User talk:Propaniac/Archive2

Please leave any comments or notifications for me below. I will normally respond on your Talk page, unless you ask me to respond here or somewhere else.

To view past discussions on this Talk page, see the archive.

BSC Project

Thanks for letting me know - I'll take a look at the project. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 22:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto :) I'll definitely be checking when I have a chance!! AffirmationChick (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Color of Friendship

The hatnote for The Color of Friendship is now at the 1981 version. You said yourself that it should be one or the other, so that's where it is. Please don't tamper with my work any more.Cbsite (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

And please don't harass me on my talk page any more, either. Thank you. Cbsite (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I'm letting you know that I left a post on the Administers' noticeboard asking for intervention in this dispute. That last revert and threatening me with blocking are entirely inappropriate. Cbsite (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to join in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_Propaniac if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I did notify you that I was appealing this to an administrator; I've put it in bold (above).

BTW, the issue was resolved Friday night; there's no reason to persue it any further. The administrator said he didn't really care about the disambig/hatnote combination, he did not do the revert himself and it should have just been left alone.

---

Leaving this here for posterity, as an enshrined memento of my brush with User:Cbsite before he or she went on to bigger and better things (getting blocked like a zillion times for edit-warring at other articles, while claiming, "I'm not the one edit-warring--they're the ones who keep reverting my edits!", which was pretty genius in my opinion, and then, once the last block wore off, nearly getting blocked again for unsuccessfully requesting six times in half an hour that his or her Talk page be deleted). Propaniac (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The Color of Friendship

The main thing is that the issue would seem ambiguous unless I reviewed the exact detailed guidelines and it would have clearer if someone just linked to the specific subsection and quoted the exact text instead of the analysis that Pax was doing (plus the comments were completely out of order). I think I have seen a few with two articles listed as disambig but I might be wrong. However, your first comment "it makes more sense to redirect to one and place a hatnote there directing users to the other" doesn't indicate the proper guideline and seemed like an opinion, which Cbsite differed from; from then on, there was no indication from the edit summaries that there was even a discussion on the talk page (especially since a redirect often has the talk page simply redirected as well). For me, a disambig is always less controversial than a redirect to one article (it opens to a fight over which article to be redirected to), but I don't really care that much. I'm watching the redirect now but it looks like User:Cbsite has moved on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally had to block but asking for review at WP:ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional literature mentioning opera (Pt. 2)

Thanks for your note. Yeah, a lot of work went into that list. I don't quite understand why you have the need to delete because there are a lot of such lists on Wikipedia. Rather than see it as something to be gotten rid of, you should take a more positive attitude and try to suggest specific ways to improve it, or start doing the work yourself. It's easy to delete an article; it's much more work to create one that's useful to people.

I'll bring up your points on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera project and see if there's interest in filling it out to prevent deletion. -- kosboot (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Showpiece

Showpiece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was the first Wikipedia article I ever wrote, before I knew much about policies and guidelines (it was in October 2006).

I'd be sorry to see it go, but I understand your rationale for prodding it. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I may have sounded more exasperated than necessary when I wrote the prod reasoning out--I hope I didn't offend you. I totally made my own share of contributions, way back when, that I realize now weren't in line with policy or the purpose of Wikipedia or anything at all, really, so I do understand where you're coming from. :) Propaniac (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My worst mistake may have been the addition of the disambig template in November — I don't know how much that changes the picture. — Athaenara ✉ 01:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found it because it had the disambig-cleanup tag; I have to think that any other people occupying themselves with cleaning up disambig pages who found the page would reach the same conclusion I did, that there's nothing really to clean up. If it's not a disambig at all, it would still seem to fall under WP:DICTDEF. To be honest, though, if you want to remove the prod, I won't press for deletion. I'd rather work on pages that have become terrible because nobody pays attention to them, than delete pages that someone (courteous and civil) cares about. Propaniac (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed {{Disambig-cleanup}} and {{Dated prod}} as per your comments, thank you. I also added {{Art-stub}} and Category:Arts. — Athaenara ✉ 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A civility barnstar for your thoughtfulness. — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! Propaniac (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Johnnyfox.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Johnnyfox.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [1], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

• state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
• add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Johnnyfox.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Kelly ^hi! 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Princess Blanche — Redirect or Disambig.?

Hello! I left a message on the talk page of Princess Blanche arguing against your recent edit to that page. Would you please respond? Thanks. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roadhouse

Roadhouse facility had been the problem with a non disambig page appearing to have been taken over and made an article - and now its not there -I have re-inserted - if you check the history you will see why - cheers - and excellent work in keeping disambigs cleen SatuSuro 23:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Real life

The guideline you mentioned doesn't really apply to this situation... See 100% for an example of why I change real life to the current design. –xenocidic (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the guideline you mentioned only applies to situations where (disambiguation) is there. In the case of a disambiguation page at without it, the most common usage (most desired target) should be the first line (at least as far as I understand), per Wikipedia:MOS/DAB#Order of entries, and common practice as with the example I linked above. –xenocidic (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that the move itself signifies that it's not the main term. In fact I still don't see as there was consensus for the move in the first place, past consensus was that Real life (reality) should remain at Real life. –xenocidic (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MOS:DP#Linking to a primary topic applies only when the disambiguation page has a (disambiguation) after it. Since this is not the case, someone will stumble onto the real life disambiguation page by typing "Real life" into the search box, thus, the most common meaning should be at the top. I suppose since Wikipedia doesn't take quorum into account, two people can consensus make, but past discussions seemed to support keeping "real life" (the term) at "Real life" (a side issue though; it doesn't really matter to me - your bold move is fine with me). However, what you describe is not how you determine "primary meaning" - common usage is, and I contend that "real life" (the term) is far more common than any of those albums, films, etc. –xenocidic (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the relevant page which outlines the guideline about having the primary term as the first line of the DAB page is here: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages. –xenocidic (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you read the above (15:08 UTC comment) before you made your reply, but it seems to speak to the issue you brought up. Anyhow, perhaps the best thing to do would be to refactor this entire conversation to Talk:Real life and get some other eyes on it, I'll admit: disambiguation is not one of my areas of expertise. –xenocidic (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've requested further input from WP DAB; discussion should continue at Talk:Real life. –xenocidic (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

MoS

Re: Dash (disambiguation). Thanks for the informative heads up. -The Gnome (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

mos:dab

Thanks for your comments, they were good ones. You will see that I have removed your comments from the "suggested new wording" section. I hope you also saw that I have included almost all your suggestions in the wording and left in place your non-content comments. I did this because I wanted to make it clear to others which set of new wording was currently under discussion ... and this seemed the best way to achieve that objective. If you want your full comments retuned to the page I will willingly do it. Thanks for being understanding. :) Abtract (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia

Your edit has made it increasingly difficult for a reader to find the two primary topics - Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). The US State is now five links and seven lines down from the top of the page, under a sub-heading. Both the country and state articles need much more prominent placing than this. Thanks/wangi (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I literally made no changes to the order of those top links, or the number that were listed; the state article was "five links down" before I made my cleanup. I placed them under the Geography heading (which already existed) because countries and states are geographical; since they're still at the top of the page, I don't think they're any more difficult to find than before, and it makes a lot more sense instead of putting them at the top and then following with a "Geography [except for the country and the state]" category.

Personally, I think the three sub-entries underneath the country entry should be removed, as they're all essentially redundant to the country article. (The Province of Georgia entry should probably also be removed for the same reason.) This would move the state article right up to the second line. But I refrained from removing any of those links because I didn't want to step on any toes in regard to the massive controversy about those articles. Propaniac (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I confused your edits; have moved this to the dabpage talk: Talk:Georgia#The two primary topics and their prominence. Thanks/wangi (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright on U.S. feeral government publications

Thank you for noticing that the text at Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) was copied from the agency's website. This is not a copyvio, since U.S. federal government publications are automatically in the public domain. Since Wikipedia already has an article on Research and Innovative Technology Administration (without the acronym), I changed Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) to a redirect to the existing article. I also added the {{USGovernment}} tag at the end of the existing article, which gives credit to the site from which the text was taken. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Palin

No big deal really, but the diacritic above the "i" is sufficently similar to the standard "Palin" that I thought some sort of commentary was necessary. Yes, merging in the other dab might be a good idea. Black Kite 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)