User talk:Neelix/Archive 22

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You have no idea how happy I was to see your recent edits to these pages. Like I said elsewhere, I am really not very experienced on the TV episode articles, which is the primary reason I didn't make any changes based on the sources I found, but if there is ever a chance I can help out in some way, on that page or others, let me know. Very good to see you back. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, John! That you did research for that article at all was very kind. I appreciate you welcoming me back so soon after my return. Neelix (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Very glad to see you back, amigo. =) —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back! Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• +1! Like ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Glad the hysteria has abated. Welcome back. Carrite (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I am happy to see you have returned. Welcome back, sir! Prhartcom (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Neelix, I hope you can re-locate those page numbers you need for the cites for the JC's Girls article; good luck with it. Just stopping by to drop a hint that if you want to review one of my GANs in return that would certainly be okay with me. If so, I suggest Little Annie Fanny. No obligation, just throwing it out there. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You moved

Update: the swan swims in the right direction again. - Welcome back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for welcoming me back

Lohengrin (Wagner). According to Wikipedia's guidelines on incomplete disambiguation states that "When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it)." Would either of you mind if I retargeted the link back to the disambiguation page? Neelix (talk

) 15:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we would mind, because - as said on project opera - 100% of past links to it will mean Wagner, and 90+% of future links will mean Wagner, - actually I guess 99% will not even dream that there could be another operatic piece, and the few meaning Sciarrone will know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix. Yes, like Gerda, I would mind very much, and I think most editors working on opera-related article would agree with us. It is a disservice to editors and especially readers to be sent to a disambiguation page when 99.999% of the time their target is the opera by Wagner. The only other Lohengrin opera is that extremely obscure work by Sciarrino. Observe the Google search results for Lohengrin opera. All of them refer to Wagner's Lohengrin, page after page. Ditto Google Books. Note that standard practice with opera articles has been to use the "(opera)" disambiguator for the most well-known version e.g. Falstaff (opera) for Verdi's opera and the composer's surname for others, e.g. Falstaff (Salieri) for the far less known opera by Antonio Salieri. If there were several equally known operas named Lohengrin then directing Lohengrin (opera) to the DAB page would make sense. When there is only one other with that name and it is virtually unknown, it doesn't make sense. Voceditenore (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree.

Lohengrin (Wagner) will not be problematic for future links, and needs not be problematic for past links. Neelix (talk

) 16:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm also going by that page—what it says at the top...

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions.

In this case, common sense drives the exception. But if you're determined to follow the letter of the guideline instead of common sense, then yes, I would greatly appreciate you fixing all the incoming links (not just article links) to Lohengrin (opera) before you redirect it to the DAB page again. Voceditenore (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. If you would both find it acceptable for me to retarget the

Lohengrin (Wagner) provided that I first fix the archive links, I would be glad to take the time to do so. Have we reached a consensus? Neelix (talk

) 17:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you fix all the incoming links first, I'm not going to make a big fuss about you re-redirecting. But for the record, I don't really agree with it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Common sense has been mentioned. Whatever a guideline says, people will code (used to it, as I am by years of training, or because they know) "Lohengrin (opera)" and mean Wagner's. They will be told by the bracket bot that they are wrong. They go and repair. - What a waste of time, for what? For the five in a year who ever heard their is a work by Sciarrone? - Voceditenore's redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)" makes sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

People are unlikely to make this mistake more than once, and the inconvenience is trivially small. I don't see how violating this guideline constitutes common sense. Generally, the common sense exception applies when there is no disagreement on the subject, but there is clearly disagreement between us on this subject. I have offered the compromise of me taking the time to go through all of the archives and fixing the links before retargeting the redirect. Would you be willing to accept this compromise? Neelix (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I suffered some other moves by the power of the holy guidelines which were worse than this. If you want to waste your time, I will not stop you. (But promised: I will make the "opera" mistake several times to come, it's almost automatic and hard to re-learn.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Violating" the guideline doesn't constitute common sense, Neelix. Knowing when applying the guideline would lead to an inappropriate and misleading result and making an exception to avoid that constitutes common sense. The primary meaning of "Lohengrin (opera)" is Wagner's opera. That fact is indisputable. But you seem determined to plow ahead anyway and completely ignore the caveat at the very top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. So be it. Voceditenore (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Common sense does not require unanimity. 99% of the readers who type "Lohengrin (opera)" will be looking for and expecting Wagner's opera. Why should they be directed anywhere else? Most cases of incomplete disambiguation will not have such an overwhelming disparity of notability. Hence the general guideline, which applies when the subjects' noteriety is more balanced is inappropriate in this case. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the remaining links after another move, - I thought you wanted to do it before?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I got impatient and did some myself, my archives and Wagner, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Readers very rarely type parenthetical disambiguators into the search bar. This is WikiSpeak used by editors. Even if a reader sees "Lohengrin (opera)" in the drop-down menu, "Lohengrin (Wagner)" will appear first in the list, and this is what will be chosen if that is what the reader is looking for. The popularity difference is thereby taken care of naturally. Neelix (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Readers would type parenthetical disambiguators once they become familiar with the process. I certainly used to before I started editing. And when they do they should get the page they are almost certainly looking for, not a dab page. Rlendog (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Readers who become familiar with the process quickly learn not to outrun the drop-down menu and invent their own parenthetical disambiguator (and so to often guess wrong), but rather to select one of the ones that appear. In the hypothetical situation that a reader would independently type "Lohengrin (opera)" into the search bar when looking for

Lohengrin (Wagner), that reader would have to 1) assume that simply typing "Lohengrin" into the search bar and pressing enter will not bring them to the article they are looking for, 2) know how parenthetical disambiguators work on Wikipedia, 3) choose to invent their own disambiguator for the article rather than select one from the drop-down menu, and 4) make a specific incorrect guess as to the actual disambiguator used in the relevant article. As far as I can tell, we are talking about a very rare occurrence. Neelix (talk

) 23:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

(1) and (2) are learned quickly by readers who often use Wikipedia. And "opera" would seem like a rather likely "guess" or "invention" from a reader who knows there are other Lohengrins out there (such as the title character itself) but is unaware that there is another opera by that title (which is again very likely). Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that you and I disagree substantially on how likely this occurrence would be. Our philosophizing on the issue has failed to bring us to the same conclusion, and we would have to perform a study to determine which of us is correct. I don't think either of us wants to go that far for the sake of a single redirect, but perhaps such a study could be undertaken for the sake of making the relevant guideline better informed. Neelix (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried the search function for "Lohengrin opera", assuming that's what a reader who vaguely remembers there's an opera may type. Result: the dab page, then Sciarrone, then the discography, only number four Wagner's work. I don't need studies to see that it is a disservice to the majority of readers who are looking for Wagner's opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we've established that we aren't going to agree on this point. You said that you would be willing to leave the redirect alone if the archive links were altered, which has been done. Have you changed your mind? Neelix (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed? No, I think I said clearly enough that I think Wagner's Lohengrin should be the primary target for Lohengrin (opera). I now see evidence that the other is not working well, evidence that I didn't see before. May I mention that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I just found this thread and have read of the stubbornness of all parties involved, who keep repeating the same thing. Rest assured, all parties involved have a good and valid point. May I suggest this discussion is taken to a more visible place, where others can get involved and a true consensus can be reached? I suggest Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, as it has over 500 watchers. Is there agreement? If so, I will be happy to state the issue there. Prhartcom (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Some things are not changed by changing "consensus" but are facts, for example that people who think of Lohengrin and opera think of Wagner. (Call me stubborn.) I think project opera would be a better place than disambiguation, and I just found out that while Voceditenore and I are members, and Rlendog is listed as a former member, Neelix is not. Neelix, how about listening to those responsible for the articles in question? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles belong to no one; these articles are the responsibility of the community as a whole, not an individual WikiProject. I don't think this is an issue of not listening to each other. As far as I can tell, we have all been listening to each other, but we have continued to disagree. I had thought that you had communicated here that you were not going to continue to pursue this issue, but if you now wish to do so, Prhartcom's solution of seeking broader consensus makes most sense to me. Neelix (talk

) 19:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I have written the proposal and just need a place to post it. I'd like to quickly remind all parties that Neelix is an administrator, and should therefore have a broad understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines (although even he would admit he has not worn that hat lately). As well, I'd like to remind all parties that Gerda is a well-respected editor across a vast number of disciplines (although she clearly favors opera).

Neelix, is the place I suggested above the correct venue for seeking this consensus? We need a neutral place that will be widely seen. (Note to Gerda: You can certainly post a neutral canvas message at project opera). Prhartcom (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your encouraging words with respect to both Gerda and I, Prhartcom. I would add that being an administrator is not a big deal and that my status as an administrator should not give my arguments more credence in this matter; adminship has not been relevant to this discussion. I believe that both Gerda and I are making valid points, but the fact that we continue to disagree necessitates the pursuit of broader consensus. This issue does not seem to me to be opera-specific, but can rather be generalized to disambiguation issues across subject areas. While WikiProject Disambiguation seems like the most relevant WikiProject, I would recommend Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation as a location for the discussion. What we seem to be disagreeing on is the applicability of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete_disambiguation, so the outcome of this discussion would ideally either clarify or amend this section so other similar disagreements will be better-informed by established consensus in the future. Neelix (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good, I have just posted the proposal there at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Gerda, will you and Neelix please go there now and state your Support and your Oppose? In fairness I am pinging Voceditenore and Rlendog also. Good luck to you both, I have the highest respect for both of you. Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk

I have opened the FAC for Enthiran. Feel free to leave comments. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Winter Story (album series) 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/Winter Story (album series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Shinyang-i (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion you may be interested in: [1] Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The article JC's Girls you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:JC's Girls for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lohengrin (opera). Since you had some involvement with the Lohengrin (opera) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note, Neelix, I just moved the discussion from
  WP:RFD nomination. You may need to double check your two statements to ensure that readers will understand your ultimate stance. Cheers! Steel1943 (talk
  ) 01:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Neelix, as an uninvolved editor in the Lohengrin controversy, I hope you will accept some friendly advice: You obviously erred when you boldly moved "Lohengrin (opera)" to "Lohengrin (Wagner)" and then tried to take that even further. You should have instead realized that this was a controversial move and should have gone through the proper procedure stated at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves to get consensus first. Prhartcom (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the controversial nature of the move is only obvious in retrospect. As soon as opposition arose, I pursued discussion. That is the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the same defense I once gave in the same situation and I was just as wrong as you currently are (I once requested a technical move and was crucified for it, so I changed it to a controversial move and was soundly defeated. I know I won't be misidentifying a controversial move ever again). Prhartcom (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, Prhartcom. I will attempt to pursue greater discernment on such matters in the future. Neelix (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Neelix. You have new messages at Padenton's talk page.
Message added 19:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

― Padenton |☎  19:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix - thanks for the appreciation but I have to decline the source review. I don't have the time really to focus on this - it would be completely new for me. All the best--Iztwoz (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hi David, I'm sorry to intrude—I thought I already did a source review for this? Unless what I did was insufficient, in which case I apologise. I hope you are having a pleasant Easter weekend. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Iztwoz! I should have realized that John had already undertaken the source review. My apologies, John; I had misunderstood your statement "but mostly not" as meaning that you would like someone else to do further source review. I really appreciate all your help! Neelix (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect X-rayish. Since you had some involvement with the X-rayish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The categories for the

Thank you for initiating this discussion with me, Bamyers99. I am surprised by your interpretation of WP:EPONYMOUS. According to that guideline, "Eponymous categories typically take on a selection of the categories which are present in their corresponding articles." Why have you removed them all? Neelix (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Per

WP:EPONCAT, I don't see any Stan Lee categories that apply to the articles in Category:Stan Lee. --Bamyers99 (talk

) 00:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation, Bamyers99! Neelix (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The article Foothills Alliance Church has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is no significant coverage of the church itself. Media only mentions church building as a venue for some events.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

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 article 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. JodyB _talk 11:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Johnni. Since you had some involvement with the Johnni redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Neelix! I noticed you previously edited

I appreciate any help you're able to offer! Thanks, MikefromStanding (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

I suppose it is a complete waste of time to ask you to stop doing these de-disambiguations of painting titles with hundreds of works, only one of which happens to have a Wikipedia article? They are unhelpful to the reader. Have I mentioned this before? Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I greatly respect your work on Wikipedia, especially with respect to paintings. Past encounters between us have demonstrated that we disagree on the particular issue of disambiguating article names that could not be confused with other existing Wikipedia articles, about whether or not such disambiguation should be undertaken and whether or not it is helpful to the reader. I believe that the guidelines are on my side, but I see no reason to argue about it. A simpler solution would be to create one of the many potential articles you mention, thereby demonstrating that the disambiguation is necessary. We would then be in full agreement on the issue of the disambiguation. Neelix (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on TFA text. Do you look at most of them? Any suggestions, or anything you'd like to do more of? - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you have appreciated my TFA edits, Dan. Thank you for your work as a TFA coordinator! I do tend to read most of the TFA blurbs, although often only the day of. The three things I tend to watch for are missing images, missing links, and poor punctuation/grammar. I check to ensure that all blurbs that can have images do have images, and I try to do so well in advance of the date in question. I normally only pick up on the missing links and punctuation/grammar errors once the blurb has gone live. If I could make one suggestion with respect to TFA, it would be that TFA blurbs be restricted to information contained in the lead section of the article; I have sometimes seen cherry-picked statements make their way into the blurbs from somewhere in the body of the article when that information clearly wasn't central enough to the subject to be included in the lead of the article. Overall, I'm quite pleased with how TFA operates. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, I had a sense that you were checking a lot of things. Cherry-picked: can you give an example? Some TFAs don't come close to the ideal length of 1200 characters (I'm generally keeping them between 1250 and 1050), and there are occasionally problems with leads. - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Nicolo Giraud TFA blurb is an example of what I mean. The last line of the blurb is not included in the article's lead, and for good reason; it is a comment from an anonymized critic about a poem that is not the main subject of the article. There was other lead content that could have been included instead, and I would think that there should always be, considering that the length recommended for blurbs is shorter than that recommended for leads. Neelix (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Before my time (at TFA). Okay, I'll keep that in mind, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the pic on Mana. As I mentioned recently at Talk:Main Page, I think images are important ... and not just for voice actors. Adding a programmer pic was a nice touch. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Greenish. Since you had some involvement with the Greenish redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Hope I'm not taking your name in vain ... would you like to hunt for an image? - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Homeless Rabi. Since you had some involvement with the Homeless Rabi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Homeless Rabbi. Since you had some involvement with the Homeless Rabbi redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey there, I know you've already taken Mind Meld to FA but I just came across a new reference you haven't used and thought you might want to know about it. The Starlog archives at archive.org have been expanded by another 70 issues or so, so in issue 293 viewable online here, there is an article on the doc on page 60 through 64. Miyagawa (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this Starlog article, Miyagawa! I have added it to the references. Neelix (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As the talk of French horn explains, music by Bach and contemporaries (and earlier music) doesn't use the French horn but natural horns (corno). In the move from horn (instrument), the meaning unfortunately narrowed, - a major rewrite should have been done but wasn't. Until it happens, better link to natural horn. I tried, but seem to have missed a few. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting these links, Gerda! What kind of major rewrite do you suggest? Neelix (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

See the article talk, the warnings against moving from something general to the specific instrument of the modern symphony orchestra, + to a name that is rarely used (as the lead says), even that is called "horn". All Baroque music should be taken out. - Easier solution: move it back ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to your creation and redirecting of all possible combinations of six eyed spider to

Thank you for contacting me on this issue, KTo288! I have re-targeted the redirects to List of six-eyed spiders. Neelix (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the new article, and redirecting the redirects.--KTo288 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Re-energisational. Since you had some involvement with the Re-energisational redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tavix | Talk  07:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)