Wikipedia:Content noticeboard

History of this page
The content noticeboard used to be a board where general advice and resolution was sought in regards to content issues. Due to low use of this board, and partly to the board being superseded in function by the dispute resolution noticeboard, this board has been marked as historical. This page is now historical, new posts should be made at the dispute resolution noticeboard.

Noticeboard archives

Use of cleanup templates at the top of articles

Most of us are familiar with the maintenance templates at the top of articles. I am seeking feedback on the degree to which the community believes that these templates are useful and viable. Recently, a new wikiproject, called CiterSquad, has been expressly formed to add the {{unreferenced}} tag to the top of thousands of articles after a cursory review of the article. (And in fact, it's often very cursory, considering the "long tail" of Wikipedia articles that hardly have any content in the first place.) A BOT was first used to algorithmically identify which articles had no references. The bot added a hidden category to each article that it found lacking references. One of the compromises that the "dissenters" to this bot task (and the wikiproject) thought they had reached was that the hidden category would be used instead of the "unreferenced" template. The wikiproject, however, is now doing what the bot could have done, by removing the hidden category and adding the template. Please see the recent contributions of the active members of that wikiproject for the results of these edits in the aggregate. A normal result is an article whose deficiencies are already obvious (at least in the sense of how much it says about the topic, I mean) that looks like this: [1][2][3][4].

Does the "content community" believe that anything useful is accomplished by this? Questions to consider are:

• Is the reader served by templates, or only editors? What assumptions do you make about the reader in assuming they are, or are not, served by these templates?
• If these templates are primarily of interest to editors, why don't we mark the articles in a less intrusive way? What assumptions do you make about the degree to which templates actually encourage someone to do something they would not have done anyway?
• Is a misunderstanding of the WP:V policy leading to the belief that mass-tagging articles that have no references is an appropriate edit? The policy stress "verifiability", meaning "the ability to be verified" is important--not that citations be splashed after random facts. (Does the reader "verify" random facts? What assumptions are you making? See question 1.)

As you can probably tell, my own position is that this project is the logical, and awful, outcome of a misguided application of policy that has gradually seen more and more articles randomly templated, instead of improved. I am very surprised that Wikipedia has arrived at a point where there is no outrage that people are editing this way. (See the talk page of the wikiproject for some viewpoints.) Outriggr (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The solution seems to me to be that those who don't like "ugly" tags at the top of articles can dispute the factual nature of the tag. I do this fairly regularly, when someone has gone hog wild with 5-6 tags when really only 1-2 are relevant (e.g., one article probably doesn't need both {{in-universe}} and {{fansite}}), and challenge editors desiring to readd the tags to articulate an actionable fix for the problem on talk. Alternatively, if a tag is accurate, but an editor would like to remove it, the problem can be fixed. While often a brief effort should result in {{unreferenced}} being replaced with {{primarysources}} or {{refimprove}}, as is my usual custom, I perceive no requirement for an editor removing one no-longer-accurate tag to replace it with a milder tag. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Over-tagging articles is rather unhelpful so I regularly trim down to the top two relevant ones. While I find many tags annoying I also see a need for some of them. Having stated all that ... the vast majority - 99 percent? - could be tagged but I also don't see that as actually helping anything. -- Banjeboi 04:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Tags such as those serve more purpose than cleanup (although that that alone is good enough to warrant them IMO), they identify the problems of the article for everyone to see, not just the experts), and drive people (both logged in and IPs) to fix what's wrong with the articles.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the concern this is addressing is the mass tagging of hundreds/thousands of articles when those categories are already quite clogged. Is it really helpful to have every article in some clean-up cat or should we focus on the worst offenders and dig from there? -- Banjeboi 20:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I support BOTH adding sources AND adding verifiability-related citation tags to articles that need improvement. I frequently add citations to articles I work on, and also on those I stumble upon that are in my area of interest or expertise. These actions however are orthogonal to other actions that I also choose to take to tag unreferenced material. WP:Verifiability is not optional. Policy is unambiguous, it is up to the editor who wants to retain material in Wikipedia to get it cited with verifiable sources; it is NOT WP policy that every editor who stumbles upon significant unreferenced material must stop their lives and endeavor to improve THAT particular article, nor ignore that the article has no sources. So I tag it and move on. It seems to me to be a simple courtesy to flag it for a month or two to see if "the community" cares enough about an article to fix it before material is deleted for being unsourced. N2e (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing the sourcing is a good thing. The only issue here seems to be the wholesale adding of clean-up tags to thousands of articles without actually working to add the sources. We already have hundreds of articles with these tags and nearly every one of our nearly three million articles could have a tag. I guess this just seems unneeded and disruptive. -- Banjeboi 20:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Mario Lopez

Hello, just noticed this. does not seems to be a valid edit. However, I am not knowledgeable enough about Mario Lopez to judge if it is vandalism. Requesting Admin assistance. --Jyothis (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like routine vandalism, someone else has reverted it and I am warning the editor - a new account and their first and only edit. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. --Jyothis (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Ziggurat of Ur

Somebody has changed the page's name from "Great Ziggurat of Ur" to "Ziggurat of Ur" before a discussion about such a move has taken place. A proper debate and a concensus must be attained first. Izzedine (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone interested should look at the history of the article and the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to insult their intelligence? Izzedine (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there was a clear consensus, with sources supporting the move, and I see no reason to undo it based on that. From what I can see, the OP is the sole supporter of the old title, and appears to do so for purely nationalistic reasons. --Jayron32 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Plasma Applications

The above (currently replaced by the copyvio boilerplate until OTRS permissions are achieved) is a bit puzzling to me. On the surface, it looks like a legitimate article. Many references however link to [5], which pretty much offers solutions for every single subheader. Also noteworthy, plasmaapplications.net is a redirect on the above domain. Legitimate article or cleverly disguised advertisment? I'd appreciate some experienced eyes on the matter. Posting here because NPOV or SPAM noticeboards seem more "loaded" than this may warrant. Thanks, MLauba (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Moot now that the article has been deleted :) MLauba (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game

I apologize if this is the wrong place for this particular problem, but I couldn't find a more specific one. I have tried recently, through wikilinks in templates and searching, to access the article List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in an NHL game. Although a preview of the article appears in my browser window through a popup, clicking through to it results in a blank white screen with the words "Override this function." in plain text at the top. I was only able to read the article by going through a redirect, specifically List of goaltenders who have scored a goal in a National Hockey League game. I don't know if I'm the only one this is affecting, or if it is a symptom of a wider technical problem, however, I felt it should be made known. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Bug, apparently it has to do with some sort of software update. Anomie⚔ 10:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Deletion On Wiki Talk Page Josip Broz Tito

Dear reader just recently my thoughts on talkpage Tito have been deleted and it seems it’s going to stay that way. Since I am faced with the fact that my opinions are being suppressed and then eventually will be blocked, I’ve decided to put this out there so these events may be known to the wider wiki community.

The article in question is Josip Broz Tito (the former Dictator of Yugoslavia- East Europe). He was commander of the partisan forces during world war 2 and later a Stalinistic style dictator of the former Yugoslavia. The Wikipedic article is biased and does not mention crimes (Bleiburg massacre & foibe massacres)) against humanity that were committed under his leadership. I registered that this should be part of the article and as a result I have been deleted. One writer was very abusive and deleted my writings on talk back pages. His name is DIREKTOR. He was supported by Ruhrfisch ><>°° I would like to quote some of the Direktor’s statements regarding this article just to inform you of what we are dealing with here.

“Find yourself another one of your crappy "forums" to talk about your presumptions. Just forget about this, Luigi/Brunodam, you're not annoying anyone - you're just turning out amusing. I think I'll file a checkuser in an hour or so, you'd better believe it when I say I'll delete everything you wrote if you're a sock. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)”

These events are not some conspiracy. They have been part of the western media since the break up of the former Yugoslavia. They have been presented as TV documentaries, on talk back shows and in general writings in England, other parts of Europe and USA, Australia and other parts of the free world. They are backed by eye witness accounts by people who were actually caught up in these events.

The Croatian government is addressing these issues with investigations and financial reimbursement is being given to the victims. These are facts and should be present in the article and not deleted when someone points them out. These actions mirror the attitude of the regime that I am trying to expose.

The Josip Broz Tito article is a dangerous biased piece of writing. It would fit perfectly in any article of the old the Yugoslavia or the old Soviet Union propaganda machine (Cult of personality). Why is it there? The only answer it seems is that Wikipedia has some writers of extreme views (Stalin Style) who don’t tolerate being questioned.

Regards Sir Floyd203.161.104.34 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Without expressing any view on the merits of the dispute, it is exceptionally poor form for a user to delete someone else's comments on an article's talk page without a compelling reason. See WP:TPO ("The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"). WP:NOTFORUM is not such a reason. user:DIREKTOR's actions in deleting your comment were poor form.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think you'll find NOT#FORUM is policy, which is why it is actually one of the compelling reasons detailed in the TPO guideline - "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". MickMacNee (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in NOTFORUM overrides TPO and permits the removal of a user's comment from their talk page. Even if it did, that authorization could only follow from a violation of the closest thing to on-point language: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." The discussion that was deleted may be off-base, but it can certainly be understood as trying to improve the article by identifying a perceived bias in the article. Whether that bias is there or not is irrelevant: if the user seems to be advancing it in good faith, their argument should be met or ignored, not deleted. That said, if the debate degenerates into personal attacks, that is a reason to remove another user's comments (and I've removed one of Floyd's for that reason), but only those comments that violate WP:NPA. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything in NOT#FORUM overrides TPO, that is why one is a policy, and one is a guideline. Civil and apparently good faith requests about rejected theories or claims are routinely removed from hundreds of articles, Barack Obama being a prime example. To challenge this particular case, the onus is on you to prove the deleter violated NOT#FORUM by concluding this was not a realistic attempt to imporve the article, because he quite obviously believes it wasn't. If that's the case, then it is a matter for ANI, but I doubt it is. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of laws that tell people not to do something without implying a cause of action for a third party to tackle someone who breaks that law. Wikipedia isn't a legal system, but the same concept applies here. NOTFORUM tells editors what to do and not to do in their own comments and contributions. It also delineates a category of article-space material that should be removed. It does not, however, authorize you to police other editor's talk page comments and remove those that you don't think measure up. If it did so, I might agree that it trumps TPO - but it doesn't. NOTFORUM doesn't authorize you to remove talkpage comments violating it, and TPO has a general rule forbidding it; there is no incompatibility between those rules, and both can be followed.

With that said, I of course recognize that TPO makes exceptions to its general rule, and one of them incorporates a version of NOTFORUM's rule: it allows deletion of comments (even discussions) that are irrelevant to improving the article. But as WP:EXCEPTIONS and common sense make clear, the exception must be understood in the context of the rule. The rule is, don't delete other people's comments. When you see a comment criticizing and/or proposing to change wording in an article that you like, there is an understandable temptation to make a snap judgment that the change would make the article worse. (A fortiori if it's a passage you wrote: WP:OWN can only go so far toward suppressing the instinctive attachment of writers to their own writing!) If the change proposed would make the article worse, then it wouldn't improve the article, so the comment must be irrelevant to improving the article. So I can delete it, right? By that tortured chain of reasoning, the exception swallows the rule. That won't do. To preserve both the exception and the rule, they must be understood to protect good-faith comments seeking improvement from deletion by other editors, even if those editors think the changes proposed are stupid. DIREKTOR evidently thinks that Floyd's concerns are ill-taken and his proposed changes stupid. They may well be. But that doesn't authorize DIREKTOR (or anyone else) to delete Floyd's remarks so long as they can be understood to be a good-faith effort to improve the article. If the discussion degenerates into a slanging match, TPO authorizes deletion of comments that are personal attacks. If the discussion wanders too far afield into a general discussion of Tito rather than one focused on the article, TPO authorizes deletion of comments. It does not allow (in fact forbids) removal of comments simply because DIREKTOR suspects Floyd of being a sock or disapproves of his proposed changes.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

PRODUCER and ICTYoda and their fake sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ICTYoda

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PRODUCER

RELATING to the article Karađorđevo http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=306809367&oldid=306809213 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kara%C4%91or%C4%91evo_agreement&diff=306636454&oldid=306636441

the section testimonies.

The statements of each witness diferr.Some of them were present but most of them were not (Marković , Okun ,Ashdown, Zimmerman...)

I have tried to sort it by the crtiteria of presence in the meeting but PRODUCER and ICTYoda are simply reverting it.

and they constantly push this statement

Croat politicians who worked with Franjo Tuđman such as counselors Dušan Bilandžić[10][11][12] and Hrvoje Šarinić,[13][14][15][16] and former prime minister of Croatia Stjepan Mesić[17] have confirmed the story.--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

rorschach inkblot test...

I apologize if I post this on the wrong place, but I think this is the most apropriate one... And again, I apologize if there isn't any problem, but is it acceptable to post the pictures of the test and most common answers? I only ask if this isn't irregular(?) for it is prohibited to do both by the council of psychologists of my country... Thanks

You want this discussion. – iridescent 23:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Burger King & Burger King products

I was advised that this discussion was more appropriate for this discussion board by another editor on the ANI board so I have copied and pasted thie locus of the discussion from there. I have left everything intact so to simplify the matter and not reiterate the details, as well as expanding on the basics of the dispute.

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

• Burger King products
• Burger King

Involved parties

• Jerem43 (talk · contribs)
• RaseaC (talk · contribs)

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

This is a content/3R dispute that I would like to have a third party look at. RaseaC deleted a section in the BK products article article regarding the iconography BK uses in labeling its products and advertising, which I disagreed with and restored. He then deleted it again and I restored it requesting that she not delete it again and discuss it on the talk page before continuing. He then deleted it again and started a discussion. I replied to him stated my reasoning, implying his behavior was consistent with edit warring and requesting she restore the information until such time that consensus could be reached. He refused, claiming that he had consensus based on a previous discussion regarding an unrelated issue involving fair use and that he was in the right. The basic disagreement here is that I believe since Burger King uses these symbols and markings in its advertisements, on its web pages and on its uniforms it is appropriate for inclusion while he thinks this is not an important subject that does not warrant inclusion.

The Burger King article involves the lead, which includes a summary of the legal issues section of the article. My reasoning is because it is done in summary style this section is properly included, specifically per the lead section of the summary style guidelines summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone (my emphasis on stand-alone). His belief is that the lead shouldn't include this information because no other article does.

Could an uninvolved person look into this for me please?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by other involved parties (Please include diffs to substantiate your claims)

The previous discussion mentioned was related, as two other editors clearly stated doubts that there was encyclopedic merit, hence, as far as I'm concerned, a consensus. I'll be back in a few minutes when he opens an ARI on the other page he owns.RaseaC (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC) Don't sweat about the gender thing. My response to the Burger King page was that there is no need for such an indepth paragraph regarding such a mundane issue, and I couldn't really find any basis for such from a handful of other similar pages, though reading through my response on the talk will clear that up. Not sure where the personal attack was, but it probably did happen, people often complain about my behaviour, but then we've got more important issues. RaseaC (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Jeremy's additions;

• The icon informaion is simply unencyclopedic and there is no presidence for inclusion. Furthermore, comments from other editors agree that there is not encyclopedic merit for this information.
• The Burger King article lead was, admittedly, summarised; but to the extent that it essentially asid 'BK gets in trouble from time to time' and THAT is not particularly notable. As stated in the article discussion, I would be happy if there was a noteworthy, landmark case noted, but there is no such case and therefore no such reason for inclusion, as fellow editors agree.

I believe that this does not need administrator attention at this time, but simply adressing in the respective talk pages, as I have attempted; to draw appropriate discussion, as it has done. RaseaC (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Flirt (album)

I wonder if we can have some intervention regarding whether or not this article should be redirected to the artist's page. My concerns are that there is no confirmed track-lisitng, no confirmed release date, no confirmation from the artist of the title anymore (its been so long since it was supposed to come out that everything will have changed) and no confirmed cover-art or single. Plus the article is a stub. Some users are intent on keeping it open just because under a different name the album had one or two singles. But can i remind admin that a similar discussion was opened regarding Her Name is Nicole which led to the article being deleted as it just didnt supply enough fact to warrant its own page despite the artist having to charted songs.

You can find the on-going discussion here: Talk:Flirt (album)#Article Revert. i ask for intervention because despite 3 editors (including myself) giving clear arguments for not keeping the article open there is at least one user who insists otherwise and without administrator intervention i feel that the issue might linger without resolution.

(Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Victor Child

I'm a little worried about Victor Child (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I cannot find a single online source to verify this person's existence. I've tried all sorts of combinations of searches, including dates, variations of Victor, searching on Google books, news and web... nothing whatsoever. Perhaps my search skills are not as great as others though, and I know Google isn't everything, so I'd appreciate it if anyone manages to find anything. Thanks, Majorly talk 23:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He probably isn't notable, but I'll ask User:Freshacconci, arts editor and Canadian. Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I found one reference to Child: (The Globe and Mail (Canada) February 18, 1984 Saturday Past laughs and lampoons Goblin dished out satire and humor typical of 1920s BYLINE: PETER HARRIS; GAM) in passing. His name is in a list

The Great Gatsby is no more authentic than The Beautiful and the Damned, but then it does not need to be, for it has naught to do with realism. Neither is The Great Gatsby sentimental. It is, in a word - romantic. Among the contributing cartoonists were Lou Skuce, Victor Child, Marjorie Jones, Bryant Fryer, Hy Moyer, Jack McLaren, and Jimmie Frise, then making a name for himself with a weekly newspaper feature called Life's Little Comedies, but destined to create a Canadian institution called Birdseye Center.'

That's all I could find on Lexis Nexis. I'm not in Canada, but perhaps someone should get hold of old copies of the Toronto Telegram. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably not notable, I found passing references like [6], but probably not that useful. -- œ^™ 00:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnbod nudged me out of my slumber to take a look at this. I'm not certain how notable this is. He was a working illustrator and seems to have associated with a number of notable people, but beyond that it's a bit of a blur. Since the Toronto Telegram folded in '71, finding old copies may be tricky. I'm not sure it's really worth the effort to go searching through microfiche in an old library basement for old newspapers, but I can look through some Canada-specific academic databases and see what I can find. The most interesting thing in his bio is the exhibition "face-off" between the traditionalists and the moderns, but since the latter "won", it really isn't saying much about Childs overall. But he had some exhibitions and there might be more info out there. freshacconci talktalk 00:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Emmy bad

I've got concerns about 75.5.239.210 (talk · contribs) going around to TV show and actor articles removing Emmy award-nominated and Golden Globe winner and related content. An admin should have a look at this. Seems about a hundred articles have been hit now since the IP started editing yesterday (my time - 2 days ago UTC time). -    allstar▼echo    04:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Another user has since brought this issue up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#75.5.239.210 -    allstar▼echo    08:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bedok Green Secondary School

Bedok Green Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The school has written to Wikimedia's OTRS system (ticket #2009080510018503) and contends that the section regarding discipline is inappropriate. I tend to agree with this, based off the fact that there seems to be a significant amount of misrepresentation of the sources used, however I would like more input from the community to see whether my views on this issue are reflective of consensus.

Regards,
Daniel (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove it. I would tend to agree that the current analysis in the discipline section represents a clear novel synthesis in the sense that it makes an analysis of the schools discipline practices from the written codes; without reliable sources to indicate that the school actually enforces its rules as described in the article. At best, a sentance or two which states, in non-judgemental terms, that the school follows the code of discipline as described in the documents which are linked seems fine, without going into unecessary detail about which aspects of the code students may or may not like. The redlinked talk page means no one has bothered to dicuss this before; I would leave a note on the talk page explaining why you are doing what you are doing, citing the relavent policies WP:NPOV and WP:OR especially WP:SYNTHESIS. The OTRS ticket is a nice heads up, but it is irrelevent to the issue at hand, since the article is clearly in violation of core guidelines and policies as it reads now. --Jayron32 18:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Baby P

The court order that applies to Death of Baby P expires in 10 mins, at 23:59 GMT. Sources are already available, so it would be good to have details added soon afterwards. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The big question is whether biogs for the people convicted are warranted. Redirects may be the best solution. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

EchetusXe (talk · contribs) has added some redirects[7]. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this be added to Template:In the news? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Gates mugshot and arrest photo, in or out?

There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 1:35 am, Today (UTC+1)

How is this important for Wikipedia as a whole? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it is, important to how or what the wiki wants to be or become, But that is my opinion. I added it here as it is after all disputed content, so I thought that people here might like to pass an opinion. I have posted the same comment in three or four locations (noticeboards} as I felt that people should get chance to pass their opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Michael Salvatori and permastubs

In dealing with the people involved in the Halo video game franchise, I've been working intermittently on de-stubbing various related creative peoples (Joseph Staten, Luke Smith (writer), et al.) However I and the rest of WP:HALO have hit a sort of stumbling block in Michael Salvatori. As his article will attest, he's definitely a notable figure. The problem is that the information in the article right now is basically all the info we can have on him. His writing partner Martin O'Donnell is the one who does the interviews and appearances, and thus everything we know comes from O'Donnell interviews. I've scoured print databases and every nook of the web, but I think it's a safe bet to say that it's going to be a permastub.

So my question is what does everyone think should be done with it? It's a pretty low traffic article so I don't think there are too many WP:BLP concerns in that regard, but merging isn't a good fit either; his production company, TotalAudio, isn't really notable and wouldn't be much larger of an article, so creating that article and merging Salvatori there wouldn't actually solve problems. There's no other good article to shunt him too, either, as he's done work outside of Halo. (I AfD'd it once, but the people who showed up said to keep it.) Thoughts on what to do with this? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)