User talk:Boleyn/Archive 18

Steven Black (disambiguation)

Now at RM see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I directed those links to the pages intended, Sorry for getting off on the wrong foot. Anyway the talk page was moved incorrectly hopefully the admin in question will fix it soon. Thanks ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait (disambiguation)

Hi Boleyn! Could you please review and if you're inclined, weigh in on the talk page on Douglas Tait (disambiguation)? Your edits on the disambiguation/see also are being used to claim consensus, though the policy discussion has changed a bit since your last visit. Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and sorry about the delay in replying - I missed this because I got another message soon after. I've commented on the Talk page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdur Rehman (cricketer) etc

Hi. If you look at Abdur Rahman you'll see that I've separated out the cricketers and footballers. I've optimistically taken your cleanup tag off the cricketers. I don't mind if you modify what I've done. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me up to date. I think the cricketers and footballers certainly need their own sections, but I'm going to propose that the incompelete disambiguations be merged to Abdur Rahman#Cricketers and Abdur Rahman#Footballers, to avoid any possible confusion. Please comment at the merge proposal if you're unsure this is the best course. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Matt Barnes (disambiguation)

Hello Boleyn, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Matt Barnes (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Only one entry on this DAB page has the "Matthew Barnes" full name. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Robert Farrar

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Robert Farrar, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TheJJJunk (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheJJJunk. That article was created by User:158.169.131.14; I created the page as a redirect to Robert Ferrar, whose name is sometimes spelt Farrar. Perhaps it should be changed back to that? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

incompdab

Hello. You tagged the dab page John D. Landis with {{incompdab}}, so presumably you understand the gobbledygook at WP:INCOMPDAB. I can't make any sense of it, and neither do I see how it applies to this case. What would be, in this case, "the main disambiguation page" and "the complete disambiguation page for this subject"? What does it mean for a title to "call for double disambiguation"? Is "John D. Landis" the "more specific title" that is "still" ambiguous? More specific than what? What assumed temporal order underlies the notion of "still"? What is, in this case, "the ambiguous title" under which editors might create new articles by accident? Hopefully you can enlighten me. --Lambiam 23:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lambiam. You're right that people find the guidelines for incomplete disambiguation pages hard to understand. The issue here is that [Category:Human name disambiguation pages] are for those who share the same personal name, i.e. given name + surname, without a middle name or an initial. When pages have been created also disambiguating by initial or middle name, there often ends up with a duplication of disambiguation pages, which means people can miss what they're looking for. The 'complete' disambiguation page would be at [John Landis] or [John Landis (disambiguation)]. WP:TWODABS also comes in here though - that if there are only two entries, hatnotes are recommended rather than a disambiguation page. In this case, I didn't know who people were more likely to be looking for when they type in 'John D. Landis'. As one has it in his article's title, I thought it might be more likely to be him, and that he should be at 'John D. Landis', with a hatnote to the other? John Landis has a hatnote at the top, directing people to the only other article with this name. I hope that's clearer, let me know if you're still confused. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both have the full name John David Landis. The filmmaker is usually credited as "John Landis". But people using the search term "John D. Landis" are not necessarily more likely to be looking for the academic, since the filmmaker is much more famous. In fact, I was searching for the filmmaker and ended up on the academic's page. That is why I thought a dab page would be clearer than treating the academic as the primary topic. We could move John D. Landis to John Landis (disambiguation), but I don't see the advantage. I'm still quite confused by the prose at WP:INCOMPDAB; I guess "incomp" may also stand for "incomprehensible". --Lambiam 15:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Lewis

Hi! Just wanted to let you know that I made a tiny edit to one of your talk page comments on Talk:James R. Lewis as instead of linking to the category as you presumably intended, it included the talk page in the category and did not display inline. If I did wrong, feel free to revert.

(I also gave the third opinion you asked for, bit late but...) ~ Kimelea (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with your proposal. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom_Herman

Hi, Boleyn! I have a quick question concerning the Tom_Herman redirect slash disambiguation. This was my first attempt at both redirects and disambiguation, and I am hoping to learn the process. I noticed that you changed the redirect to indicate a non-controversial proposal to change the redirect to the disambiguation page. Is that normally the protocol? Is that what I have should have done to begin with? Thanks for your help, Dalisays (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dalisays. Yes, a disambiguation page would be at the primary page, unless one entry was by far the most likely target, and then their article would be at the primary page. You might find the guidelines at MOS:DAB and WP:DDD helpful. Thanks for creating the page. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Tait disamb

Would you mind restoring the link to the stuntman at Douglas Tait (disambiguation) to point to Douglas Tait (stuntman)? A few hours ago X4n6 pointed it to Douglas Tait, among other disruptive edits (including putting a G6 orphan disamb speedy tag on Douglas Tait (illustrator)). Anyway, I am arguably at three reverts (at least two) at the disamb, and don't want to approach any 3RR problems. Thanks! Novaseminary (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and I'll keep an eye on it too. Thanks for letting me know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Carl Björkman, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. TwizteDope (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TwizteDope, and thanks for informing me of your change. I see you are new to Wikipedia. Please be very careful not to rv someone's edits as vandalism without checking it out first. In this case, a valid (disambiguation) page was overwritten by an invalid (unreferenced) article. I restored it to how it was. If it had been a referenced article, I would have recreated it at a more appropriate title, but as we are not allowed to create unreferenced articles, I didn't do so. It's always worth having a look at someone's user page, and user contributions to see if they are likely to be a vandal, and to look carefully at their edit summary. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American people

See my proposal to upmerge Category:18th-century Americans to Category:18th-century American people Hugo999 (talk) 07:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good idea. Thank for keeping me informed. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haida (disambiguation) --> Haida merge

Hello. This seems uncontroversial. Couldn't we just copy paste the info over and leave the history behind? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just merged it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angel. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SunTrust Building

Hi. I noticed the move request you left at SunTrust Building. I'm guessing that you meant to propose moving SunTrust Building (disambiguation) to SunTrust Building, but I'm not certain because the tag suggests replacing the article with itself. :) Could you please clarify the request? - Eureka Lott 02:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry about that. Yes, I was proposing STB (disambiguaiton -> STB. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action Man

Hi. Any interest in/need for a dab on this? The hatnote on the main article seems to go on forever. I see there's a set index for the TV series. Quite a few hits come up in a search, even if they mostly appear related. I was actually looking for whether any information existed on the Widespread Panic song. Nothing came up which didn't require perhaps more searching that it would be worth. Let me know, thanks.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could certainly do with one. I've started one at Action Man (disambiguation). Thanks for flagging it up. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Collier, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Vrenator ^talk 09:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please check things more careful before accusing people of vandalism. For instance, I'd have a quick look at their user page and user contributions. That would show me to be a long-standing and experienced editor - unlikely to also be a vandal. The edit summary explained my edit. Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I made a mistake.Vrenator ^talk 09:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks in dab pages

With reference to this, an editor has been systematically putting redlinked members of the Constitutional Loya Jirga into name or dab pages, and I've been removing them again. Perhaps we should talk. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Samuel, I hope you're well. The page in question seems to clearly meet the criteria in [Template:db-disambig] and WP:TWODABS as a page that shouldn't exist. However, I often give these pages a bit of time, as often a third entry pops up. As for the redlink, it does meet the guidelines at MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION for a valid dab entry. Personally, I agree with these guidelines, but they are considered controversial by some. Here, I don't really see any harm - if someone looks up this man, they can find some info in the bluelinked article, and without the dab, they would find nothing. What do you think? Do you think it is worth starting a discussion at the Wikiproject or on the Talk page of the dab if you are concerned? GeoSwan is a prolific editor, and often adds these links to pages he/she's working on, so it may be worth inviting him/her to any discussion, if you start one. What do you think? All the best, Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your remarks about WP:TWODABS. My main concern was the redlink, not so much for its own sake but because if is representative of so many, as you can see by looking at the reversions and deletions in my contribs of today (14 April), the great majority of which are similar redlink removals. I'm absolutely sure that most of these fall under the MOS:DABRL ruling "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." I'm disinclined to widen the discussion unnecessarily, but of course I'm willing to defend what I've done. best wishes SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are probably right on the MOS:DABRL issue, and the redlinks may well not meet guidelines. I think they would still meet MOS:DABMENTION though. What do you think? Certainly these edits are respresentative of the thousands GeoSwan has created and edited, so if you feel strongly about these, you may find it best to widen the discussion. There is a recent discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#How_far_do_we_go_in_including_unlinked_entries.3F that you may want to tag this on to, and see what others think. Boleyn (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MOS:DABMENTION needs to be clarified so as to restrict its scope to items that are actually discussed in the article, but not where the only mention is appearance in a long list, which is the situation we're discussing here. I have to stop for a day or so now, but thanks for pointing out the WikiProject_Disambiguation discussion, which I may join soon. best wishes SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I checked the contribution history at User_talk:SamuelTheGhost, to see when we interacted before. That took me to an exchange we had over on Talk:Sharaf al-Din about two years ago.

You are the expert on dismabiguation. Would you take a look at my comments to Samuel over at Talk:Sharaf al-Din? I think I made very similar points to what you made above -- two years ago. Do you think I made any mistakes in my comments there?

I checked {{db-disambig}}. When instantiated it seems to me it says it only applies to orphaned disambiguation pages. None of the disambiguation pages I created were orphaned -- they all had at least two incoming links in article space.

WP:TWODABS seems to leave some discretion to the contributor as to whether to use a disambiguation page, or hatnotes, when there were just two potential links to that page. One of the suggestions as to when touse a disambiguation page instead of hatnotes is when the hatnote was in danger of requiring more than one line. Some of the disambiguators had to be really long. There were about 500 delegates to the Loya Jirga. 92 of them have required a disambiguator. When there was just one individual of that name, I used their province as the disambiguator. But some individuals had namesakes at the Loya Jirga. Some of those individuals not only had namesakes, but had no province listed, or their namesake was from the same province. One of the longer ones was Ahmad Shah (Constitutional Loya Jirga, committee eight). You can see the whole list at Talk:Constitutional Loya Jirga#rough work.

Don't feel an obligation to weigh in but, in the interests of completeness, I thought I should inform you I left a followup to parts of this discussion at User_talk:SamuelTheGhost. I will note that when Samuel said "I'm disinclined to widen the discussion unnecessarily..." that seems to have included informing me.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geo Swan. I have looked over the discussion you had with Samuel a couple of years ago, and your comments agree with my understanding of the guidelines. I think Samuel is seeing, as others also do, MOS:DABMENTION as far too inclusive. This is also the view of several other very experienced, excellent editors, so although I disagree (for the reasons JHunterJ outlined in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#How_far_do_we_go_in_including_unlinked_entries.3F), I respect the opinion, and Samuel's work on WP. However, we have to be very wary of editing based on how we think the guidelines should be, rather than as they are. As for WP:TWODABS, it strongly recommends not using a disambiguation page rather than hatnotes, but is also clear that like everything with Wikipedia, 'guidelines' are not 'laws'. Personally, if there are only two, one with an article, and one with a redlink in only one article, I would go to the article and add a hatnote to the redlink, e.g.

. This would create a redlink there, for if/when an article's created, and also for experienced users to click on, and see what else might link there. Many might think, as Samuel perhaps does, that to follow the link to a dab would just waste people's time and cause disappointment, and that if WP has practically no info on someone, then that should be clear from the outset, and then the user can try a search engine. A couple of years ago, I would have agreed with this point of view. Now I've changed my mind, partly from seeing the rate at which Wikipedia expands. I think some of the dabs you've created are borderline worthy of inclusion, but can be, and probably will be, worked on, to be uncontroversially useful.

Samuel is certainly not alone in these opinions, which is why I was able to quickly suggest a current discussion on this very topic. I think you left a very articulate explanation of your edits on Samuel's page. However, you will also find other editors arguing that these are not useful pages. To ensure that once created, they are kept, and seen as useful, I would see if there is a third entry which meets MOS:DABMENTION. You would be one of the best people to see this, as often it may be about different transliterations of the same name, something others might not be so familiar with. I would also see if there's any chance of creating a stub on the person, although I know this takes time, and you've certainly created a huge number of articles within your area of interest.

This is an area people disagree on, and you and Samuel are both prolific and very valuable editors, so I'm sure you'll discuss things and probably still disagree, but then there are room for lots of opinions. You may also want to contribute at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#How_far_do_we_go_in_including_unlinked_entries.3F. I don't think it's an issue that will gather an overwhelming consensus anytime soon, but at the moment I guess we have to work within the guidelines we have, which are the result of previous consensus. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages

Hello, i've noticed that you tagged Charles Wallace (disambiguation) and Joseph Kahn (disambiguation) as needing cleanup. could you specify what errors I have made in creating the page? hbdragon88 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reasons were put in the page, next to the cleanup tag, but yes, I guess it would have been helpful to add it to the edit summary too. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)The template says that further info may be at the Talk page, so I think that's where such comments should go, even if it saves you afew keystrokes and a few seconds to dump them in hidden comments next to the cleanup tag. Things get messy when everyone invents their own system. I'm not sure that a doubt about Primary Usage merits "cleanup", which should be for wrongness rather than doubt. Stick a note in the talk page querying the primariness, and anyone interested can consider it and act if they feel fit. PamD 07:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal of Bob, Bobby, and Robert Wheeler

I wonder if these requests should be treated the same way as Richard O'Sullivan (disambiguation). What about ~~Al Rose (disambiguation),~~ (oops, doesn't exist) Albert Rose (disambiguation), and Alfred Rose (disambiguation)? --George Ho (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, George. Personally, I find the set-up at Richard O'Sullivan confusing, and not in keeping with the guidelines. Albert and Alfred are separate names, so I wouldn't suggest that they merge. The Bob, Bobby and Robert pages could stay separate, but personally I think they should be amalgamated to avoid duplication or confusion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Richard and Dick must be separated, correct? I read that Dick derives from Richard, unless they are disambiguous. Well, there is not one article titled "Dick O'Sullivan". Regarding the merger, I personally don't think Bob, Bobby, and Robert are ambiguous, so merger won't help much. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for Richard and Dick, it's the double intro that I personally don't like and think is confusing and not fitting guidelines. As for Bob, Bobby and Robert, personally I think they're very ambiguous. I'd be surprised if any Bobs and Bobbys aren't Roberts, and Bob abd Bobby in particular are often used interchangably. However, if you object, just add a note to Talk:Robert Wheeler. I don't think it's a big deal, but I think someone could easily miss who they were looking for with this set-up, for some reason people often stop reading at the see also section, so don't see there's another dab. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've eliminated the extra intro. Nevertheless, there is not one article about "Dick O'Sullivan" yet, so I prefer that Dick and Richard, until one Dick O'Sullivan exists, be not separated yet. As for the "Robert" thing, I'm going to create the Rob Wheeler (disambiguation) as a redirect to Rob Wheeler. I wonder if that is distinguishable from Robert, Bob, and Bobby. --George Ho (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be, as a Rob can be a Robin, although it's much less likely. It can be covered as well in the intro, e.g. Robert, Bob, Bobby or Rob Wheeler may refer to:, so everyone's clear. Boleyn (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I don't know which first name is popular for Wheeler. If merged into Robert, which else must go after Robert: Bob, Bobby, or Rob? It's not like Richard Sullivan. --George Ho (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would really matter which came next. Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hale (surname)

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hale (surname), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.tititudorancea.org/z/hale.htm.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the site is a copy of this information, which was on Hale, but which I've now moved to Hale (surname). Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mademoiselle d'Elbeuf

Bonjour, the issue we have with these ladies is that none of them seem interesting enough to have had articles created for them, so Suzanne Henriette is the only link. What do I do?! Helpppp :) Templatier (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Don’t worry if they don’t have an article, are they mentioned, even very briefly, in another article, e.g. their mother’s, father’s or husband’s? If so, include a bluelink to that article, e.g. Madame x, wife of [Duke Louis]. If they are not already mentioned in their parent(s)/spouse’s article, could a mention be inserted into it? As disambiguation pages are meant to simply be navigational tools to Wikipedia articles, without a blue link, the entries will end up being deleted. Let me know if you have any further questions, and again, thanks for creating these. Hopefully the information will be found, so that all entries can be kept. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can Merci ;) Templatier (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmark and Black mark

I have recently moved Blackmark to Blackmark (novel); now revert is proposed in Talk:blackmark (novel). Is there a point to disambiguate blackmark, or is the move against policy and guidelines? --George Ho (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it benefits from disambiguation, but hatnotes rather than a disambiguation page. Black Mark and blackmark are easily confused, but they are different, so bearing WP:TWODABS in mind, hatnotes seem the best option. I think you've been working hard on disambiguation pages and have created some which were long needed, so thanks for your hard work. I think sometimes they have too many entries that aren't really ambiguous, e.g. Black Market as a see also on Black Mark, or George Rose as a see also to George Ross, and this can make it hard to see the wood for the trees. However, that's a matter of where I draw the line (although so do most other editors), and it's a matter of personal judgement. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Discussion is closed as moved to "blackmark" and "black mark". I'll be neutral here: are they any valid arguments from opposers and supporters, and was the closer accurate? --George Ho (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the discussion through in full. Wow, it turned pretty awful, didn't it? All editors should be respected, especially as we're all volunteers. As for the final version, it's probably not how I'd have done it, but it seems OK. I don't think there's any risk of users not finding what they're loooking for, and that's the important thing. My only concern is that there are many incoming links to Black Mark, which are currently misleading, but I've tagged it and it should be sorted quickly. Thanks and best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mademoiselle d'Elbeu

I have been deleting the pages recently created by two sockpuppets of user:LouisPhilippeCharles. Most of them had next to no other editor input.

user:Templatier a sockpuppet of user:LouisPhilippeCharles created a page called Mademoiselle d'Elbeu. As you had edited it and its associated talk page several times, this is a courtesy message to explain why it has gone. -- PBS (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Setter Hill, Tingwall

The article Setter Hill, Tingwall has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable landscape feature

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Iris Law

The article Iris Law has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As per WP:NMODEL models must be judged to have had:
1) significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3) unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
Re 1) I am no expert in the modelling business but I can only see one appearance in Illustrated People which is a publication that isn't on Wikipedia, an appearance in a 2017 brochure, and three Burberry adverts two years ago.
Re 2) I cannot see any indication this person has a fanbase of any note, that seems to exist more with her father Jude as a famous actor.
Re 3) it is clear from the article she has made no unique, prolific or innovative contributions in life. The only notable incident in her life so far was the ecstasy hospitalization at age two, which would be better served in the articles on Jude Law and Sadie Frost's personal lives.
Overall, I cannot see any evidence of notability for this person, I would recommend deletion until her modelling career takes off. So far, one appearance for Burberry isn't a "significant role" and WP:NMODEL requires multiple appearances in such noted publications.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Llemiles (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Iris Law for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Iris Law is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iris Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Llemiles (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Llemiles, I'll look it over. I only created it as a redirect, I've alerted he article's creator. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mountains Burn

The article Mountains Burn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a vaguely identified stream that I can't find on any map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Peatfold Burn

The article Peatfold Burn has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Just a vaguely identified stream that I can't find on any map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both the above are on Google Maps, Shantavira, and there is a clear reference in each article. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, Aberdeenshire

Hi Boleyn. I noticed you removed the geographical coordinates I provided for Forbes, Aberdeenshire. I have reinstated them as I believe you removed them in error. If they are wrong please supply the correct coordinates. All place articles should include geographical coordinates. This enables other editors to confirm their existence, and if that can't be confirmed the article might be deleted.

The reason I removed "It is connected to Tullynessle 1 3/4 miles from Alford" is that is not clear to me what is meant by "connected" (administratively? physically?) and which place is "1 3/4 miles from Alford", Forbes or Tullynessie, and in which direction. That sentence is not very helpful as it stands. Also it would be clearer to put 1¾ miles if that is what is meant. Best regards.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting it is silly, just because it lacks details such as whether iit is 1 3/4 miles n, e, s or w. Perhaps trying to find the answers would be best if you feel they are necessary? You claim to be doing WP:BEFORE on your deletions but I'm finding the answers to most of these within seconds of googling it. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Boleyn. I have put a lot of work into trying to find the locations myself. Neither Google nor Google Maps gives me any useful result for "Mountains Burn", neither does OS maps. Out of the two references in the article the Ordnance Survey one only gives the name, not the location. I have been unable to trace "The Place Names of the Parish of Huntly, Patrick W. Scott" as it lacks any publication information per Wikipedia:Citing sources. The purpose of references is to enable the information to be confirmed. If you can, it would be helpful to add the actual location to the article. Best regards --Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Judith Grimes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Judith Grimes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judith Grimes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I jut created it as a redirect but have commented at the AfD. Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Justin Collins for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Collins is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Collins (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ElAhrairah ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just created it as a redirect, alerting article creator, DynamoDegsy. Boleyn (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) I think Wikipedia needs to get a bit smarter about acknowledging the real creating editor of an article, instead of, or as well as, the person who originally made a redirect from the title. There are two problems - people like you and me getting irrelevant notices, and the person who actually cares about the article not getting alerted to AfDs etc. Perhaps there needs to be some sort of algorithm whereby the last person who converted something from a redirect to an article is the one who is on file as "article creator"? I am plagued by notifications that "there has been a link to Districts of Russia", which I created as a redirect. It has 19,000 incoming links (from the infobox of a large and ongoing group of new stubs) and I have been notified about every single one. I have to keep clicking through the list of notifications, 25 at a time, to pick out the occasional link to an article I'm interested in (usually to a dab page I've created).

Actually I'm thinking of proposing, next time there's a community wishlist, an option to disclaim interest in an article for the purposes of those notifications, as I also once misguidedly created an article for a small publisher I found as a red link, and then had masses of such notifications when their books were cited and I just didn't want to know! Ah well. We carry on with our gnoming. Happy Editing! PamD 07:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, PamD, yes, it can take up a lot of time - that sounds like a crazy amount of notifications! Often these redirects have gone back and forth between redirects and articles, but if it could target the first person who changed it to an article, then that would be best. A lot of these are ended up deleted at AfD though as people aren't voting for the ATD of turning it back to a redirect, and I'm not sure why, I think people are just thinking keep or delete. Your proposal sounds helpful. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people don't close AfDs by reverting to the original redirect may be that they haven't ever checked the start of the edit history! Then in some cases there's an argument to delete and create the redirect again from scratch, to suppress its edit history and ensure that the deleted article is thoroughly deleted, but that can be done, preserving the original useful redirect. PamD 14:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what I actually came here to say is that I now find that "let me suppress notifications of links to a specific file" is a long-outstanding request on Phabricator, and someone there even suggested it was a good candidate for Community Wishlist, so I will take that forward. The "notify the person who first/most recently (discuss!) converted it from redirect to article" is a different issue but perhaps should also be proposed for wishlist. PamD 15:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reply

What satisfaction canst thou have tonight? Thmazing (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thmazing, thanks for replying. Can you please respond to the messages I've sent you on your talk page so, hopefully, between s, we can get the article out of CAT:UNREF. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Boleyn,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 804 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Bernard Drake (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bernard Drake (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Drake (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jimmy Simons

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jimmy Simons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MP stubs

Hallo Boleyn

I'm coming across lots of your MP stubs while stubsorting. I'm giving them the detailed stub category eg {{England-pre1707-MP-stub}} and the categories from the hierarchy at eg Category:15th-century English MPs, but I suspect that a lot will slip through the net if other stub-sorters aren't as familiar with the UK historic MP cats and stubs. It would be great if you could just routinely stick the right stub and category on while creating these little stubs, also the {{link rot}} tag if you haven't got time to sort out the reference fully. As you're producing so many, it would take much less editor time in all if you could do these extra bits while creating the stub, and wouldn't take you long. Thanks for all your work on disambiguations etc. PamD 11:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam, I add categories where I know them but am not looking extensively for categories on my latest ones, just concentrating on adding what I know and getting the articles started. I'm not planning to stub-sort or add extensive categories, but will add what I know. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That stub template I mentioned above is useful, applies to all pre-1707 English MPs, might well be missed by inexperienced stub-sorters - one of the more arcane templates. It would be great if you could add it when appropriate. Thanks. PamD 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DEFAULTSORT

Per WP:ORDER this goes before the cats and I've got a feeling it doesn't work for any cats which are before it. In Kerry Sharpe and another recent Manx politician you added it below existing cats. Lots to keep an eye on! Thanks for your work tidying up dab pages! PamD 15:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Boleyn!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you, Onel5969 and the same to you :) Boleyn (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page archives

There's something strange going on with the archiving of your user talk. The archiving bot has been archiving things to old archives, so now you've got a rather confusing split in many of them. E.g. User talk:Boleyn/Archive 17 has messages up to early March 2012, and then again from June 2019 to mid-September 2019. Similar issues exist for most, possibly all, of the archives prior to that one. (Additionally, you appear to have accidentally created archive 37 as User: subpage rather than User talk: subpage, but that's pretty easily fixed) You might of course be aware of this, but I figured I'd drop a line just in case all the same. AddWittyNameHere 23:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't check my archives at all so hadn't noticed. Best wishes, 06:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)