User:Mowsbury/Old discussions

Welcome!

Hello, Mowsbury, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Amateur

Hi... I had originally renamed the page to remove the "Men's" part (which is not technically correct as the event is open to women). When I did that, I left the "Golf Championship" bit in there, as this seemed to be the pattern on many of the USGA championship pages. I'm not entirely sure that the word "Championship" is part of the official title -- it is generally referred to as the "U.S. Amateur" on the USGA's web pages, much like "U.S. Open" -- so leaving the word "Golf" in the title seemed OK to me. This page seems to show the more-or-less official names for the various USGA events. If you don't agree, then the page should probably be called "U.S. Amateur Championship (golf)", as the "men's" part is not correct (the "U.S. Women's Amateur" is the official title of the women's-only event, so there is no need to disambiguate that anyways). Or, perhaps change the name to "U.S. Amateur (golf)" in line with the U.S. Open (golf) article. What do you think? Carl Lindberg 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should stay where it is. If you look at the official site www.usamateur.org you will see that the "U.S. Amateur" label at the top has some sort of copyright tag. I would say the label is a logo, and that the words below "United States Amateur Championship" represent the official name. I don't think this interpretation is inconsistent with the fact that the USGA often uses a shorter form, - it is using an abbreviation for convenience, just as other people do. Mowsbury 03:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. The mark is an (R), meaning registered trademark -- that would certainly seem to be the official name (it's not just a logo). On this page on the official site, they use "U.S. Amateur championship" (i.e. a non-capitalized version) when using the longer term in articles -- indicating that "championship" is not part of the title, and that the usage where they capitalize it is more of a page title where words are normally capitalized anways.

Either way though, I think the "(men's golf)" disambiguation should be changed to just "(golf)" -- that was the point I wanted to make more :-) The event is not barred to women, and "U.S. Women's Amateur" is the official name of the other event, so there would be no need to disambiguate anyways. Carl Lindberg 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it is registered does not mean it is the official name as organisations registered many images, phrases, names etc. As for the other point, I'm thinking about it. The fact that it is open to women is really rather theoretical; for all practical purposes it is a men's event, and would rename so even if a woman qualified for it. Mowsbury 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Meant to get back to this, but forgot :-) Yes, the women's part is mostly theoretical, but since there is a separate women's tournament (with "Women's" as part of the official name) there will never be a need to disambiguate with a "(women's golf)". It makes it that much harder to link to the page without a redirect. Carl Lindberg 18:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really that bothered whether the word "men's" is included or not, but it will help some people. I don't see that it matters very much if a link is via a redirect, so long as it is not a double redirect. Mowsbury 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rename of Category:Armor stubs

Hi - please see my comment here as to why a redirect from the old category name would be unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Chinese apartheid AfD

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

df=y

What is it that you are adding to players birth date? michfan2123 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm converting the dates for British players into British English, in accordance with the policy that articles about British topics should be written in British English. Mowsbury 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It still shows up in U.S. format when I look at it though... michfan2123 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly you have date preferences set. Rich Farmbrough, 08:59 7 November 2007 (GMT).

User talk:COMPFUNK2

• What sourced article did I add an {{unreferenced}} tag to? Anthony Rupert 00:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Hi, where do you believe I have done this? Rich Farmbrough, 08:27 7 November 2007 (GMT).

Proposed deletion of Country house opera

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Country house opera, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kleinzach 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Country house opera

See here. --Kleinzach 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Christian Arab Page

Could you explain the SectOR tag removal? Inappropriate, how? The section does contain OR, especially the part based on the aljazeera video. --Qvxz9173 (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no interest in this subject matter. If you choose to persist with the misuse of wikipedia's internal tools in which debate, in which an unbiased observed can see that all parties are driven by unreasonable partisanship, I have more sense than to think I can stop you. Mowsbury (talk) 15:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Kill superhuman strength

3 years after a reprieve, the article still sucks. Let's kill it. It is not encyclopedic and is just a damn stub 3 years after the "keep and improve" by default. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.129.194 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)