User talk:Barno/Archive 2

Re:AFD

Care to have another looks at the AFD for Stella Nova (which was incorrectly at "Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand")? Grutness...wha? 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, vote changed due to your move and fix of three errors in title. Thanks. Is "second-biggest SF club in NZ" notable enough to get past nn-club guidelines? I have no experience with anything more relevant than DAANZ (the Diplomacy (game) Association of Australia and New Zealand). Barno 03:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to have another look at the AFDs for some of the Survivor-related personalities, especially Tammy Leitner and Hunter Ellis. The former has won an Emmy award for her work as a TV journalist, while the latter hosts a weekly TV program on The History Channel, and hosted another until 2003. Some of the others also have cases for non-Survivor notability to one degree or another, but those two are the most clear-cut. -Colin Kimbrell 06:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, votes in two AfDs changed to keep those two and exclude a couple of borderline cases from the "delete all" generalization. Barno 14:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; a pleasure doing business with you. -Colin Kimbrell 00:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moog records

We're on the threshold of a no consensus here. I've moved relevant text into the appropriate section of Robert Moog. As I continue to contend that "Moog records" is protologism, would you support a merge and delete? -- Krash (Talk) 23:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL license doesn't really support "merge and delete" for reasons of keeping a history of contributors. Since you asked this, the article has been closed as "merge and redirect", which is fine with me. I think "Moog records" is an old term used only within a niche, not a made-up term with no currency. It's likely to be a search term but the redirect covers this. Barno 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm not dissatisfied with the outcome. -- Krash (Talk) 18:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Ellis

I've put this article up for deletion review, after re-writing a stub focused much more on his non-Survivor notability as a TV host, which was then speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Since you commented on the initial AFD, I thought you might want to participate in the discussion here as well. -Colin Kimbrell 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Evans

I vaguely remember hearing his name when he was popular, as I've been a NASCAR fan since the early 1980's. Too bad I never got a chance to see him race. It was extremely easy to find a magazine cover with Evans.

My interest in NASCAR has declined over the past couple of years. Too many 1 to 1.5 D-shaped tracks. Not challenging enough. I concentrate more on NASCAR drivers from the 1980s and 1990s. I like checking out the dirt tracks that are everywhere here in Eastern Wisconsin the most. Royalbroil 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect vs blank and redirect?

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsepthexium - does "merge and redirect" mean the same thing as "blank and replace with a redirect" here? I'd have suggested a merge rather than a delete, but I'm not sure the page has any content that would add to Transactinide element. I think we're pretty much agreed on what should be done with the page, I'm just not sure about terminology. --Calair 10:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything except the name and symbol, which are just the generic "1" "7" "6", are under the unsourced description of "presumably", there doesn't seem to be anything that really needs to be merged. A table of un-un-whatever names up to element 999 wouldn't help Transactinide element. Where groups of superheavy elements are predicted in peer-reviewed journals to have certain properties if created, those can be discussed and cited in articles about those groups, as the Elements project commenter suggested; but I don't think the unsourced speculation here needs to be included at the level of individual never-created elements. Nor does this "presumably" chatter need to have attribution kept in TE or hypothetical-element-group articles (which will get citations instead) to satify the GFDL. Barno 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy (game)

Hello. We both are trying to improve the external links organization. For instance, I added the long-overdue Yahoo! link to Diplomacy World since DW stopped posting issues at the old link and people might mistakenly think it defunct. I have a question on the new category. Almost anything can claim to be a hobby service, and anything on the web with a 'zine, Yahoo! group, forum, or mail list or can claim to be an international organization with a membership, so what did you have in mind about the new category that won't see everything get dumped into it, essentially un-doing the categorization advantage? Thank you. Wikist 03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the 'Diplomacy' hobby, the term "hobby service" has a specific meaning, dating back to about 1968-70. A service relevant to the whole hobby, such as a centralized listing of zines, an orphaned-games rehousing service, or the Boardman Number Custodian, fits this idea. A zine (or these days a website) which just has some hobby news or its own ratings system isn't a hobby service, just a gaming forum with extra features for its own users. The list in this article now tries to categorize by primary function; I think that DW's traditional position as hobby flagship zine remains intact, DC exists to promote cooperation among local/regional/national/continental hobby groups, and DP (not counting its lack of updates) exists as a hobby-wide resource connecting references, player database, the webzine, and so forth. Most of the other big websites exist mainly for players to play games and to learn about events in their own geographic or online space; their "hobby service" features, if any, are secondary, so they should not go into this group. Barno 17:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for the clarification on "service," which seems to be the crux. Most 'zines are "places" to play but DW is a service. I am going to end here and cross-post this on Diplomacy talk to inform future editors.Wikist 12:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR Modified

You seem to be in touch with the NASCAR Modified series. Please consider writing an article for the series. Here's a cool website that you could use if you choose to write the article: [1]. A cool related list would be NASCAR's list of Top 10 NASCAR Modified drivers: [2]. Any article that I would write would likely pale in comparison to what you could do. I will eventually write an article if you don't. Thanks! Royalbroil 04:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source is [3]. Okay, I'll try to get a proper stub started (in the next couple of days) with a couple of reference links, then we can both add details and have the community develop the article. Thanks, Royalbroil. Barno 15:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article drafted as a subpage of my userpage. Needs most champions added into table. Needs series logo, needs picture of a NASCAR Modified. None of either in Wikicommons. Barno 01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Why didn't you just cut and paste the article? I don't care about the talk page. The days of waiting for the move will prohibit it from DYK consideration. I think this article is worthy, except possibly if its too long. I guess its too late now. Royalbroil 04:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cut-and-paste moves lose the contribution history, as well as the talk page. The how-to page I read about page moves recommends not using cut-and-paste moves; it has instructions on how to fix it if cut-and-paste is done accidentally. Maybe I'm not aware of DYK policies and practices (never cared much about the front page), but I don't see what difference the delay makes. It seems like a more complete and documented article is a more important factor than how new the article is. We'll see. Barno 02:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've nominated Whelen Modified Tour for DYK with the grabber line "...that Richie Evans holds the record for the most NASCAR championships with nine NASCAR Modified championships, including his posthumous championship in 1985, the first year of the Whelen Modified Tour ?" Barno 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Whelen Modified Tour, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Congrats for the DYK honor. The article sure came together nicely! Royalbroil 05:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You gave good help, and Walter Newcomb (recruited via Mod Series Scene's messsage board) sent a lot of information. Walt's working on more history and old photos and stuff; the article will continue improving. Barno 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the citation request, merely commented on it. Jooler 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Spencer

Hello, I found out that Jimmy Spencer raced only one race in ASA, but he won it. It was in 1993 at Brainerd International Raceway.

To me the American Speed Association driver category is for any driver who raced at least one race in ASA. Do you think drivers who was not full time ASA drivers be allowed in the category? I personally think that anyone who raced a single race should be, but that is my opinion. Thank you Bdman 21:26, 09 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that definition, as long as we're using it consistently with how WP uses similar categories. Certainly it's notable that Spencer won that ASA race, so he should get this category tag, but some ARCA or IMCA racer who tried one ASA show and didn't win might not be such a clear choice. Barno 15:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject NASCAR proposed standards

WikiProject NASCAR needs your help! We are in the process of forming our proposed standards which, when complete, will hopefully become a Wikipedia guideline. The guidelines will help editors understand Wikipedia consensus about things like which NASCAR-related articles meet notability standards. Please stop by and let us know what you think! Recury 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FHM lists

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FHM lists

A deletion discussion that you participated in before has arisen again. Uncle G 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cannabis Corp.

I can hardly use Wikipedia, but you bet that's not a hoax. I added some refs and if you want one of the Annual Reports just drop me an e-mail at IvyEmporiums@aol.com. If you want ironic, our lawyer is now backing a startup company called Terrasphere that was originally started as a company that created grow-rooms for cannabis cultivators. This is like, nearly twenty years after we nearly made rhe cannabis plant legal as the source of a pure pharmaceutical, Laucence McKinney

(I moved this to the bottom.) Thank you for adding the references! Barno 13:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor moved them to the article's talk page. I assume they'll be checked out, then added to the article in the format used for footnotes and their references. Barno 13:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Sinedia-Cazour

Barno, I would implore you to change your vote on Julia Sinedia-Cazour. First off, the case was validated by Jean-Marie Robine (who verified the Jeanne Calment case) and Julia was rated as the world's 10th-oldest person at the time of her death. This may not seem like much to a lay observer, but when you consider that the well-publicized Henry Allingham is ranked just 66th in the world right now, then perhaps it will start to sink in. We do in fact have multiple sources, including www.grg.org, www.genarians.com, and many French articles covering a period of years. Also, I find it ironic that Madame Cazour, who faced much discrimination in her lifetime and was a social activist for justice, would now be faced with another battle in her death. France still has an 'empire' (i.e. places like New Caledonia, Reunion, French Guiana, French Polynesia, etc) and thus Julia was the 'oldest ever' among quite a large collection of entitites.

Sincerely, Robert Young Senior Consultant for Gerontology Guinness World Records → R Young {^yakł_talk} 05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT the Guinness Book, and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Can you provide sources that other editors won't describe as all from the same news source and all one-sentence passing mentions or blog entries? Barno 18:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOCAL NY RACE TRACK PAGES HERE ON WIKIPEDIA

Barno,

The following track articles are now here on Wikipedia: Shangri-La Speedway, Chemung Speedrome, Spencer Speedway, Oswego Speedway and Wyoming County International Speedway.

USER: Bmoore2009

(I'm responding on Bmoore2009's talk page.) Barno 01:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrekBBS Deletion Review

Thank you for your opinions in the TrekBBS AFD. I do not agree with the closing admin's decision and have listed this now under Deletion Review. As you had participated in the AFD, I wished to inform you this in case you wished to voice your opinion on this --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 17:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keller Court Martial deletion review

Hi Barno, Thanks for your input into this discussion. You wrote 'I don't know many of the facts, especially whether major magazines have included featured coverage that shows probable "lasting influence" as compared to "only passing attention".' But some of the sources cited were published 15 years after the court-martial. Surely this shows some sort of "lasting influence"? warm regards Abu ali 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I've added discussion in that AfD of why that is not always true, although it's often an indicator in that direction.) Barno 04:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input. You wrote "Many newspapers and magazines have small-print filler sections of what went on five, ten, fifteen, twenty years ago." Do you think that the references discussed in the deletion debate (especially the books cited by RonaldR) fall into this category? You also said "If the newer articles demonstrate that the court-martial itself had a lot of lasting influence, then (when properly cited) they should help the relist end as keep." In the light of this comment, would you be prepared to change your vote to a relist? Abu ali 10:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I already noted there that I favored a relist if closing admin saw it that way. The way deletion review works, I don't need to reverse my endorsement of the previous deletion (which was appropriate given the information available then) in order to favor a relist based on the new information, which is how I described my vote. Thank you for trying to cite sources and get the topic reconsidered within WP's rules. Perhaps the trial's facts and consequences should be merged to the new article titled by Keller's name, rather than have the article be about the court-martial itself. I suggest discussing with other editors whether the lasting effect was from the court-martial itself, or the protests and advocacy; again I haven't read in enough depth to judge fairly. Barno 00:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Midnight Rider

I just deleted the article so if you want to create a DAB per your comments in the AfD, go for it!--Isotope23 16:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later-no-harm criterion

Barno, I would go along with a merge. If it fails AfD, let's do it.--Fahrenheit451 04:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mfd for User talk:Easternempires

Hello Barno:) Just to let you know someone has edited User talk:Easternempires to make it so it is not violating a single policy. Now all that it has is a welcome. Have a nice week and god bless:) --James, La gloria è a dio 02:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Andretti

I am working with User:4u1e to develop the article for one of my racing idols Mario Andretti to "Good Article" status for WikiProject Motorsport. I hope to develop it to "Feature Article" some day. Would you critically review the article? Please give us feedback on the entire article, and in particular, areas that we have identified as weak: the introduction and the overall structure of the article (particularly the time in his life where he "racing in several series"). Let's use the talk page for the article for discussion. Thanks! Royalbroil 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andretti curse

I see that you've added new sources, which is a good first step. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, none of them mention a "curse", only that that dude's family has crappy luck when it comes to a particular race. Unless "Andretti curse" can be demonstrated to be a phrase in popular usage, I'm not convinced the article shouldn't be deleted. A bunch of folks with bad luck isn't intrinsically notable in my book, sorry. Ford MF 03:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why didn't you put those new refs actually in the artice? I didn't even think to look at the AfD at first. They do no good there. Ford MF 03:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, because I had a half-hour available, not two hours; and second, because some editors frown on articles being changed in the middle of an AfD which makes people comment on different works within one discussion. I consistently see sources mentioned in an AfD then added once the discussion is concluded. If I had enough time to do the whole work in detail at once, I would have, but a half-done improvement is worse than none for a clear discussion. Barno 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario (again)

Hi - Royalbroil came up with a revised structure for Mario Andretti (I think that was one of the things you picked up on) - I've just implemented it and made a few more tweaks, do you find the revised version clearer? Glad of your opinion. Cheers. 4u1e 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boardgame images

Since you seem to be pretty familiar with both board games and Wikipedia's image use/copyright policies, could you take a look at a few that I've uploaded just to make sure that I've followed policy? These are photos that I took of set up games. [4], [5], [6]. Also, any recommendations about composition would be helpful as well. I wasn't sure whether or not to try to work the box cover into the shots or not. Sometimes it seemed like a good idea, sometimes not.

Thanks for your help. -Chunky Rice 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression (after a quick look at each) is that all three of these are properly tagged, appropriately (or at least reasonably) composed, and potentially useful in helping article text describe the games. (Remember that illustrations are supposed to improve understanding, not just look pretty; these will meet that obligation if the text refers briefly to elements displayed in the images.) But I'm not a top expert on image use policies, so you might want to ask a regular from the Copyrights policy page to confirm. From the perspective of WikiProject Board and table games, these appear to be just what we need. Thank you! Generally I would avoid using the box cover in the shots, simply because it isn't relevant to a game in progress (except NIAGARA where the board's "river" flows over the box's edge when set up as directed). Most gameboxes have copyrighted cover art that merely gives a feel for the theme; only a few have the front cover actually illustrate the game's play. Barno 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic AfD comment

Hi there. I hope you don't mind me dropping off this note, but I was reading an old AfD and I was struck by the irony (if that is the right word for it) of the comment you made here (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker): Once she dies, will "she was once the seventh-oldest known living person" enough to get past the WP:BIO guidelines? Heck no. I just thought you might like to know that Edna Parker is now the oldest person in the world! :-) I'm sure something profound could be said about this either way, but I can't quite put my finger on it at this moment. Something to do with hindsight and WP:CRYSTAL. Carcharoth 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grinning. Don't bury Edna yet, nor her chances of being immortalized online for eternity. Barno 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kulwicki

I'm working to improve the Kulwicki article to at least Good if not Featured status. I was wondering how you found the list of books about Mario Andretti. Royalbroil 03:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google search and a lot of patience scanning through many pages. At the time, Google Books was open, and I added at least four books that I didn't find in the regular search. I'll try to look through STOCK CAR RACING old issues for Kulwicki books from racing-focused publishers, and for feature articles good enough to use for content sourcing. Barno 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would greatly appreciate you doing that. On Labor Day I drove 1.5 hours each way and went to Kulwicki's grave for pictures and reflection. Then I went to Alan Kulwicki Park to take a picture of the sign, and I noticed Brooks pavillion. Kulwicki died with Mark Brooks, son of the founder of Hooters. I sneaked into the pavillion (even though it was rented out), and I was totally surprised to find a trophy room with all of AK's trophies, including his Winston Cup and owner's champion trophies. They also had many banners that he used too. It was AWESOME! Royalbroil 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the March and July 1993 issues of Stock Car Racing magazine have stories about Kulwicki. Do you have either of them? The July 1993 issue has a story called "One More Call" by Tom Roberts is available online, and I have used it as a reference. I'm trying to expand the section about his homecoming as champion to Greenfield High School in January 1993. I remember watching a recap of the event on the Milwaukee local news that day. Any thoughts about where might I be able to find 1992/1993 issues of local newspapers like the Milwaukee Journal or Milwaukee Sentinel (especially online sources)? I have the movie "Dare to Dream: The Alan Kulwicki Story". What do you think about using it as a reference? Royalbroil 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the July '93 SCR handy, but not the March '93 issue. It might show up in a future retrieval from old storage spaces. July '93 (Volume 28 Number 7) has several pages of credited photos, with context in new captions, starting at page 22; Rob Sneddon's "Glimpses" (mainly paragraph-length quotes from people he worked with in Wisconsin late models or ASA) starting at page 29; more photos on pages 48-49; "One More Call" by Tom Roberts (who was supposed to be on the fatal flight) starting at page 52; Father Dale Grubba's "Knowing Alan", starting at page 64; and SCR Editor Dick Berggren's notes on the funeral, on page 73. I'll start looking for specific points to add citations and fill in gaps in the article. ... The largest public libraries in Milwaukee, Madison, etc. might have those years' archives of the biggest newspapers around the state. If not, each newspaper has its own archive dating back to the last major fire. ... I haven't seen that movie. In general, that kind of gushing-tribute-titled film isn't that strong a reference; it's just a step up from a press release that got reprinted somewhere. It's actually better for establishing notability than for sourcing details, but you can probably cite it for anything that you remember reading other places. Barno 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also in July '93 SCR, Dick Berggren's and Richard Petty's columns are about Kulwicki, but I don't see any facts there, just talk. I'll check the articles tonight or tomorrow. I don't see any Kulwicki books in the ads but I'll check an issue from a few months later. Barno 01:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no ads for Kulwicki books in Jan '94 SCR, but I know I've seen some advertised at different times. Barno 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father Dale Grubba wrote a book about Kulwicki, but it has been waiting at the publisher for several years according to several sources. The movie was based on Grubba's book according to these sources. I unfortunately live 1.5 hours from both Milwaukee and Madison, and I don't care to take another long drive. I already drove the 1.5 hours to Milwaukee for photos of his grave and park. Royalbroil 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your organizing and additions to the article. I was hoping to expand on Kulwicki's role in Larry Detjens' death, but only if it is encyclopedic and non-offensive. Detjens was a very well-known and popular driver in Wisconsin, and he helped launch the career of his nephews Scott and Chris Wimmer. Detjens death apparently turned many Wisconsin fans away from Kulwicki, so he went to touring series - that might be worth mentioning if it could be sourced. Kulwicki's movie showed Kulwicki's sadness at Detjens' death, but names weren't mentioned. Royalbroil 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far I see Mike Randerson's account (both drivers racing too hard too early in first race of an ARTGO twin-fifties, side-by-side slaps, Detjens tried to save car as rear came around, hit rail at pit entrance, rail through door, AK went to LD's funeral in Wausau). Will read more. We should consider how much detail (and discussion of fan attitudes, driver motivations, etc.) is appropriate. Barno 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the WIR track program in 1980: ".... I could win 100 short track championships and it wouldn't put me where I want to be." So we can't attribute "went to touring series" to the Aug'81 crash. We still should find a source for "never raced at WIR again"; maybe I shouldn't have removed the tag. Will keep looking. Barno 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! - - I found a source for the Jan'93 AK Day in Greenfield that you requested. I added it just now. Barno 04:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have request a peer review for the Alan Kulwicki article (Wikipedia:Peer review/Alan Kulwicki/archive1). Several people have reviewed the article, and I have implemented only the easiest problems so far. I would appreciate your input. Royalbroil 13:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool images on flickr

I made a contact on flickr [7] with someone who took hundreds of pictures of Modifieds at Orange County Fair Speedway. I'm sure you would very much enjoy the sets. He also has uploaded images of the 1983 Pocono race. I found out about him when I when I noticed that he had an image of Kulwicki's 1989 car in a set from Phoenix. I requested that he consider Creative Commons. He licensed all of his images of the 1983 and 1989 races to Creative Commons, and Wikipedia was SIGNIFICANTLY improved! I looked thorough his modified pics, and I found several that I recognized as notable drivers. He's been real nice to talk with too. Enjoy! Royalbroil 14:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks. Barno 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEAR

With 14 wikilinks to New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame, I decided to write an article. Please peer review and expand. Royalbroil 20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to work on it. There's a lot of potential content that has great notability and strong interest among a few thousand people, but never got very much national coverage. If I focused just on that list of mostly redlinks, I could keep busy for years. Barno 15:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I do suggest only hitting the people with national influence/notability/coverage. Should the redlinks to non-nationally notable people be removed, and only wikilinked when someone writes an article? You would probably be the most qualified Wikipedian for determining which redlinks should be converted to black text. Royalbroil 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but once I do some Googling and a scan through the SCR issues I've dug out so far, I can tag (and we can stub) the known-sourceable ones and then... maybe redirects to this article would be more useful than either dead redlinks or black plaintext which gives the reader no further help or context. Simply being in this HoF (not necessarily every hall-of-fame, but the ones with most historic notability and respect-among-racing-people) is worth a redirect (Redirects Are Cheap), even where we don't yet have enough for a worthy stub toward an article. Barno 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, if the only place we expect these names to ever appear is this article (and not a category, or future bio-stub, or some racing series' future article's list of champions), then they probably shouldn't get a redirect. That would be mere self-reference, and some guideline recommends against such redirects except to show where articles were deleted. But most, maybe all, of these NEAR HoF'ers had some publicly acclaimed accomplishments such as winning major championships and winning multiple major events as a driver or car owner. They'll be relevant to other articles. Redirects will help the search function find the names, and serve as placeholders for future articles when old newspapers show up. Eventually we'll recruit more of the racing "historians" with records including published stuff. Barno 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in general with all of your comments (without seeing the specifics). All of these people should have accomplished major championship(s) and/or other notable accomplishments. Use your best judgement. Royalbroil 13:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all you excellent work on "The Rocky Horror picture Show" article

At first I panicked because there was so much being added, and in the past people have come through and chopped up what was the article that had been given the GA rating, however you cited your references and added good practical information. Did you say there is a Rocky Horror catagory now? --Amadscientist 23:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Category:Rocky Horror. Only subcategory yet is "Songs of ..." Barno 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snocross

I recently started the article and nominated it for DYK. People are requesting that it get expanded before it gets featured. I am having difficulty finding reliable sources. Do you have any that you would mind using to expand the article? I haven't watched the sport on TV or in-person, so I'm not versed in the sport. Royalbroil 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know hardly anything about this sport although I'm in snowmobile country. I have no sources but I'll try to search around. You have a good start to the article. Barno (talk) 20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thanks for your support with the stuff at WP:DRV. Nice to know that some of us still have faith in newbies... Hope to work more with you in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honda ecu codes

Hello Barno!

You left a comment over there which appeared to criticize what I had written. Can you be more specific on what you mean, because if I have offended, I would like to apologize to whomever I have offended? I thought my intent was to provide special emphasis to the succinct nature of the nomination, while making the case very strong. Please feel free to respond here or on my Talk Page at your convenience. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it sounded like there was any offense. "Wow, nom makes a pretty airtight argument if you ask me" (by the editor you cited) isn't really wrong, it just offers nothing new. See the guideline Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly "Per nom". There used to be a section "Me too" in that guideline or somewhere similar. By citing that comment as well as "per nom", it sounded at first glance very much like what we usually see when someone uses multiple login names ("sockpuppets") or recruits friends ("meatpuppets") to chime in supporting each other rather than giving independent arguments. Obviously this wasn't your intent. I don't believe you owe anyone any apoologies. Barno 23:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I am relatively new to becoming involved in deletion discussion, and was there as a suggestion from another editor to better learn about this aspect of Wikipedia. I think I fell into a habit of mimicking what I saw other people doing. Thank you for directing me to the guideline on this. I will be more careful next time. Good editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I fell into a habit of mimicking what I saw other people doing" also applies to some of my AFD/*FD/DRV patterns once I got a bit familiar with it. Thank you for trying to help the project, for trying to learn to help better, and for trying to resolve an apparent problem through discussion starting with a fair question and explanation. Keep looking around the policies, guidelines, guideline-ish essays, and various how-to's as you go along and deal with different topics and different process details. You'll be a helpful contributor, it certainly sounds like. Barno (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Welcomer's Barnstar
		I, the LonelyBeacon, extend a big thank you to Barno for his efforts as a good Wikipedian and educator of a greenhorn still trying to learn his way around during an AfD debate. The suggestions and courtesy are a model for all Wikipedians. Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me a hand with sourcing?

Good evening. I've taken a fancy to a small, obscure and marvellously bizarre card game with an article in dire need of work. Though a rewrite sits on my to-do list (as does half the encyclopedia, but I digress...) the thing was recently tagged for notability, making reference improvements urgent.

The thing is that I know where some sources should be, but am on the wrong continent for actually finding them. Do you have access to the August 2002 issue of Games (magazine), and Hoyle's Rules of Games (Third Revised and Updated Edition)? If yes, would you consider them acceptable references, and would you get your hands on them? Thanks. --Kiz o r 22:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't currently have access to either, but I will try to find them at a public library this weekend. Both are okay to cite as sources. Notability is established only if the article in Games gives substantial coverage, not a passing mention; I'll check. Barno (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! The game is 1000 Blank White Cards, the tabletop equivalent of Calvinball. Despite an intrisically low profile (don't you hate those?) and a corresponding state of the article, this does seem to merit inclusion. Comments on the Games article here, including one by its author, indicate that the game's coverage is definitely non-trivial. --Kiz o r 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked two libraries and not gotten ahold of either source, but there are other libraries that have them. I'll keep trying. I see the article now includes mention of both. I'll expand the citations when either is found. Barno (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update, a week later: I found the Hoyle's Third in another library and I'm adding and citing material to the article tonight. None of the libraries I've tried have Games in their current magazine racks nor their archives. The editions of Games Magazine('s) Big Book of Games in my last library are '84 and '88, so they're too early to contain the Aug '02 article. The friends who subscribed to Games in those days have moved away. Sorry. Barno (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I found a new article that I bet you have something to add to: Late model. Enjoy! Royalbroil

Thanks! As it happens, this dovetails with the book I'm working with today, on champs of NASCAR's weekly series. Barno (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Webb

I really don't understand why you and another user before you (if that wasn't your old user name) are moving a controversial article to a dab page without discussion. In the future, I highly recommend that you discuss before you make such changes. As it stands, the primary topic continues to be the journalist. I doubt very much that anyone is going to be searching for the musician under his birth name. That leaves us with one other article about a racecar driver, a stub article. Stil no need for a dab page. —Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The racing driver won a notable national championship, and I just created its article today, and am recruiting help from the relevant WikiProject. I expect the stub to be expanded within days. Look, I'm sorry if it upset you, but I did not realize there was any controversy, and the disambig is absolutely consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. Please bring further discussion to WikiProject NASCAR rather than reverting. Barno (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The journalist Gary Webb is the primary disambig. This link substantiates that claim, as does every search of academic, news, and research databases. Gary Webb (racing driver) is another instance of the name, but less known. Gary Numan was born Gary Anthony James Webb, but is known by his stage name. Read the guideline: "When an article title could refer to several things, a disambiguation page is needed. When the title usually means one thing but also has other meanings, add disambiguation links to the primary topic's article...When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. If there's a disambiguation page, it should link back to the primary topic. If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no '(disambiguation)'." You should be bringing this up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, not the NASCAR project. And you should discuss creating a dab page for controverial articles before implementing it. —Viriditas | Talk 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Thank you for showing which part of the guidelines you were referring to. I have dealt with a number of disambiguation pages, and have never before encountered an issue with which article (the dab page or one of the involved articles) should get the "plain" title. (2) It appears to me that the journalist Gary Webb ~~may fall under Wikipedia:BIO1E, "People notable for only one event", and~~ is considered by many to be discredited (though fewer now than at the time, if I understand some talkpage discussion correctly). Nonetheless, since Google search shows much more coverage about him than the racer or the musician, I yield to your claim that he is the "primary topic", and I will not revert your renaming his article to the plain title. (I give little credence to Special:Whatlinkshere in this context, as it merely indicates which topic has so far gotten more attention from previous editors, some of whom are clearly single-topic editors who may be giving undue weight to the journalist.) Struck-through the BIO1E part since the shared Pulitzer was for coverage of a different event. (3) Until I looked into what you were talking about, I had no reason to believe that disambiguating that article title would be "controversial". Certainly it would have been controversial had I moved it to "Gary Webb (muckraker)", "Gary Webb (hero)", or "Gary Webb (traitor)". The move was none of those. Had I realized this was a center of wikidrama instead of encyclopedia-building, I would have attempted to consult with appropriate editors or WikiProject Journalism. Note that there's nothing about disambig titling on the talkpage. (4) Clearly it's not true that there is "no need for a dab page" as you wrote above. The only question is whether the plain title should be on the journalist's article, the disambig page, or on no page. (5) There certainly is room for WikiProject NASCAR participants to comment meaningfully in this matter. (6) I continue not to appreciate your peremptory and absolutist tone. I noticed the same thing before, in some of your postings either on policy-discussion pages or at Deletion Review, when I had no other reason to notice your username. I've been contributing here for well over three years with no blocks and hardly any reversions. Let me remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN, neither of which were badly violated but both of which were pushed a bit. Barno (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never posted at "Deletion Review" and I've never seen your user name before. I don't know if Gary Webb has been discredited or not (from what I can tell he has not), but he's still the primary disambig. I'm also not aware of any "wikidrama", but another editor in addition to yourself attempted to create a dab page, and that too was deleted by an administrator. I'm only interested in the facts, and as far as I can tell the journalist is the primary topic based on internal links and external notability in search indexes - regardless of what his critics say about him. You write: "I give little credence to Special:Whatlinkshere in this context, as it merely indicates which topic has so far gotten more attention from previous editors, some of whom are clearly single-topic editors who may be giving undue weight to the journalist." Actually, whatlinkshere figures prominently in determining primary disambiguation, so I don't know why you ignore it. As for single-topic editors (I don't know who they are or what they have to do with this discussion) can you point to a single instance of undue weight in this case? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You don't think, for example, that "DarkAllianceWebb" was a single-purpose editor based on his username or on Special:Contributions/DarkAllianceWebb?? Relevance is that just because some editor(s) see one of a group of similarly-named articles as "primary", that doesn't make it objectively so, especially when some of those editors have a POV stronger than their attention to policy, and have turned that POV into articles and links in quantities that may make Whatlinkshere overstate actual importance. (2) There is a difference between what I wrote ("give little credence to Whatlinkshere in this context") and your "ignore". (3) I see you engaged in a revert war 20 July 2006 with User:TDC over content, and another 28-30 March 2005 with someone else where you insisted on repeatedly moving the disambig to the bottom where it's much less useful. These weren't good editing practices which would make me respect your views surrounding this article's significance. (4) Since we now have titling, hatnotes, and a disambig page that are apparently tolerable to all, let's drop the discussion rather than piss each other off further. Sorry I ever touched your article trying to disambiguate my own contribution correctly, when I was only trying to cover a notable but underrepresented national championship in an area where I have decades of experience. Barno (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying; I've been offline. Thanks for pointing me to User:DarkAllianceWebb, but I still don't see the relevance. The user in question did not change the links in other articles to impact Whatlinkshere in any way, so I don't know why you brought it up in the first place. The reason I initially recommended that you take this to the disambig project is so that you can get neutral guidance (Journalism and Motorsport-related projects will favor their POV) on how to justify dab pages. You may have neglected to notice that by giving you this advice, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I am not "pissed off" in any way, and I would sincerely like to offer you my apologies for any misunderstanding that has arisen. I would like to see this issue resolved such that you are satisfied with the outcome. As I see it, based on whatlinkshere, a dab header would suffice, not a separate page. There are no internal links to the musician as "Gary Webb" in any articles, and only one article that links to the driver. Because of this, there is no reason to have a dab page. I hope you will take this to the disambig project and get their neutral point of view on the matter, as I will support the consensus that they reach. I want to point out that from where I stand, you have a vested interest in the outcome; you have worked professionally in motorsports and are connected with the industry - some might describe this as a COI. You also appear to be a single-issue editor who works primarily on these topics. But, I have chosen not to go that route (unlike your comments about me above) and I will try to asssume good faith in your regard. So let's see you develop your argument with the help of the dab project. You may be surprised at the results. —Viriditas | Talk 09:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scratching my head not being able to find the problem here. Everything appears to be done properly according to Wikipedia:DAB#Primary_topic. I've edited probably 100 disambiguation pages and seen many different situations. There are 2 people named Gary Webb plus it is the real name of a famous musician. So the Gary Webb (disambiguation) was created to hold the disambiguation. Barno has yielded so that the journalist has the actual name and there's a hatnote to the disambiguous page. Is the problem that there's a hatnote? The link from the disambiguous page to Gary Numan is a plausible search term. There somehow needs to be a link to Gary Webb (racing driver) from the primary topic. Royalbroil 13:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barno isn't happy, which is why I've continued the discussion. As for my comments, I was referring to the proper use of hatnotes: When two articles share the same title, the unambiguated article should include a hatnote with a link to the other article. It is not necessary to create a separate disambiguation page. {{otheruses4}} may be used for this. Gary Numan doesn't really count because it doesn't share the same title nor do other articles use the duplicate title. In this case, {{Otherpeople4}} would work. {{Otheruses4}} states that if there are more than a certain number of topics (the example given is five) one would be better off creating a separate dab page. Since you are a member of the motorsports-related projects like Barno, I would again suggest getting a neutral opinion from the dab project. I will accept their decision. —Viriditas | Talk 14:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if Barno doesn't like the way that it is right now, then I disagree with him. I do think that Gary Neuman's real name does count since its a plausible search term in my opinion. You should take it to Wikipedia:Third opinion if you don't like the way that it is. I would agree with {{About||racing driver|Gary Webb (racing driver)|birth name of the musician|Gary Numan}} otherwise. Is that an acceptable compromise? Royalbroil 14:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the About tag you present above is much more effective, but I'll leave the decision to Barno. —Viriditas | Talk 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent, edit conflict while I was typing the following item) I said I accepted the version we had. Royalbroil's suggested About tag is probably better, I don't care, you guys try it and see if it looks more helpful.Barno (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (outdent)I am not happy, but not because of the exact tagging, and I have explicitly asked Viriditas to drop it. Since he has refused to comply, I'll explain. I see the March 2005 edit war as being closely relevant and on-topic. After making a lot of apparently productive edits to the Gary Webb article, User:Vinsci moved a disambig tag to the top of the article, with the edit summary "(move disambiguation according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation (keep as "Primary topic" disambiguation, though))". With no talkpage discussion, Viriditas reverted several edits including that one with the edit summary "(Revert edits by 68.123.158.167 (and Vinsci). See Wikipedia:Disambiguation. One can also disambiguate at the bottom of the article.)" (I'll WP:AGF and assume that's what the guideline said then; it says the opposite now.) After unrelated edits and a Viriditas reversion of those, Vinsci again moved the disambig to the top with the edit summary "(Primary topic disambig. While the guideline allows bottom as well (in another section of the guideline), don't hide the one-line disambig among the many links after a long article, serve all readers.)" Viriditas again reverted, with summary "(Reverted edits by Vinsci to last version by Viriditas. Disambig goes to the bottom because there is no confusion with the musicians name. Do a google search and see for yourself.)" As in our exchange last night, Viriditas took something described in a guideline as "can" or "may" (not "must" nor even "should") and treated it as a "must be my way, revert without discussing first, yell at the other guy." The other contributor, obviously not a vandal or noob, viewed the facts and guideline differently, and provided a sane reason, but Viriditas reverted without showing how his version conformed better with core policies or even with the top lines of a guideline, instead treating some "may" down in a guideline's minor detail as if it were a mandate to meet WP:5P. All through the edit history there are peremptory Viriditas reversions over content disputes, even telling a member of the Mercury-News staff which shared the Pulitzer that he knows better than them on the appropriate treatment of that (award divided by 200). More than once, editors who made useful edits that he reverted don't show up again.[reply]

Next item: V, did you even glance at my contribution history before calling me a "single-issue editor" with "a vested interest" and a "WP:COI"? Within the last week I've made dozens of edits to boardgame-related articles and wikiproject pages, and some to obviously non-racing AfDs, a city article, a user talkpage, and so forth. You need to do your research before casting aspersions. I don't care how these articles are disambiguated, just that they are. I don't care about a whole bunch of obscure alternative tags that nobody except WikiProject Disambiguation knows or cares about. I do care how editors behave when disagreeing. Let me make this as clear as possible: Viriditas, please do not contact me again, for any reason. I would prefer to avoid escalating to higher stages of the dispute resolution process. Now, I'm going on wikibreak. Drop it. Barno (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barno, I'm not contacting you and have no interest in contacting you. I'm responding to your repeated misinformation about me, which you keep bringing up to distract from the topic of disambiguation. The diffs show the opposite of what you claim. In 2005, dab headers were commonly found at the bottom of the page, not the top. Vinsci was correct to move it to the top, as consensus began to favor that style. But my revert removed the insertion of "Gary was a 1990 pulitzer prize winner" by 68.123.158.167.[8] It did not add it as you claim. Further, a discussion about including Webb in the Pulitzer Prize category took place between User:Commodore_Sloat and User:TDC. I participated later, and after edits back and forth, took TDC's side, which was to remove the category. The Pulitzer was last entered back into the article by Commodore Sloat at 22:25, 24 November 2006 [9] and removed again by an anonymous IP at 10:08, 2 January 2008 who claimed to be "part of the same staff that gary was that won that pulitzer" in the edit summary.[10] So for the record, your claims about me are false. Since you refuse to discuss the topic of disambiguation, I will be bringing this topic up with the dab project. Thanks for your time. —Viriditas | Talk 00:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IROC

There's another suggestion about the WikiProject, so please review the new comments and give your opinion. Royalbroil 17:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak

I hope that your absence from Wikipedia is over soon and that you haven't left the project. Don't let the above bickering bother you. You bring a lot to the project and I miss you! Royalbroil 13:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your citations, expansion, and review of the Alan Kulwicki article. You'll be pleased to hear that the article is now listed as a Good Article. I hope that you see that your contributions have made an impact here at Wikipedia. I toast you for all that you did to help accomplish the GA! Hopefully it will be a featured article soon! Royalbroil 04:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]