User talk:Neelix/Archive 1

I saw your article List of names derived from Clovis and I would like to ask you what your source is, because as far as I know the information there is wrong. Clovis is not the root of all these names, it is Hludwig.

BehindTheName.com explicitely states that:

Ludwig comes from the Germanic name Hludwig which meant "famous warrior", composed of the elements hlud "fame" and wig "warrior". This was the name of three Merovingian kings of the Franks, though their names are usually spelled in the Latinized form Clovis, and three kings of Bavaria.

It seems that you misinterpreted this and concluded that ALL names derived from clovis, which is wrong. Clovis is only a latinized form of the name and does NOT have frankish roots. Although some names may derive from it, they do not all trace their roots back to Clovis (The name Ludwig is not related to Clovis at all). Unless you don't mind, I will try to change some of your pages, but please check your sources in future references. --Ludvig 21:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for picking up on my onomastical error. I did not find the information on "Behind The Name" but on a Wikipedia disambiguation page. As information not contained in entries should not be contained on the respective disambiguation page, I moved this information to List of names derived from Clovis. I proceeded to add given names and surnames that were listed in entries on that page as being derived from each other or from the same source. Do you believe "Behind The Name" a credible source?

If you feel confident that Hludwig is the proper root, the easiest way to fix this problem is probably to simply rename the article "List of names derived from Hludwig". Almost all of the entries have respective disambiguation pages, and most of these have a link to "List of names derived from Clovis" in their "See also" section. Although each of these would need to be changed individually, I see this as the best way of clearing things up.

Neelix 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I just added Madonna back on the Madge disambiguation page, and thought it'd be polite to explain why. If you still disagree with me, feel free to change it back; I don't normally spend much time on disambiguation. I added it back in because I believe that the purpose of a disambiguation page is ultimately to help someone find what they're looking for. As long as the page is clear and easy to understand, I think that adding additional meanings helps the users who can now find what they're looking for, while not really affecting users who were looking for one of the other meanings. Madge is a commonly-used nickname for Madonna, particularly within the press, and I think that a reasonable person may type it in, looking for Madonna. That it's not detailed in the Madonna article is irrelevant, to my mind. (I could have added it there, I suppose, but the article is really long as it is.) The single nickname "Jacko" isn't in Michael Jackson, either ("Wacko Jacko" is, but it's unique enough to not need a disambiguation page), but it's a legitimate disambiguation, in my opinion, for much the same reason. Anyways, cheers! --ByeByeBaby 05:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Baby,

I appreciate you taking the time to explain your reason for adding

Madonna to the Madge

disambiguation page. I agree with your ideas about disambiguation pages; that their purpose is to help people locate a specific article, that not only the most common entries should be found there, and that it is reasonable to have Madonna on the Madge page considering it is her nickname. I also believe that disambiguation pages should not include pictures, citations, or new information. If an entry's article does not include information that is contained on the disambiguation description, then either important information is missing from the article or obscure information is used on the disambiguation page. Because Madge is not mentioned as a nickname for Madonna on her article, I took it off the disambiguation page. Still, I understand your reasons for wanting to keep it there and I won't remove it again.

Neelix 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Neelix! I have a question regarding this edit of yours. In the edit summary, you specified that you reformatted the page "according to disambiguation page guidelines" (I assume you mean

Furthermore, I wonder if Nikolay itself should either be a redirect to Nicholas (with the disambiguation page located at Nikolay (disambiguation)) or if the information about Russian human name should be put to Nikolay (name) (in which case the dab page will stay at "Nikolay").

Your comments on this will be much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I was, however, referring to

WP:MOSDAB. I have been reformatting disambiguation pages since January, at which time I read through the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages very thoroughly. I have not referred back to it very often since then. Apparently the guidelines have changed. Now having read the section "Examples of individual entries that should not be created", I agree with your assessment that the people named "Nikolay" or "Nikolai" should not be mixed with other entries. The entries should be moved to List of people named Nikolay

.

If this change is made, the only entries left on

Prince Nikolai of Denmark. I would suggest that Nikolai be switched from a redirect page to a short disambiguation page with these two entries and a "See also" section with a link to Nicholas and List of people named Nikolai. Nikolay could then be switched to a redirect page to List of people named Nikolay

. Let me know what you think.

Neelix 15:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, thank you for your thorough explanation. Unannounced changes in the guidelines hit everyone every once in a while, so no problem there.

I have several comments regarding your response above. First of all, creating separate lists of people named "Nikolay" and "Nikolai" is really unnecessary. Both spellings refer to the same Russian name of "Николай"; the only difference is the transliteration method. Second, Prince Nikolai of Denmark wouldn't be the only one left. Both

II

should stay, because they are well-known as either Nicholases or Nikola[y/i]s. Nikolai, Alaska, of course, is a definite keep. Alwin Nikolais should probably go, or he may be mentioned in the "see also" section.

Finally, about the list of people named Nikolay. Would you like to compile this list yourself, or would you prefer me doing it? For starters, it can include over sixty Nikolays listed in the

list of Russians

; others will surely follow.

Again, thanks for taking time to respond to this. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I'm glad we're working this out together. The reason I have been editing pages relating to "Nicholas" is that all of its varients are listed on that page. I would like to use that page as a hub, each varient linked to a list of people with that name. That way, the etymology and origin of the names need only be recorded on the "Nicholas" page. A page called List of people named Nicholas could be linked as well. This would eliminate the need to have the "Famous persons with the name Nicholas" on the "Nicholas" page. I would also suggest that a person should be listed on only one of the "List of people named..." pages linked from "Nicholas". This would avoid needless repetition.

For this reason, I would not leave "Nicholas I of Russia" and "Nicholas II of Russia" on "Nikolay" as they could be listed on "List of people named Nicholas". As to who should make the changes, I would like to try, but there are so many varients that any help you could provide would be much appreciated. Let's solidify our solution before we start in. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Neelix 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, the problem with listing people in only one list has merit insofar as navigation is facilitated, but it may be a problem if it's the only approach we consider. Although "Nicholas XX" is the prevailing usage, it is not at all uncommon when these two emperors are referred to as Nikola[y/i] XX in English, and it is impossible to tell which of these titles a reader would expect to find. We, of course, should provide for both contingencies.

Considering how I handled similar situations in the past, here is how I would do it for Nicholas I (just an example):

• he would be listed as Nicholas I on the "Nicholas" dab page;
• "Nicholas" dab page would link to "Nikolay" dab page, to the "list of people named Nicholas", and to the "list of people named Nikolay" in the "see also" section;
• Nicholas I would be listed on "Nikolay" disambiguation page, with a note that while "Nicholas" is prevailing usage, "Nikolay" is also common (aka clause)
• "Nikolay" dab page would link to "Nicholas" dab page, to the "list of people named Nikolay", and to the "list of people named Nicholas" in the "see also" section;
• "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology, with cross-links to related dabs and lists;
• Nicholas I would be listed in the list of people named Nicholas;
• he would also be listed in the list of people named Nikolay, with a note stating that while "Nicholas" variant is more common in English, "Nikolay" is also used;

The reason why I prefer keeping both Nicholases on the "Nikolay" dab page is the same MOSDAB provision I cited above. They both are very frequently referred to simply by their single name, be it "Nicholas" or "Nikolay".

I understand that the original way you proposed is cleaner and simpler, but unfortunately it may not serve the best interests of readers (the "needless repetition" you mentioned is in fact not needless—in this particular case it serves a useful purpose). If you have other suggestions regarding how to improve this (admittedly quite complicated!) situation, I'll be more than happy to hear them out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I've never had such an in-depth conversation with someone on Wikipedia before. I do think we're getting somewhere.

I can understand why you want to list "Nicholas I of Russia" on so many different list pages and disambiguation pages, so I will go along with it. There are, however, a few things in the scheme you outlined which still seem to constitute "needless repitition":

You have suggested that "Nikolay" proper would be an article about the name, its origins, and etimology. Should not the origins and etimology of the name Nikolay and Nicholas both be explained on the Nicholas page as they are both derivatives of Nikolaos? The majority of this information should be the same. I would suggest that "Nikolay" be a redirect to "Nicholas" as that is where links to "List of people named derivative of Nikolaos" could be located. It is currently where the list of derivatives are located. If you feel that this location is biased towards the common English spelling, perhaps this information (derivatives along with their "List of people named..." links) could be located on the "Nikolaos" page and all its derivatives could redirect there (or link there in the case that a disambiguation page for a derivative is necessary).

It is important to develop a scheme which could be followed for all the derivatives of "Nikolaos" rather than just "Nikolay" and "Nikolai". Thank you for persisting with me in developing this scheme.

Neelix 16:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix, I sure hope you are enjoying this discussion of ours, because I can go like that all day :) Thanks for bearing with me and for your patience.

To address your issues: first of all, just to clarify, I don't want to include these Russian tsars into every page related to "Nicholas", only to "Nicholas" itself and to "Nikolay" (and into two corresponding lists of people), so there are just four pages, not many.

Second, you are absolutely correct that the information about name origins and etimology should be (and already is) included in "Nicholas", not in "Nikolay". It was an oversight on my part—thanks for catching this inconsistency in my logic.

I wouldn't, however, make "Nikolay" a redirect to "Nicholas". From what I understand, you said above that you do not object to including Russian tsars to the "Nikolay" dab page. With the prince and the Alaskan town, there are four entries, which well justifies existence of a separate dab page. Same goes for all other variants of Nicholas—if there is a sufficient number of entries for a dab page, there should be a said dab; if the number of entries is two or less, then a redirect to "Nicholas" would suffice.

The dab pages, in turn, would point to "Nicholas" as the main article about the name, list entries which comply with MOSDAB, and provide links to applicable lists (such as "list of people named Nikolay" on "Nikolay" dab page) in the "see also" section.

As for minor name variations ("Nikolai" vs. "Nikolay"), this phenomenon is extremely common for Russian names. I would simply make "Nikolai" a redirect to "Nikolay" dab (not to "Nicholas"!) where all Nikolais and Nikolays would be bundled together. For a similar solution, check out Sovetsky, which lists all three forms (masculine, feminine, and neuter) of the Russian adjective, all of which redirect to that dab. "See also" also provides a link to Soviet (disambiguation) as well as a link to the derivative form Sovetsk.

I think such system covers all contingencies. Let me know if you see anything that wouldn't work if applied to the situation in question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki,

I do believe we have come to some conclusion. The scheme you have outlined sounds like it would work very well. I do not see any problems with it. Would you mind reformatting "Nikolai", "Nikolay", "List of people named Nikolai", and "List of people named Nikolay" as you have suggested? I would like to view your edits in order to make sure I understand your method. If I still have no concerns, I will gladly use your formatting as a template for the other derivatives of "Nicholas", and possibly for other names after that.

I'm so glad we have worked this out. It has been good conversing with you.

Neelix 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a pleasure working with you too, Neelix. I will make an effort to work on Nicholas-related lists/dabs tomorrow; if nothing urgent comes up, that is. Let me know if you need anything else. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Neelix! Me again.

I must admit it's been quite a while since I last took interest in lists of people by first name. It seems that current convention is to add all "lists of people named SO-AND-SO" to an appropriate location in the list of people by name (see, for example, how "Nicholas" is already taken care of. I'd have to dig up appropriate guidelines regarding who should and who should not be included, if we are to start a new "Nikolay as given name" subsection, and whether or not separate lists of people named so-and-so are allowed any more (I couldn't find any for first names, only for last names, although admittedly I didn't look all that hard). Would you know anything about current conventions? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again,

After doing some research into the subject, I believe the current convention is to do away with as many individual lists as possible, replacing them with categories. The rest are to be compiled by linking them all together, as in List of people by name or Lists of office-holders. The only guideline I have been able to find about who should not be included in "List of people by name" states that fictional people should not be included. In the case of people named Nikolai or Nikolay, it is probably best to simply list them in "List of people by name". Thank you for pointing this out. I could have wasted a lot of time compiling unconventional lists.

Neelix 20:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - After looking into the matter a little more, I find that people are not listed on the "List of people by name" by their given name(s) if they have a surname. I am unsure of whether these people should be listed on a "List of people named..." page, although this would be my best guess. If you find out anything about this, please let me know.

_ _ Please don't remove entries from LoPbN simply bcz the corresponding articles don't exist (as apparently on List of people by name: Para-Parj. Research a few years ago suggested a high rate of creation of articles corresponding to such lks; even if their presence on LoPbN was not what stimulated their creation (hard to measure!), keeping them saves the effort of re-entering them. (Especially to the point, in light of high rate of Category:Living people articles that don't appear on LoPbN.) I remove them when

• the content inherantly suggest non-notability (description focusing on relationship to an unspecified person, e.g. "husband and father"; hyperbolic description, e.g. "world's greatest ..."; young subject in areas where notability normally requires extended study and/or experience, i.e. most areas except acting and pop music)
• there is evidence of obscurity (usually a Google-test; especially relevant for actors -- check IMDb -- or musicians -- i dunno where to check, but you may)
• an article has existed but been deleted (other than for copyvio) -- AfD page included on "what links here" listing; deletion-log entry

Also, occasionally, something motivates me to do a Google test even in the absence of a justified presumption.
_ _ BTW, i mention after glancing at the discussion in the preceding sections, that i think you'll find a thrust to replace lists with Categories, but not in cases (e.g. holders of specific offices, MacArthur fellows, Academy Award winners) where complete lists can be assembled. (And LoPbN is an exception, tho never completable, because of the value of the single alpha list for "eye-ball search" where the searcher lacks the complete name or its exact spelling.) And lower nobility, pre-Renaissance commoners (mostly scholars), and stage names (

Hi, I wonder if you could explain this edit? You say "Reformatted according to disambiguation page guidelines", but an important

I understand your concerns about my edit of the

WP:MOSDAB as it existed at the beginning of the year. These guidelines have changed since then and I did not check back until Ezhiki

pointed out my mistake. Since then, I have been reformatting according to the current version of WP:MOSDAB.

With regard to your edit, however, I would question your deletion of the "See also" section, which is an important part of any disambiguation page, as is still written on WP:MOSDAB. I would also question your deletion of the

Enchanted moors, and Moors murders

entries, which still seem appropriate for the Moor disambiguation page.

I appreciate your concern for this disambiguation page and hope we will be able to come to an agreeable solution.

Neelix 20:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I did take the lazy option in reverting, for which apologies. I'll put back

Moors murderers, since they're very much names in their own right: no one looking for information on those topics is likely to look under "Moor", and no editor referring to them is likely to link to "Moor". Hope that makes sense, and please edit the page further if you think I've missed something. --Blisco

20:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neelix 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

...scanning the "new pages created" as I have been doing all week, seeing your "Long-haired", "Red-haired", "Chestnut-collared", etc disambig pages flying by brings a certain normality to the procedings. "Violet-chested" is a particular favourite of mine, I must admit. ;)

Neelix 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do enjoy the break from the monotony of obvious vanity, spam, defamation, and nonsense pages, yes. In fact, I do often find myself chuckling as another Neelix page goes by. Keep it up! :)

With the current state of the page, someone looking for almost any of these meanings will have to scroll though reams of irrelevant material to find it. The previous version of the page, meanwhile, put the primary meaning --

Sorry to write such a long essay, but with the amount of dab page reformatting you're doing I thought you ought to hear the views of one concerned Wikipedian. --Blisco 20:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Blisco,

Thank you for voicing your concern about my edits of the

Andre the Giant and Andre the Giant Has a Posse. As I have found it difficult to determine what entries are not valid for a disambiguation page, I have generally determined not to remove entries that seem like they could be appropriate, therefore I did not remove either of these. I also used the entries that were existing at the time as a guide to what should be added. If Belfast Giants

should be listed on the Giant page, so should every other sports team named "Giants". Feel free to edit this page as you see fit. My only intentions for reformatting disambiguation pages are to make Wikipedia easier to navigate. I would appreciate any comments or concerns you would like to share with me and I will not be offended if you make changes to my edits.

Thanks again,

Neelix 15:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I understand the difficulty. I think a good rule of thumb is to err on the side of removing entries from dab pages rather than adding them, for two reasons: firstly it makes them clearer and easier to navigate, and secondly because people are always adding inappropriate entries. (Andre the Giant Has a Posse is an extreme example!) I've reverted your edit and removed a couple more, but left the sports teams that were already there - not an ideal situation, since, as you say, why shouldn't others be added? - but these seem to be the best known ones, and I was uneasy about removing them all. I wondered about suggesting creating a List of sports teams using the name Giants or similar title, but on reflection that might open the floodgates for many more lists based on team suffixes. In any case, if there are any entries (in any category) you really think should be re-added then please do. Cheers, Blisco 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism. I created the article, and I reconsidered and realized an article on a trade paperback with no real information wasn't needed, so i redirected. —Skope (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Skope,

I'm sorry to have called your edit vandalism. Normally when I see an article's information completely removed without explanation, I assume vandalism. That type of thing is fairly common. That being said, I do feel the article has value. There are plenty of articles about trade paperbacks, as evidenced by Category:Graphic novels. As I look through the Star Wars: Republic article and follow its links, I'm impressed at the depth of detail and the breadth of information you have provided about the series. I would recommend that the "Endgame" article stand, but as you're the resident expert on the series, I won't revert your edit again if you feel that it should be redirected.

Neelix 14:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just that a lot of people are for as few articles as possible in the Category:Star Wars comics, and I felt the trade paperbacks weren't really needed, since all they really told was what comics they included. The only info they could have is about the comics themselves, and those comics have their own articles. I admit I should have added a comment on why I redirected. This is where a good bit of the chatter about all of the merges and whatnot: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Wars#Star Wars comics problem still. —Skope (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, I mostly rolled back your changes to the Resistance disambig page. I'd already made the Resistance page compliant with

• In descriptions, I strongly prefer to use proper English. By this I mean that you should be able to make a complete sentence stringing the headers and entry together: "Resistance can refer to, in politics, Resistance (socialist youth organisation), an Australian Marxist organisation." Removing "an" makes this a fragment, and sounds odd even on its own- very clipped. That style would work as a long parenthetical note, but not with the comma. It's the same for the section headers- you wouldn't say "Divisions can refer to in military to organizations of troops;" "in military affairs" or "in the military" would be grammatical.

• You avoided indenting any items. I cannot see why as this often makes something much easier to read, and is a very common practice on disambig pages. This is doubly true when something is a subset of another meaning; Drag is a specific kind of Friction (which is also referred to as resistance in many contexts, so should definitely be on the page), so it should go beneath it. Same with Thermal Resistance & friends (Thermal Conductivity is on the page because, if you look at the pages, you'll see that the Resistance article is tiny and it's all actually at conductivity, which makes sense because it's the same exact topic. Perhaps an argument for making Thermal resistance a redirect, but until that happens...).

• While not hugely common, it is entirely possible for articles without the magic word to be valid disambig topics, especially if there's a redirect to them. Many people entering in resistance mean (human) (disease) resistance. Hence, the link to the immune system. Frankly, if it's an issue, I'll drop a redirect off at Disease resistance to immune system and that can be the link instead, but this is a MAJOR usage, and one where Wikipedia has a wealth of articles on the topic. To leave it out would be silly.

• Lastly, as a minor nitpicky note, bands or people are not typically italicized.

That said, you did come up with a more succinct explanation for Resistance (technical analysis), so thanks on that. SnowFire 01:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

--

Thank you for the reply. Sorry I misinterpreted you on indenting; certainly keeping the number of entries on a disambig page low is a reasonable goal. Also, the art of when to link directly to the article as opposed to linking to a redirect (containing the name) is certainly an uneven one; I can't articulate any guidelines for my own preferences, and are probably likely to trust other's judgment on it if it's already been decided.

Also, while I wholeheartedly agree that entries on a disambig page should not be "let's free associate with the word and see what we come up with!," a disambig page should ultimately be based around intent and meaning, not the actual word itself. There are many times when articles containing the word in its title will be inappropriate, and there are a few times where articles that don't contain that word and don't have redirects with that word will still be an appropriate link.

As other notes:

Bands should always be italicized. People should not. It does not make sense to unitalicize V, Voyager, and Battlestar Galactica in the links but not in the descriptions. They should always be italicised. See italic type for when to use italics.

Er, bands aren't mentioned anywhere on the italic type page. I was going off of

As for internal parenthetical links... To prevent going insane, I usually don't italicize parenthetical disambiguators (even when they "should") under the theory of "too much work, too little return." Since they are used for internal Wikipedia use, I figured that WP can italicize them or not italicize them as it will, just like the iPod article is at IPod. That said, this is an interesting question. I think I shall go raise it on MoS:T and ask them if it's worth putting in an example with this.

"politics and the military" is not a field unto itself. Only the third entry in that section is political, and the other three are military. These are two separate fields. Also, adding the word the before military suggests that there is only one military, but the entries refer to more than one.

In that case, military affairs would work, but I think "the military" is clear enough. And I didn't mean to imply that they were one field, but rather two connected fields; I've done topics like "in film and theatre" before when appropriate, as an example. I felt that a resistance movement was not necessarily only in the military; it can be a political thing as well. The article there is pretty bad and short as it stands, but it does indicate in the header that nonviolence counts too, which would seem to make it an uneasy fit to a pure "military" category. That may change if the article was rewritten to only be about violent resistance.

PS - Out of curiosity, how did you come up with the name "SnowFire"? I like the image it conjures.

Thank you. When I was a wee lad (9?), I played Scorched Earth at a neighbor's house; the neighbor's daughter chose "Snowball" as her name, when choosing a computer name (other than my real name) was a rather new thing for me. Fast forward 5-6 years, and I'm registering an account on bungie.net for playing Myth: The Fallen Lords. "Snowball" is taken (and good thing, too, since it's an uncreative name in retrospect). I like the snow part, though, and I have a certain affection for Oxymorons, so I came up with SnowFire on the spot (blue & red colors, natch). It worked out well, and I've kept it ever since (though when it's been taken, Snowflame has risen to the occasion). SnowFire 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I noticed you are doing a great job of making things consistent and have been creating a lot of useful redirects. You might be interested that titles of articles for a single television episode should only have the series name in parentheses if necessary, according to

Neelix 15:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

It seems that when you reformatted Equilibrium, something went wrong - most of the page content is gone. Only some pop culture references are left - chemical equilibrium, for example, is no longer there. Was this intentional? If not, maybe it would be easier to revert the page and then reformat it, rather than copying and pasting the content into the reformat. What do you think? 124.148.124.68 13:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

My removal of the majority of the entries on equilibrium was intentional. I began reformatting the page by adding all the different types of equilibrium to the page - dynamic equilibrium, partition equilibrium, solubility equilibrium - but there are so many pages about different types of equilibrium in physical science, economics, and other fields that the revision I was creating became exceedingly lengthy. I assumed all these types of equilibrium should not be included on the page, so I removed all the ones that had the same meaning; the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced. The four that are left are the ones that refer to something else.

I do, however, understand your concern. The more common uses of the term "equilibrium" are the science-related ones. I hope I have explained myself in a sufficiently clear manner. I really do not know which entries should be added to this page as someone searching for "equilibrium" could be looking for any of dozens of articles. What do you think of having a separate disambiguation page for each field?

Ex:

Equilibrium (economics)

, etc.

This would allow all the types of equilibrium to be listed without making any one page exceedingly long. Let me know your thoughts on this subject.

Neelix 16:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I agree with you that someone could be searching for any of those articles. However, if there was a separate page for chemistry, another one for economics etc, wouldn't that be a bit messy – i.e. to have two levels of disambig? It seems to me, at least for the first half the page (using version 86455614 as a reference) it might be difficult to split up anyway. Although the uses are similar, there are enough differences to warrant a separate article for each one. So, I'd suggest leaving all the content on it – like the Aurora example in the manual of style and perhaps rearrange the actual entries. For example, the page starts off with physical sciences, then continues on to mathematical usage, before jumping back science again! This could definitely be improved. How does this sound?

124.148.124.68 13:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

Sounds good to me. It will be a long page, but Aurora is of a similar length and that's ratified by the manual of style, so let's go for it. I'll start adding entries as soon as possible.

Neelix 17:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

Looking really good! Much better than the old page, for sure! Just a few things that don't seem to have been transferred over from version 86455614:

equilibrioception

)

Equilibrium point

Shouldn't these be added as well? Or should they go somewhere else?

124.148.124.68 12:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

Thank you for the encouragement. I agree that

Equilibrioception

in a 'see also' section?

Neelix 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

I agree with the Other section for

Equilibrioception

. My dictionaries seem to define "equilibrium" as "sense of balance (or words to that effect) - noun", and then go on to some of the other science definitions, but with the entires tagged as Chemistry or Physics. So I think it should probably be nearer the top, as it seems to be closest to a "standard" definition. How about something like this:

Equilibrium is a common term for

Equilibrioception

, the sense of balance present in humans and animals. It may also refer to:

...

My thinking is that before studying higher-level maths and science, I only knew equilibrium as the sense of balance. It seems to me that equilibrioception is the proper, more scientific name for this (much like

baking soda

) and thus we should redirect people looking for this straight on to the correct page. Those looking for other meanings will be more prepared to scroll down the list, most likely being more aware of the different meanings. So, how does this sound?

124.148.124.68 13:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wontoo Fore,

If you feel that

Equilibrioception is the most common usage of the term Equilibrium

, it should be fine to have it at the top. To be consistant with disambiguation page formatting, let's write it like this:

Equilibrium is the sense of balance present in humans and animals.

Neelix 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's good to work this out too. It's what Wikipedia is all about! And your suggestion sounds great! My only question is, why not link directly to the equilibrioception page and omit the Equilibrium (balance) redirect page?

124.148.124.68 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Neelix 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix,

That's nice of you. Yes, including equilibrium in the title makes sense – I definately agree with that. I'm on the bandwagon!

124.148.124.68 12:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Neelix 23:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No serious problem. I see you have deleted the entry from the disambiguation.

Hello Neelix, may I ask, why you deleted the part on anomaly and software testing? As you can see it is a known term from IEEE 1044-1993: Standard Classification for Software Anomalies.
Or is it moved somewhere appropriate? --Erkan Yilmaz 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erkan,

I removed the software testing entry from the

WP:MOSDAB. According to these guidelines, a disambiguation page exists soley to help a user find the article they are looking for. The IEEE 1044-1993 and testobject

pages do not exist. I tried all the other links in the entry, but neither of the resulting pages mentioned anomalies at all.

Neelix 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Neelix, after such a good explanation, I only can say: you are fully correct. I will create such a page then. --Erkan Yilmaz 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neelix, I added here now a link. I am still updating the article itself, but I guess so far this works ok? --Erkan Yilmaz 19:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erkan,

I like how the new

Anomaly in software

page is coming. It's good to see you putting the effort into making it. It definitely makes sense to have a link on the Anomaly disambiguation page now. I would like to make two minor formatting suggestions for the article you've created:

1. Wiktionary links usually only go on disambiguation pages, unless there is no disambiguation page for a specific word. Since the link is on the disambiguation page, it's not really necessary here.
2. To conform to the standard format of naming articles,
   Software anomaly or Anomaly (software)
   might be a more appropriate title.

Neelix 04:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

for creating a placeholder page for Author! Author! by the Scars that redirects to the band article. Thank you. I'd been meaning to do that but never got around to it, so the fact that you did it is superb. I will get to work on the actual article as soon as possible, thanks to you. You are the kick in the (American) pants I needed to get my butt into gear. (Krushsister 20:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC))

Hi Krush Sister,

Thank you for the encouragement! It's always good to hear that my edits are appreciated, and I love it when my edits encourage others to contribute. Thanks for the virtual kiss!

Neelix 19:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that last change, I read the

• For people: Do not include a, an or the before the description of the person's occupation or role.

too fast, and didn't notice it was restricted to people's occupation only. You are right...

Your edit: [1]

Regards, 202.63.40.179 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tuotu,

No harm done. Thank you for letting me know why you made the switch. I hadn't realized that a's, an's, and the's should not be used in the descriptions of people entries, so it was a learning experience for both of us!

Neelix 18:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

:-) 202.63.40.179 00:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

An editor has nominated the article

It was getting cluttered, so unfortunately I had to remove the bits of info you added. If there is any problem, I'm open for discussion. I know that you've put plenty of work into the article. I am hoping that you will understand that my intentions were not at all undermining your contributions, but rather, saving a little old disambig. page from snowballing into featured list. Jay(Talk) 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read your comments and you're absolutely right. I re-instated most of your info (trimmed down a bit.) Keeping with the international approach, I'm not entirely sure about what to do with the place names - for example, what is Brooklyn and where is New York to someone reading this in Brisbane? I dunno - by all means tweak it until you feel it is just right. Thanks Jay(Talk) 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Neelix,

I've put

Just wanted to let you know.

Happy editting! JackSparrow Ninja 11:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jack,

Thanks for letting me know. As the

Atlantic Giant Squid page has been merged with the Giant Squid

page, it completely makes sense to switch the band link to an otheruses template.

Neelix 14:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read

Neelix 21:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to John Russell. I had some thoughts about your recent edits there, and figured that the talk page was a better place to discuss it than ping-ponging on our user talk pages. Matchups 01:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed you have been shortening some article names by removing the Newfoundland and Labrador qualifier... I'm aware that the names are lengthy but thus far they have been consistent with all communities in the province. Not to discourage you but there are much larger centres such as

Detroit, Michigan, so is it really necessary?Plasma east

14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Neelix 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand the lengthy province name and community naming issues, particularly with certain screen resolutions. I was just wondering if there has been any formal move to shorten smaller, less-known, community names in Canadian provinces, aside from these articles in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in isolated cases like Toronto, Vancouver, Moncton, Fredericton, etc?

Every community name that I have come across for U.S. articles, except for New York City, has the state name qualifier added and makes for marvelous consistency in categorization, etc. Since our provincial geopolitical divisions in Canada are organized along similar lines to the U.S. state model, should there not be a Canadian community naming standard?Plasma east 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Plasma,

I agree that there should be a Canadian community naming standard, however I do not know of any such formal standard currently in existance. If you become aware of one, please let me know. My current understanding, as explained above, is that the qualifier (province in this case) should only be included as part of the title when the name of the community is not unique. If a formal standard is created that is in contradiction with my current practice, I will gladly leave my reservations behind and follow that standard.

Thank you again for the helpful conversation. I hope that it will lead to more specific standards of practice on Wikipedia in this area.

Neelix 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll do some searching and let you know if I'm successful. Cheers,Plasma east 18:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't switch a redirect from one article to another like that, especially since almost all the links to the page refer to the La Romaine in TT (and none of them to Quebec) - it could have been quite confusing to anyone clicking on the link. It's much better to turn it into a disambiguation page in a case like this. Guettarda 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Guettarda,

I do apologize for any confusion I may have caused. The reason I switched the redirect to La Romaine, Quebec was because "La Romaine" was not even mentioned on the Trinidad and Tobago page, therefore there was no way to verify whether or not a place called "La Romaine" existed in that country. If this place does exist, I agree wholeheartedly that "La Romaine" should be a disambiguation page.

Neelix 11:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The rule for moving an article from "Place, Province" to "Place" is not that you can do it arbitrarily just because there isn't already another article at the plain title; a discussion, linked to from the

And there is a formal convention already spelled out, by the way; it's at

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). Bearcat

21:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Neelix 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2

06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Marcowice

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2

06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovitch

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2

06:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Markovics

WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2

06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Bite messup

Someone has put all the towns of the TB area in a page called

Trinity Bite which in itself is fine, BUT, they have redirected all of those little towns to Trinity Bite and we cannot put individual town histories on them, they are useless now. Also it should be Trinity Bite, Newfoundland and Labrador because it is part of the Newfoundland and Labrador project and all the villages and towns are listed that way for continuity and because Labrador is on the coast and Newfoundland is an island. How can we put them back as individual towns and just have the links in the Trinity Bite article??? HELP WayneRay

15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)WayneRay

Hi Wayne,

Sorry I couldn't help sooner. I've been in an area of Africa that doesn't have proper Internet access for a while. It looks like the problem you have presented me with has already been taken care of. If it has not, do not hesitate to contact me again. I would be glad to help out if I am able.

All the best,

Neelix 23:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for

Image:Catwoman.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

here

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi After Midnight,

I really appreciate your explanation of how to add fair use rationale to images. I plan on adding more such images to Wikipedia, and it is helpful to understand this information prior to doing so. I will attempt to add rationale to other images I have already uploaded in the near future.

Thanks again,

Neelix 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouattara

Welcome back. I have changed the categories on this page. Mos:DP states: "Pages only listing people with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply. In such cases, do not use {{disambig}} or {{hndis}}, but {{given name}} or {{surname}} instead." Chris the speller 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

Thanks for pointing this out to me. These types of pages are what I create and edit most, so I appreciate the advice. I'll be sure to use the appropriate categories in the future.

Neelix 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the wikiproject

It needs a lot of help so please feel free to join in and take charge of anything that peaks your interest. Remember 01:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jae (disambiguation)

I agree, the first sentance was redundant, and did not realize that the standard was not to seperate the different classes of people. I have no issues with switching back to it's original format, however I think the See Also section should be incorporated into the "other people" section.--Kelapstick 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kelapstick,

It would make sense to incorporate the "See also" section into the "people" section, as you have suggested. I'm glad we have been able to come to an agreement. I will make the change promptly.

Neelix 21:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Given name articles

Given name articles, such as Marie-Françoise and Jean Marie, are not disambiguation pages, and should be treated much like Dupin, but using {{given name}} instead of {{surname}}. The former template has been added relatively recently. If you have any questions, please toss them on my talk page. Happy editing! Chris the speller 21:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris,

I hadn't realized that the {{given name}} template was used for articles that included two given names, although it makes sense now that you point it out. I'll attempt to remember to use this template properly from now on.

Neelix 12:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Time and Time Again

sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Time and Time Again during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Seraphim ^Whipp

11:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Crumple-horned

A tag has been placed on

criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. 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, you can request that

talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SQL^{(Query Me!}

) 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for

Image:Commissioner.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to

here

.

Please go to

Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Videmus,

Thank you for letting me know about the missing rationale template on

Image:Commissioner.jpg

. I have added the fair use rationale. Please let me know if you believe it to be inadequate.

Thanks again,

Neelix 13:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Valedictorian / Valediction Proposed Merge

Hello. Where exactly is the discussion page to discuss your proposed merge for the two articles, Valedictorian and Valediction? I can't seem to find it. I would like to weigh in with my opinion. Please let me know. Please reply at my Talk Page ---> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Hi Joseph, Thanks for your interest in the merge! The reason you couldn't find the discussion is that I hadn't yet created one. I have now done so, and you may view and contribute to it by following this link. Neelix 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will weigh in at the link you provided. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro 02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC))