far is lost.

Is the expectation that Wikipedia authors keep offline backups of pages that are works in progress, just in case pages are deleted? I would have thought that the original creator of an edit would be able to see that edit in the page history, but this does not seem to be the case. (I understand the need to hide deleted pages from public view).

Undertaking research of any South African is made difficult by the historical stifling of the internet in that country: very little evidence is online, and much evidence must be sourced from offline sources. This process is made more difficult when pages are deleted, and research gathered so far becomes hidden. The deletion of stubs makes collaboration difficult, as people are usually unwilling to add detail to pages that aren't there in the first place.

Minfrin (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting novel characters pages

Hi Crusio, I've noticed that you've removed the text from some of the pages of characters from novels such as Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber and redirected them to their respective novel pages. You mentioned that not every character needs a page but I disagree with you. I think it's alright to leave those pages there as they were, because information seekers might find it easier to read the pages of the characters to find out more about them rather than reading from the novel's page, which is far too long for them to comprehend and find the information they want in a short period of time. Can you give a more substantial reason for removing the original text and redirecting them to their respective novel pages? If not, can you please undo those edits you've made? Thank you. Lonelydarksky (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Crusio, I agree with Lonelydarksky. I was very surprised when suddenly the character pages, which I used to visit quite often (since I haven't read the Condor-novels yet but am currently watching the TV-adaptions) redirected to the main article. I also agree that not every supporting character needs a page but at least the main characters, like Yang Guo, do. In my opinion that's similar as if the "Heathcliff"-page would suddenly redirect to the main article of Wuthering Heights. I assume that nobody would ever challenge the use of a separate page for the main character of that novel. Alpenlisi (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I just see that there is a similar discussion about Water Margin below. Please forgive me for interrupting a "work in progress". Alpenlisi (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Water Margin characters

Hi. I'll assume that you're not familiar with Chinese literature, but that is fine. Water Margin is one of the four classic Chinese texts. The book spans a hundred chapters and has been read by billions of Chinese. There is no question about its notability, but because it is a Chinese text, asserting its notability in an English encyclopedia is not bereft of tremendous challenges. Flowing from that, many of the characters become inherently notable, because the novel is essentially about the characters and chapters are devoted to the more prominent ones. There are plenty of examples on WP to show that entries are not only dedicated to the text but to the characters as well.

There are around 200-300 characters mentioned in the book. No doubt not all of them can justifiably have a WP article. Having said that, redirecting the articles on the characters to Water Margin is counterproductive on several levels:

1. The problem with the entries is twofold: sources; notability. We should approach the problem from this angle. Note that the Water Margin article does not refer to many of the Water Margin characters, so redirecting Fang Wei for instance to Water Margin will only confuse the reader searching on that character.
2. Rather than redirect, why not tag them as having a lack of reference? For the more "minor" characters, sure, they can be consolidated either into a list or subsumed into a more major character. But redirecting will not solve anything.
3. You seem to have adopted your broad brush approach to even the prominent characters. Lin Chong is not notable? You will be laughed at if you said this to other people. Try googling it -- his name in Chinese, if the results in English are ambiguous.
4. Many of those redirected articles have valuable inter-wiki links; indeed those inter-wiki links provide a clue as to the notability of some of these characters.

Moving forward, I would suggest tagging rather than redirecting.

The more substantive entries can be tagged; the stubby ones can be merged. If neither situation applies, redirect. How's that? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a workable solution and it looks like Lonelydarksky has already made a start with this. --Crusio (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Public universities

Hello. I've simply been reverting edits by a user who appeared for just a day, who categorized non-universities as universities. I do not dispute the public nature of other institutes of research and higher education in France, but a French "public university" is a very clearly and precisely defined entity. The eighty-one public universities remain labeled as such, and I have no intention to undo that (indeed, I did much of the original labeling myself). -- MyPOV (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Specifically regarding the University of Bordeaux, it is a PRES. There is a Wikipedia page for these, and closely related consortia. -- MyPOV (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

And regarding the University of Technology of Troyes, it is a non-university institute (école extérieure aux universités), as defined by Chapter I, Section II (Articles 34 through 36) of French law 84-52 of 26 January 1984 regarding higher education (the loi Savary). There is a Wikipedia page for the three French universities of technology, which all fall into this category, and there is no reason why we couldn't create a template for them as well. -- MyPOV (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Paris Dauphine University was granted the status of grand établissement by the French Ministry of Education in 2004, and at that time ceased to be a public university, as that term is defined by the Ministry, despite retaining "University" in its name. The Ministry's statistical publications, for instance, ceased to list Dauphine among the public universities after 2004. -- MyPOV (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-English lyrics, poetry quotations

Hi, I thought I'd better let you know that the fact that original lyrics and quotations are not in English is not grounds for their removal -- if there is no translation, add the "notenglish" tag. If they are excessively long they can be moved to Wikisource in that language. Please don't just make material vanish inexplicably. Xanthoxyl (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

User notice biog2

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with the above user. Please do not add poorly referenced or irrelevant information on living persons. Thank you ARFCRFarfcrf (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Johnson

Just to say thanks for helping with this article. I've been having some real problems with people (many from Johnson's home town) repeatedly deleting the fact she was on an all women shortlist. --Shakehandsman (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)