User talk:Roman Spinner/Archive 2 (2008 and 2009)

Disambiguation page descriptions

Hi, I have reduced some of your descriptions of the people on John Ford (disambiguation) because a disambiguation page should be more streamlined. We just need enough to tell one John Ford from another so the reader can select the correct page. THEN they get more information. I see you are doing many of these - have you checked WP:MOSDAB? (John User:Jwy talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your involvement and desire to help. Both of us have been Wikipedians for two years and have thousands of entries. We would not devote so much time and intellectual (as well as physical) energy to this great project if we did not deeply feel the desire to advance the pursuit of knowledge. I have, indeed, read WP:MOSDAB and feel that I remained within the spirit, if not strictly the letter of the guideline. Judging on a standard-size screen, at medium font size, I limit my disambiguation entries to avoid exceeding the one-line limit of 140 characters and spaces, although most of those entries have 125-130 characters/spaces. I realize that a strict interpretation would find such a limit to be still excessively lengthy, but in a number of disambiguation pages there are red-linked entries which require a longer explanation and thus unbalance the appearance of other entries which are quite abbreviated. It seems to me that as long as an entry stays under 140 characters and spaces, it should not be considered as violating WP:MOSDAB. In many cases I have reduced entries, placed by other editors, which have exceeded the 140-character limit, in addition to the standard Wikifying (limit of one blue link per entry, no initial "a", "an" and "the" articles, etc). In any event, I rarely return to the same disambiguation page once my contribution is committed to page history, unless there is/are some obvious (usually minor) adjustment(s) to be made. Those editors that feel the need to reduce the information within the entries to the bare minimum are, of course, fully within their rights to exercise that prerogative which will go unchallenged (at least, needless to say, by me). —Roman Spinner (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. To me, the longer the line, the longer it takes for the reader to determine if the entry is the one he wants. The extra stuff is redundant with what they get if they click through and it will be rare when the extra information is the whole information they are looking for: it is therefore better not to include it. (I didn't do much research into your contributions and did not mean "have your check MOSDAB" as a criticism, just wanted to make sure you had considered it). (John User:Jwy talk) 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite all right. I understand your perfectly reasonable position on this point. As for criticism, there was, also, none meant on my part. —Roman Spinner (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvements to Albert L. Becker

Thank you for improving the entry for Albert L. Becker. --Zippy (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for taking the time to write your kind note—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A note about "Date"/"Place" Categories (re: article page/discussion page)

Since you have such a praiseworthy record of repairing maladjusted categories over thousands of edits, I need to communicate with you regarding the placement of maintenance categories (which, as we know, denote the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death). Nearly a year ago, in late April 2007, following complaints by a few editors that those categories were creating visual clutter at the bottom of biographical article pages, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories arrived at a consensus. The ten "Date/Place of birth/death missing/unknown" categories were repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, such as ourselves, could continue to complete the missing information (dates and places were described as containing needed, but non-essential, or "defining", data). Only the absence of the years of birth and death (five "Year categories"—Category:Year of birth missing, etc.) was noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "non-defining" (Date/Place) categories was completed by COBot on June 132007 (as an example: the final entry COBot transferred on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that page's revision history). A number of recent Date/Place categories can, of course, be spotted on article pages and some editors still continue to place all maintenance categories there, but, in the eleven months that it has been observed, the primary intent of the consensus on the article page/discussion page category dichotomy has not been challenged at CfD. It is a subject I have been discussing numerous times over the past couple of years, so please feel free to contact me regarding any additional details.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! I had somehow completely missed those CfDs & the discussion around date / place of birth / death - thanks very much for bringing me back up to speed! Dsp13 (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help and thank you for all your efforts.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Rectors of the İzmir Institute of Technology

Hi, I appreciate your great work in rectors pages. I just wanna thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silikonvadisi (talk • contribs) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad my small contributions were appreciated and I thank you for taking the time to write me a note.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900)

The standard disambiguation used for footballers when John Doe (footballer) is insufficient is to use year of birth, as careers are much more likely to overlap. See the many Alan Smiths for an example. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your note and, after following your direction to the disambiguation page listing all past and present participants in English football carrying the name Alan Smith (only two of whom, plus the (manager) and (physio) currently have articles), I can see an argument for using years of birth when careers overlap, as in the cases of Alan Smith (born 1939) and (born 1940) or those (born 1949) and (born 1950). The other argument, however, has to be that with common names such as Alan/Allan/Allen/Al Smith or Thomas/Tom/Tommy Johnson, the brief parenthetical modifier needs to focus on the key term or series of terms which best encapsulate the essence of the individual's notability. The year of birth, in the case of footballers, or any others, would not seem to be as central to a career as the years of the career itself. That having been said, it is extremely unlikely that anyone looking for a footballer named Alan Smith would type Alan Smith (footballer born 1962) or Alan Smith (footballer born 1966) or, for that matter, my proposed style, Alan Smith (footballer 1980s and 1990s) (an additional five characters and one space). The theoretical seeker would, of course, only type "Alan Smith" and, upon reaching the disambiguation page, would scrutinize the additional information ("played for Arsenal", "played for Torquay United", etc.) as a guideline, thus obviating the need to click on each name to determine the correct individual. Finally, while it is true that some sportspeople may have similar or even identical names, I have not seen the practice of using years of birth as an identifier carried over to other sports or other professions. We have both been contributors to Wikipedia for years and have thousands of edits, although, since football is your specialty, I would not presume to set specifications in that field, except to initiate a general discussion as to standards which would be applicable to biographical entries, rather than to one specific area.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As we both recognise, for the most common names, the title will end up being an unlikely search term and a lengthy title no matter what is chosen. On a personal note I like middle names as an identifier where known (this is the approach used in the disambiguation nighmare that is Lee Martin). One definite change for your approach would be the syntax – Alan Smith (1980s and 1990s footballer) would be more natural, but I maintain that length can become an issue. George Smith (footballer born 1919) would become George Smith (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). Of course, in such cases there is no such thing as an ideal title. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More food for thought and valid points to consider—though many football (and sports, in general) careers are short, some extend over decades, and even a 12-year career, begun in 1939 and ended in 1951 would, of necessity, need to be described, using the more-logical syntax of your "George Smith" example as, indeed, (1930s, 1940s and 1950s footballer). One specific solution might be my original idea for the move, which I changed at the last moment—exact career years. While many football careers overlap, virtually no careers of same-named footballers, or any individuals, begin and end in the same years as that of the other same-named individuals. Since on-line statistics for just about anyone who ever played professional football, baseball, cricket, etc. are readily available and the editors who supply the articles are sticklers for detail and, most likely, also have their own reference books, it should not be a problem. I originally set the move of Tommy Johnson (footballer born 1900) to Tommy Johnson (footballer 1919–39) and just before clicking "move", changed it to "(footballer 1930s and 1940s)", thinking (probably illogically) that someone may mistake those for birth–death dates (not a problem, of course, in the cases of footballers whose careers lasted for only a brief period). The "George Smith" of your example would thus become George Smith (footballer 1939–51). The slight drawback in this idea is that for current footballers, one would have to title the article John Doe (footballer since 2001) and then move the article again once the career is over to indicate the end year. Since we use the format "(born 1950)", rather than "(1950–)", a qualifier such as "(footballer 2001–)" would seem to be unacceptable.

As for using middle names or middle initials to distinguish between or among same-named individuals, even where known, it may not always be desirable. As the rules for naming articles point out, the title should use the name by which the individual is best known to the public. The names of actors Edward G. Robinson and Leo G. Carroll are/were known only with their middle initials and may be difficult to identify if said without the initials. On the other hand, in disambiguating another common name, William Marshall, there was already a William Marshall (actor), so an editor titled the entry for the second actor with that name as William H. Marshall. The problem with such an approach is that the second William Marshall, who was "billed" as "Bill Marshall" early in his career, was best known as "William Marshall" and had never used his middle initial in any billing. Since he spent more time on television than in films, the eventual, much longer, though clearer qualifier became William Marshall (film and television actor). In the end, all William Marshalls are really accessible only through their disambiguation page. In the cases of Lee Andrew Martin, Lee Brendan Martin and Lee Robert Martin, I suspect that unlike say, actresses Jennifer Jason Leigh or Sara Jessica Parker, they were never known to the public by their triple names, nor did they ever use them, except possibly on passports or other such documents. The New Zealand politician William Lee Martin, better known as simply "Lee Martin" should probably be titled Lee Martin (politician) or Lee Martin (New Zealand) (American politicians have a strong identity to the state they represent, which may or may not be true in other parts of the world) so Lee Martin (North Island) or Lee Martin (Raglan) may also be possible. As this note is already overlong, I should end on this point.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for MetsBot's assistance in maintaining 12 of the maintenance categories

As the creator of Category:Year of birth missing (living people) (as well as Category:Place of birth missing (living people)), I was particularly gratified last November 6, upon realizing that MetsBot was extremely speedily performing the task that I had laboriously tried to carry out from May to October—replacing thousands of Category:Year of birth missing with Category:Year of birth missing (living people). I regret not sending a note of appreciation at the time and hope that this message can serve as a belated surrogate. A year ago, May 12007, on the day of the category's creation, I wrote in its newly-opened discussion page that its parent Category:Year of birth missing (created less than two years previously, on June 212005) had grown to contain 18,207 names, rendering it unmanageable. Previous suggestions to subdivide it by gender, nationality or profession could not reach consensus, thus leaving "(living people)" as what seemed to be the last, best alternative. My feeble attempts to manually populate the category, following its creation, managed a daily average of fifteen to twenty-five entries (by contrast, MetsBot completed sixteen entries in one second!). Even so, it took MetsBot from November 6 to November 9 (with "rest breaks") to complete the task, along with adding DEFAULTSORT where needed and attending to Category:Possibly living people.

The creation of the two categories was, in a number of aspects, an outgrowth of CfDs in which I had participated. Some editors continued to complain that although the 15 maintenance categories fulfilled the useful (and, arguably, necessary) function of denoting the absence of years, dates and places of birth and death, they were creating visual clutter among the "standard" or "real" categories at the bottom of biographical articles. As a result, in April 2007, two CfDs dealing with a number of the maintenance categories, arrived at a consensus. Twelve of the categories (all ten dates and places, which were considered to contain needed, but non-essential, or "defining" data, plus "Year of birth/death unknown", which pointed out the lack of unobtainable, lost to history, facts) were to be repurposed to the discussion pages, where a small group of specialized editors, with a penchant for research, could continue to complete the missing information. Only the three categories indicating absence of years of birth and/or death which were theoretically capable of being researched (Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people) and Category:Year of death missing) were noted as "defining", thus entitling those "Year categories" to remain on article pages. The wholesale transfer of the ten "Date/Place categories" (the two "Year unknown" categories were overlooked) was assigned to the no-longer functioning COBot on June 132007 (example: COBot's final transferred entry on June 13, Talk:Zoran Vraneš, can be seen in that talk page's revision history). To keep all of the categories together, the agreed-upon place for the newly-transferred categories was to be directly below the Wikitags/templated categories and, if already-present, DEFAULTSORT (seen as a more-precise sorting feature than "listas="). In the event a recent or newly-created biographical article does not yet have a discussion page, MetsBot may/would create it and place the transferred category or categories at the top of the page. Tens of thousands of these non-templated maintenance categories have already been placed on discussion pages (and continue to be placed manually) but, unfortunately, a number of well-meaning, persistent editors continue to add them to article pages. Hopefully, if/when schedule permits, the twelve categories listed below could be swept by MetsBot from article pages to talk pages and periodically (weekly?, monthly?, quarterly?) maintained to take account of newly (incorrectly) placed categories.

• Category:Date of birth missing--------------------------------------Category:Place of birth missing
• Category:Date of birth missing (living people)------------------Category:Place of birth missing (living people)
• Category:Date of birth unknown-------------------------------------Category:Place of birth unknown
• Category:Date of death missing------------------------------------Category:Place of death missing
• Category:Date of death unknown-----------------------------------Category:Place of death unknown
• Category:Year of birth unknown
• Category:Year of death unknown

Taking into account the newly-appended (February 262008) innovation of hidden categories, some additional observations could be made. If the maintenance categories were capable of being hidden in 2006–07, the complaints about "clutter" would likely not have occurred (personally, I prefer to see all categories, setting my Preferences to "Show hidden categories"). I feel, however, that the "Hidden categories" feature does not render this transfer exercise moot. Unlike the nearly 1200 entries in Category:Hidden categories, virtually all of which are templated (and extremely specialized— Category:Start-Class Early Modern warfare articles) the fifteen maintenance categories are not templated and (I know I'm writing to an expert) mutually exclusive (I think) at a ratio of 4:1 (there is a sixteenth rarely used "outsider" maintenance Category:Year of birth uncertain, meant for individuals whose age is given in a newspaper/magazine story, but not the year of birth, thus leaving the uncertainty of one of two possible years), that is, at most, only 4 out of the 16 maintenance categories can ever be applicable to any single individual. In many cases, of course, none, or only one, of these sixteen categories is needed in a biographical entry. Thus, I would argue, due to the exceptional nature of these maintenance categories, they should not be hidden, but left on the article and talk/discussion pages for all to see and consider (this will likely turn out to be a minority view). Sorry about the excessive length of this note and, again, thank you for all your efforts on Wikipedia (Wiki-efforts).—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

ʻUtoikamanu

A quick question. You say that "DEFAULTSORT is unable to recognize and sort non-English alphabet fonts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't appear to be true. I've seen that it simply lists ʻUtoikamanu under ʻ. Aridd (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

List of chess players reformatting

Just a quick note to say thanks for sticking with this—the article is split between the two styles and needs uniformity, so it's reassuring to see that you intend to see it through. When I get a spare minute, I'll try and help out a bit, as I can imagine it's tedious and therefore slow work. Thanks again. Brittle heaven (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for the note and the kind words. I tend to split my time among numerous projects and lengthy, unfinished, lists, and occasionally neglect to return for a proper conclusion. In this case, however, as you have appropriately pointed out, a list which is already part of Wikipedia, should have the same style throughout, and not remain in limbo of transition for extended periods of time. Unlike other lists, which must be created, this specific exertion is mechanical work which goes relatively fast and can probably be fully completed after about two to three hours of sustained effort. In any event, this project will be brought to conclusion by myself and/or others by next Sunday, July 20.—Roman Spinner (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for being as good as your word—and even finishing before deadline. Politicians and construction workers take note. Brittle heaven (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your help and for being so considerate as to write another note. Words of encouragement are always appreciated.—Roman Spinner (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Your kind defence of the AfD-nominated 'The Snapdragons' article did not go unnoticed either. It seems that the effort was not wasted, as the result was a resounding Keep. I have to admit it is a poorly referenced article and with so little related material on the net, I'll need to check if there are any specialist books at the library. In the meantime, thanks again for your unsolicited and helpful support. Brittle heaven (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My vote was, indeed, unsolicited. As an infrequent visitor at AfD, I learned about The Snapdragons' submission for deletion only by accident, while visiting your talk page to leave a comment about List of chess players. Over the years I've spent with Wikipedia, one of the great pleasures has been the wealth of knowledge about people, subjects and ideas which flows in on a continuous basis. Whether it's philosophers, footballers, chess grandmasters or singing groups, they are all part of the whole in the grand scheme, and if they stake any claim to notability, as The Snapdragons clearly did for the two years and nearly four months of the article's existence, they have earned their place in Wikipedia and I'm glad to have happened along at the right time and place to cast a proper vote.—Roman Spinner (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)

What do you think the consensus now is / should be about the relation of this category to Category:Living people? Should individuals be categorized with both? I've left the question at the category's talk page, and would value your input. Dsp13 (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I went back and corrected my edits to comply with the policy. To avert confusion in the future, I think it would be prudent to put a policy notice on both category pages--something to the effect that "Category:Living persons is mandatory for all articles about living people, even those also categorized under Category:Year of birth missing (living people)." Stepheng3 (talk) 14:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

William Spaulding

1. If there's going to be another William Spaulding article, shouldn't it be created before moving things?
2. Once the new article is created, there's no reason to move the existing one. The disambiguation page can be named "William Spaulding (disambiguation)", as such pages usually are in this situation.
3. If there are only two William Spauldings, there's no need for a disambiguation page. A disambiguation link on the "William Spaulding" article leading to the other one is sufficient.
4. "D.C." should not have a space.
5. Granted, the D.C. William Spaulding isn't that significant, so if the other one is more notable, making that one the main "William Spaulding" article might make sense. There's still no need for a disambiguation page as long as there are only two.

—KCinDC (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your helpful message and immediately corrected the error. In my aspiration to follow Wikipedia's naming conventions for individuals (spaces between initials in main title headers such as W. A. Cleveland and O. A. Hankner), I occasionally misapply the rule to such obvious non-space examples as "D.C." and "U.S.". Regarding your first point, the article on the college coach William Spaulding was created on July 21, 2006, two years before the July 29, 2008 debut of the entry on the Washington, D.C. elected official. Since the main header for the earlier Spaulding gave him a middle initial, without including a redirect to the name without the initial, there was no impediment to your later creation of an entry entitled simply, "William Spaulding". As for the creation of a disambiguation page from the primary target, those, as you know, are the exception rather than the rule, used only when the primary target is a highly prominent individual, such as George Washington or John Ford (a recent disambiguation page controversy on Talk:Jonathan Edwards, is continuing to equate the influential historical figure Jonathan Edwards with a same-named track and field star). Finally, the matter of the two-person disambiguation page. Over my years on Wikipedia, I have been a believer in the efficacy of the hatnote. However, as those brief disambiguation pages proliferated, I decided to join the trend rather than fight it (you can see my February 2008 failed attempt to dismantle the one-person disambiguation page for Myrna Williams in the link at Talk:Myrna Williams). Moreover, some editors apparently feel that there is an implied greater prominence accorded to the earlier-created (usually, although not in the case of William Spaulding) article which then directs the reader, via the hatnote, to the "inferior" or "less-prominent" other individual. The most obvious example of a seemingly-unavoidable two-person disambiguation page presented itself (between June 14, 2003 and August 7, 2004) to readers who, instead of entering George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush, typed simply George Bush, although a number of other, related and unrelated, individuals with that name have since been added.—Roman Spinner (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I noticed the William H. Spaulding article after I wrote that. If the disambiguation page is the established way, then I guess we're done (it does offer the advantage of making it easy if a third William Spaulding comes along), though the other way seems pretty common and does save some users from having to go through a disamb page. I'll fix the links to the William R. Spaulding. (By the way, I remember trying to find guidance about initial spacing for personal names in the MOS a while back, but I didn't have much luck.) —KCinDC (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Numerous editors have used middle initials to disambiguate political figures (and other individuals) who bear frequently-used names, but unless the individual in question is well known by the middle initial (e.g. Harry S. Truman, Richard M. Nixon, Edward G. Robinson), it doesn't appear appropriate to force an unknown or little-known middle initial into the main title header. Political figures, especially, have been traditionally identified by their home states or bases (e.g. John Edwards (Kentucky), John Edwards (New York), John Edwards (Pennsylvania), John Edwards (Arkansas) and the unnecessarily double-disambiguated John S. Edwards (Virginia)). That was the reasoning I used in renaming the article "William Spaulding (Washington, D.C.)", rather than "William R. Spaulding". As for the guideline regarding spacing of initials, it is found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names - abbreviations of names. For years, the policy was "every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space". However, on December 16, 2007, this edit and subsequent edits, made the policy dependent on individual cases. There is also a lengthy discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Veronica Moser

An article that you have been involved in editing, Veronica Moser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Moser. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Horrorshowj (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Chauncey Holt

hello Roman Spinner. Thanks for improving the Holt article. Were you already familiar with his story? Wim

dank@xs4all.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 07:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Wim, for your note. I came upon the entry quite by accident since, as a veteran Wikipedian, I have a self-assigned task of regularly examining the usually-empty Category:Dead people. This time I found three names—Harold Brainsby, Marcella Grace Eiler and, the most fascinating of the three, Chauncey Marvin Holt. I have not previously heard of these individuals and subsequently tried to contribute whatever minor reconfigurations, adjustments and additions I could to elucidate details. In this way, Wikipedia is a daily learning experience and as a result of you devoting so much time and energy to this subject, we have more knowledge of such little-known aspects of this endlessly-unfolding story.—Roman Spinner (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman, Ah I see,thanks for the expalanation. Chauncey Holt was also the triggerman that gunned down Bugsy Siegel for Meyer Lansky. He never admitted that publicly, although he hinted at in various interviews by giving details of the hit, but I know this from former associates of Chauncey Holt. Should I add this information? The problem would be I cannot reference it. Those sources want to remain unidentified. Although in the film Chauncey said this:

VO: The mob WAS worried about Siegel’s mishandling their money in Las Vegas. The brotherhood, who had put up 6 million dollars. They became a bit concerned about their money. Sowe went out to talked too Siegel again and to look into the rumours that he and Virginia Hill had been swirling away money for their retirement. So we went out and talked to all the vendors. The principal one, ageneral contractor was Dale Webb. We talked to him Webb and we discovered at once that Siegel hadn’t paid Dale Webb nearly as much money as he had said. Soo it was obvious that he was stealing. So we came back and shortly after that they had a big meeting in Havana, where every mob figure in the country came in.. Lucky Luciano came from Italy. They came to Havana to have this conference. They had a conference about what they were going to do about Siegel. Lansky pleaded for him. He said he served us long an well, why don’t we use this as a little piece of the action and let him get out. Lansky and I made another trip to California and he told Lansky and I right to our face that we could shove it. That he Flamingo was his, and that he was keeping it, and of course he had a violent, violent uncontrollable temper. And so as far as that went, that was his death warrant. VO: The last conversation was on 19th of june 1947. A day later Siegel was dead. On the 20th we followed Siegel around all day. Barbershop to his lawyer he went over to a place Fauntain avenue meet a girlfriend. He didn´t seem to have a worry in the world. (a picture footage of Siegel’s slain body is being shown) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wim Dankbaar (talk • contribs) 07:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We cannot name Holt as the hitman since, as you point out, there is no direct evidence. However, his own words in the film then become the source for extrapolating his role in the killing. You could write something to the effect of:------Still another aspect of Holt's eventful life is his self-admitted key role in one of the most notorious killings in Mob history—the 1947 gunning down of Bugsy Siegel. In Spooks, Hoods and the Hidden Elite, he hints at being the triggerman by describing the details of the hit in such a manner as to leave little doubt of his role: =blockquote of your quotation above=. In the end, however, although anonymous sources have confirmed that he was the hitman, Holt himself never publicly admitted his direct responsibility for Siegel's death-------. Someone may ultimately challenge this portion of the text, but the blockquote should stand up to scrutiny since it is a direct quotation of Holt's own words. Also, in the English Wikipedia, libel/slander concerns are primarily aimed at biographies of living people, although, of course, truth and accuracy must remain undiminished. I hope this helps.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Defaultsort on talk pages

Hi, there. You've been adding the defaultsort template to talk pages lately. Are you sure it is intended to be used there? LarRan (talk) 11:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the opportunity, courtesy of your inquiry, to examine some of the details involving the use of DEFAULTSORT. In the period between the appearance of English Wikipedia's first article in January 2001 and the introduction of the categorization system in May 2004, numerous discussions raised competing issues as to the technical details surrounding the immediately obvious need for an orderly arrangement. As categories multiplied in 2004, 2005 and 2006, each one had to be individually alphabetized through the use of piping and surname (in biographical entries) or piping and title (without "a", "an" or "the"). The thousands of templated categories on discussion pages did not have individual components compatible with piping and thus remained unsorted (or, rather, sorted by given names and titles with definite and indefinite articles, as well as hundreds of Unicode symbols [accents, umlauts, diacritical marks, punctuation, letters from the Icelandic alphabet, etc.]). The development of DEFAULTSORT in January 2007, obviated the need for individual alphabetizing, streamlining the process of categorization and, simultaneously providing the first opportunity to bring alphabetical order to the neglected templated discussion-page categories (a measure of their neglect and lack of usable elements may be gauged by the fact that despite having thousands of entries, most did not even contain a table of contents [some are still bereft of one]). A sorting feature specifically designed to be used within the discussion page templates came into use in April 2007, shortly after the introduction of DEFAULTSORT. The feature, listas, is programmed to work in the same manner as DEFAULTSORT, and generally does, but both are technically imperfect and developed sorting issues. Due to various programming quirks and peculiarities within individual templates, some respond only to DEFAULTSORT, some to listas and some to neither. A partial list of the unresponsive templated categories can be found here. Hundreds of thousands of biographies have not even been furnished with listas (332,845 at last count) and can be found at Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Manual addition of DEFAULTSORT improves the situation somewhat but, due to its own technical issues, it must be positioned below the Wikitags, and will be unable to perform its alphabetizing function if placed above. There are numerous other details concerning this matter and if you would like to discuss them further, I would be glad to do so, but since your question was so brief, I felt that an equally brief response, "yes" would appear inadequate. It should also be noted that these additions of DEFAULTSORT are a continuing process begun in May 2007.—Roman Spinner (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your exhaustive reply. I justed wanted to be sure that it wasn't by mistake. Cheers. LarRan (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of conversations relevant to this matter and I would give you the links to them if I could remember where they were. Here is a summary of them combined with what I have learned in resolving DEFAULTSORT Conflicts:

Many WikiProjects use the "listas" parameter. If the "listas" is present the DEFAULTSORT is redundant. If "listas" is missing or is blank the DEFAULTSORT is set to the PAGENAME. If DEFAULTSORT is put under one of the Wiki-tags that has a blank or missing "listas" the DEFAULTSORT will work but it will cause an error message to appear and will put the page in the Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts category.

I am working to resolve the conflicts. In most cases it means putting the "listas" parameter in a tag that lacks it but wants it. In some cases it means that I also have to delete the DEFAULTSORT as some users have been using it incorrectly. The last case I remember was of an "Alexandros V", the 5th Alexandros in a dynasty, whose DEFAULTSORT was "V, Alexandros".

There are editors and admins who are working to fix the way "listas" works. Some of the proposed "fixes" will exacerbate the situation. Until a valid fix is implemented the best course is to put the listas parameter in the tag immediately below the error message. It is sometimes necessary to repeat the process. There is a Cypriot militant nationalist who is in WP Biography, WP Cyprus, WP Greece and WP Military. Each tag reset the sort and created an error message if its sort did not match the previous sort.

That is an extremely long-winded summary of what is known and is transpiring with the listas parameter. The very short version is to use DEFAULTSORT on the article but listas on the Talk page and to put the listas in every tag that wants it.

JimCubb (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Just to clarify, you're a bit wrong about what Wikipedia's disambiguation practice is. We only disambiguate by province or state instead of country if there's been another person in the same country who's notable enough for an article. That is, if there had been notable politicians named Andy Mitchell in multiple Canadian provinces, then we'd use the province to disambiguate them, but if there's only ever been one Canadian politician named Andy Mitchell, then we use Canada. And in fact, in his case he's the only notable politician of that name from any country, so it didn't even need the "Canadian" qualifier at all.

To summarize, we always disambiguate by the highest level at which the title is unique: just occupation if they're the only one at that level, then country occupation if they're not the only one at the occupational level, then province or state occupation if they're not the only one at the country level. I hope that helps a bit. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion

The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Wikipedia a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Year of birth unknown

Hi. Are you saying that this category should be placed in talk pages? Do you have a link of this decision? Which category about the a person's birth should be place in the main article instead?

PS I can run my bot to move this category in the talk page but I would like to be sure what I am doing is right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hoćemo gusle

Why did you move article Hoćemo gusle to We Want Gusle? As far as I know, the names of the music albums should not be translated. (for example, see Mes Courants Électriques) Vanjagenije (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the late reply. Although I attempted to briefly state the justification for the move in my edit summary, the subject obviously requires a much greater elucidation to serve as a possible guideline and point for future discussion. As most Wikipedia editors know, it has been a longtime policy to retain the original spelling of names and places rendered in the Latin alphabet, including accents, diacritics and occasional no-Latin-alphabet characters, such as letters from the Icelandic alphabet (for example, Þórður Friðjónsson). As always there are exceptions—individuals from past centuries known in English and some other other languages by their Latinized names: (Nicolaus Copernicus and variations thereof in other Western European languages, rather than Mikołaj Kopernik and variations thereof in other Slavic languages). Original place names are generally retained except for major world cities and other key geographical designations which have traditional names in each language. Myriad discussions on talk pages of various locations present arguments for the use of local or traditional names (Talk:Kraków, especially the archived section, with arguments for the retention of the long-used English form, Cracow). There are also orthographic disagreements over Tbilisi/Tiflis, Mumbai/Bombay, Beijing/Peking and numerous other designations, as well as political disputes over name usage, perhaps best exemplified by Macedonia naming dispute which, as in the case of issues raised in Hoćemo gusle, stems directly or indirectly from unresolved matters inherent in the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Various components of the Manual of Style set out consensus points on these issues. Among them are List of alternative country names, List of country names in various languages, Names of European cities in different languages, Help:Page name, Wikipedia:Naming conflict, Wikipedia:Naming conventions and its subdivisions Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (operas) and particularly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). In discussing the specific topic in question, the name of a work of art, the primary guidelines appear in Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)". This must be understood as requiring the main title header to state literal English translation of titles for which no standard or well-known English-language appellations exist. Redirects, of course will still enable editors to find the work in question via its original title. Although this is the English Wikipedia, exceptions are made for some, but not the majority, of titles in the five most-commonly used Western European languages, German, French, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. Rare exceptions are also made for well-known titles in Japanese and other non-Western languages.

Works of art, in a wide definition, include novels, plays, poems, works of non-fiction, operas, songs, music albums, paintings, sculptures and myriad subcategories thereof. Only Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera formulated naming conventions stating, specifically, "The name of the opera should be in its original language except:

• When the opera is commonly known in English-speaking nations by another title (i.e. The Marriage of Figaro).
• When the opera's full original title is widely known in an abbreviated form (i.e. I Lombardi).
• If the opera's title is rendered in its original language, capitalization should follow the usage in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and New Grove Dictionary of Opera.
• If the opera's title is rendered in English, use standard English usage."

The "original language" indication, it should be noted, applies primarily to German, French and Italian operas with exceptions for works in other languages, such as Russian, which use the name of a character—Boris Godunov, or Yevgeny Onegin (which is generally performed in English-speaking countries under the title which uses the protagonist's Anglicized given name, Eugene Onegin). A well-known title which does not lend itself to easy translation, Khovanshchina, is another rare example. Operas with titles in Polish, Czech, Hungarian and other languages are known almost exclusively under their English-language titles (The Haunted Manor not Straszny dwór, The Cunning Little Vixen not Příhody Lišky Bystroušky and Bluebeard's Castle not A kékszakállú herceg vára). Examples, needless to say, can always be found within Wikipedia of editors using original titles unknown to English-speaking audiences, such as Ero s onoga svijeta, as well as Szibill and Zsuzsi kisasszony, which played in New York as Sybil and Miss Springtime, respectively. These titles and a number of others should eventually be moved to English-language headers.

The titles of books, plays and films adhere to English almost entirely. The only exceptions are for easily-pronounced well-established titles in German, French, Italian and Spanish such as Das Boot, Les Misérables/Les Miserables, La Dolce Vita and Volver. A handful of recent Spanish-language film titles such as Amores Perros and Y tu mamá también/Y tu mama tambien have also remained in their original form. As for the rest, it's The Blue Angel not Der blaue Engel, In Search of Lost Time/Remembrance of Things Past not À la recherche du temps perdu, Big Deal on Madonna Street not I soliti ignoti and The Spirit of the Beehive not El espíritu de la colmena). Another handful of classic titles in other languages includes India's Pather Panchali and Aparajito (the third film in the Apu Trilogy, Apur Sansar, however, is known in the English-speaking world as The World of Apu and should be moved to that title) and some Japanese titles such as Ugetsu, Kagemusha, Ran and Dodes'ka-den (thus rendered on film posters and in film reference books, not the Japanese transliteration, Dodesukaden, as it currently stands).

As previously stated, this is an extensive topic and more will be added in subsequent discussions. As to titles of record albums, even if the Wikipedia community were to accept WikiProject Opera's "original title" standard (no such consensus currently exists), it would still only apply to German, French, Italian and Spanish titles. The process might include Alizée's French album, Mes Courants Électriques, which you gave as an example of a foreign-title album retaining its original title, or it might not, that proposition will need to be tested to determine community consensus. However, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Romanian, Dutch, Swedish, Finnish and Slavic-language titles (as well as others too numerous to mention) face an extremely high hurdle.—Roman Spinner (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect deletion

Per WP:BLANK, please do not simply remove content from redirect pages. Instead, if you feel they are inappropriate, nominate them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. GlassCobra 13:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward Wortley Montagu (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)

I am not at all clear why you have changed the title of this article. The previous name was perfectly acceptable, but I supsect that you are an American, who does not know that persons with knighthoods are incorrectly addressed if their name is not prefixed by "Sir". Furthermore, being a Lord of the Treasury was only a short event in a long career. Why not Edward Wortley Montagu (Ambassador)? Articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer (if they had one), even if it was only granted at the end of their life. Would you be kind enough to undo your interfering? Just because Americans have no significant titles of honour, there is no reason why you should engage in imperialissm to force your views on other coutries. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate your vexation at such a seemingly inappropriate change. I did elucidate the reason for the move in the article's revision history and you may also glance at the Edward Montagu (disambiguation) page, which has as its initial entry, Sir Edward Montagu, not Sir Edward Montagu. Similarly, even such familiar personalities as Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Philip Sidney are named without their knighthoods in the main title headers of their Wikipedia articles. As I've indicated, the Wikipedia Manual of Style directive regarding these matters is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)#British peerage #5. Titles of Knighthood. You are, indeed, correct that "articles on British politicians normally incorporate their title as a peer", but solely in a specifically circumscribed form, i.e., "Sir Edward Hyde East, 1st Baronet". Stand-alone salutations, honorifics and knighthoods are not utilized in the context of Wikipedia. As to the parenthetical qualifier, it was simply a judgment call in using what appeared the most distinguished title. If the already-existing redirect, Edward Wortley Montagu (diplomat), or not-yet-in-existence Edward Wortley Montagu (ambassador), Edward Wortley Montagu (MP) or the full Edward Wortley Montagu (Member of Parliament) seems more fitting, than such a move can also be effected. If you have additional concerns in this matter, I would welcome further communication.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You have misunderstood our long-established policy; see WP:NCNT.

• We almost always use peerages. The handful of exceptions are those cases like Bertrand Russell and Anthony Eden, where the title is hardly ever used to describe the subject.
• We almost always use titles of courtesy, as the name by which the subject is most commonly known.
• We usually use baronetcies, to distinguish from the other baronets of the same family.
• We use knighthoods to disambiguate when necessary, before going to parenthetical disambiguation.

Come and discuss these by all means; but please stop inventing guidelines in a field in which our practice is consistent and well-documented. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We are all here for the same reason—to advance knowledge. Idealistic, yes, but we would not devote so many hours, days and years to this project if our ultimate goal was any less noble. That said, the sheer number of contributors and conflicting agendas cannot help but lead to mutually exclusive goals which may or may not be resolved in arbitration. I welcome input from a veteran editor who has spent years participating in these discussions, and is certainly more than qualified to weigh in on the subject. Putting aside all other titles of nobility which are not part of the current controversy, we can examine logically the single sentence under 5. Titles of Knighthood, which is.

That sentence, originally added in July 2004, states, "'Sir' may be used in article titles as a disambiguator". The fact that other than for a correction from "maybe" to "may be", the sentence has managed to exist for over four-and-a-half years, may indicate consensus or, simply, disregard, but a rule in the Manual of Style cannot be ignored. I intend to submit it for deletion for, in its present state, it trivializes knighthoods and reduces them to mere disambiguators for knighted individuals who bear common names. Furthermore, it actually negates the entire paragraph, which takes pains to explain that even the universally-known Sir Walter Raleigh should be listed as Walter Raleigh. Are we then to understand that all it would take for the famed historical figure to regain his knighthood in the main title header is for, say, an actor or footballer named Walter Raleigh to appear on the scene thus enabling the first Walter Raleigh to use "Sir" as a disambiguator? Rules should be based upon firm principles and not serve simply as sorting devices. Such deviations ultimately open Pandora's boxes to endless similar disambiguatory exceptions such as "Doctor", "General", "Cardinal", "Professor" and others such as "Master" and "Sheik", which continue to appear and continue to be moved to the name alone, with the titled name remaining as a redirect. Perhaps the Wikipedia community wants to retain the rule, but I doubt it, judging by the fact that as fast as they appear, these titled individuals find themselves moved.—Roman Spinner (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The [place to discuss this, then, is WT:NCNT. In the meantime, please stop misrepresenting what our convention is.
• You have overlooked the obvious reason not to use Sir Walter Raleigh; itdoesn't resolve the ambiguity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

  It would have been nice if you had bothered to look up what Wikipedia actually did in related cases before opining. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Page moves and disambigs...

Hello there. There's a new discussion at an Australian notice board on some of the page moves that you are doing. Some doubts have been raised. Would you be kind enough to contribute before going further? many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 03:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, especially as names change, politicians move seats, so disambiguating by seat name (which is meaningless outside the jurisdiction in which it falls anyway) would lead to all sorts of confusion. Also, seats in different jurisdictions may have the same name - for example, the seat of Moore in Federal parliament, and the Moore in the state parliament (the same goes for Stirling, Perth, Forrest, Kalgoorlie, Swan, Canning, Fremantle - and that's just in my state alone!) I am aware of parliamentarians who have held as many as 5 different seats during their political careers, and considering redistributions every 8 years or so usually rename a great number of seats, at least 2 isn't even uncommon. Orderinchaos 06:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving Roger King

Well done moving the article on the politician Roger King and creating a disambiguation page. That's a much bette way of handling these things than just having a hatnote on an article.

However, there were two problems with the way you did it. The first is that the article name you chose (Roger King (Birmingham Northfield)) was not the normal format. The convention is to disambiguate by occupation (e.g. Roger King (politician)), and if that name is not available to add a nationality (e.g. Roger King (British politician)). Adding a constituency name is over-specific, and should only be used if the preferred forms of disambiguation are already in use. However, that's now been fixed by another editor.

The more important point is that you didn't fix the incoming links. The move screen says clearly "Links to the old page title will not be changed; be sure to check for double redirects (using "What links here") after the move. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. " ... but you didn't do that, leaving all the links which used to point to the politician going to disambiguation page.

Please when you move pages can you make sure to fix the incoming links? Navigation popups makes it a relatively simple job. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Play of the Week

Hi Roman,

Just wanted to leave a note on your talk page to thank you for all of the work you've done on Play of the Week. Your attention to detail is greatly appreciated. Thanks again. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome and my thanks to you for taking the time to send such a kind note of appreciation. Encouragement is always welcome and, in view of my modest (and still unfinished) effort on Play of the Week, I also thank you, in turn, for your monumental multi-year contributions to the compendium of knowledge regarding paleontology and, of course, the history of early TV programs. Now, those explorations into the past are projects truly worthy of praise!—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Geraldine Brooks

Thank you for looking at the disambiguation issue here. It had appeared to me (from a very quick review suggesting that there might be 10 times more Google links to the author, although I didn't really go into it carefully so that finding could be misleading) that Geraldine Brooks (writer) is considerably more prominent, at this point in this history, than the actress, and appears to have more links leading to her. As such, I might have thought the cleaner solution would be to keep Geraldine Brooks as referring to the writer with a hatnote on her article leading to Geraldine Brooks (actress). But I will leave that to you. If we do keep the change as you've done it, however, there are several dozen internal wikilinks to the writer that need to be fixed, most notably including the hatnote at the top of Geraldine Brooks (actress), to avoid double redirects. Best,--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me and expressing very valid concerns regarding the creation of the disambiguation page and the move of Geraldine Brooks to Geraldine Brooks (writer). You are, of course, correct about the need to attend to the hatnotes as well as the incoming links in what links here for both individuals and I will take care of those matters today. In point of fact, an examination of the 92 links (63 of which are article links) leading to Geraldine Brooks, indicates that 18 of these belong to the actress. As to comparable prominence/notability, the actress belongs to an earlier generation and died when the writer was 22 years and had not yet attained fame, thus they were never in name competition as, for example, contemporaries Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932) and Elizabeth Taylor (novelist) (1912–1975)/Elizabeth Taylor (athlete) (1916–1977). The actress was, however, a lower-lovel celebrity between 1947 and her death in 1977, co-starring (as female lead) in studio films, appearing on magazine covers, TV talk shows and receiving nominations for major acting awards (Emmy, 1962; Tony, 1970). In my extensive library of film and television reference books, she receives numerous entries in virtually every volume and, in the online index to The New York Times, of the 567 "Geraldine Brooks" entries, 1 to 6 (1901–31) are for earlier individuals (including the same-named author of the 1904 book, Dames and Daughters of the French Court), 7 to 344 (1946–79) are to the actress, including posthumous showings of her film and TV appearances, and 345 to 567 (1979–2006) are a mix of revivals for the late actress, 82 entries for the writer (starting with 363, 10 February 1983) and four minor references to others bearing the name. A separate index covering the years 2007–09 shows the writer predominating with interviews and book reviews, but with the actress' name continuing to appear regularly in TV listings. Unlike the case of Elizabeth Taylor (born 1932) being the indisputable primary target, there is no clear notability comparison here. The actress was a minor star and celebrity in her day, while the writer is a Pulitzer Prize winner currently known in literary circles and to segments of the reading public. I will leave that judgment to others. In the meantime, there are incoming links to be adjusted.—Roman Spinner (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bem Le Hunte

Thanks for sorting that article out for me, At first, I found some faults in what you've done, but I guess its for the better. Do the excerpts of reviews need to be in there? --Flashflash; 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It was good of you to drop me a note and I extend my apologies for the delayed reply. As we devote considerable portions of our time to the advancement of knowledge through Wikipedia, the appreciation of an article's usefulness can be judged by the frequency of its page visits as well as the frequency of helpful revisions within its text. I appreciate your comments and, regarding reviews, feel that anyone who offers any work or activity which engenders the commentary of critics, should have excerpts of those reviews included in his/her biographical profile in order to present a compendium of balanced views. For artists, in particular, reviews of paintings, sculptures, musical compositions and written works, especially if those works do not have their own individual Wikipedia entries, present a rounded image of the subject, with the quotation, of course, best selected if it specifically refers to the subject's own persona, rather than simply to the work being reviewed.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, was just checking. Thanks again :) --Flashflash; 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Adrian P. Burke

You moved this article to "Adrian Burke", although all the sources given in the article refer to him always with the middle initial. Please refrain from doing unnessary and unencyclopedical moves, referring to "newspaper search predominance." Kraxler (talk) 14:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can appreciate your annoyance at a change within the main title header of an article you created, your dogmatic insistence on what you perceive to be an encyclopedic approach and your description of my move as "unnessary and unencyclopedical", betrays a basic misunderstanding of the use of the middle initial in American public life and, particularly, its use by American public officials.

Although some actors use a middle initial as part of their name (Edward G. Robinson or Leo G. Carroll, who were never billed as "Edward Robinson" or "Leo Carroll") and some public officials are most frequently referenced with the middle initial (Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson), others, perhaps inconsistently, are indicated without the middle initial (Richard Nixon not Richard M. Nixon, Gerald Ford not Gerald R. Ford). If one were to insist on your encyclopedic approach, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton would have their entries titled James Earl Carter, Jr. and William Jefferson Clinton, their legal names, which they used to take the oath of office. In official announcements and biographical sketches, public officials are designated by their full name (South Dakota Senator Timothy P. Johnson, who is referred to in newspapers and most public occasions as Tim Johnson). The article on New York Governors Thomas E. Dewey and George E. Pataki, lists the former with the middle initial, not as Thomas Dewey, but the latter as George Pataki. Controversially, some editors insist on using middle initials as disambiguators, especially in the case of common names such as "John Kennedy". There are at least thirty names in John Kennedy (disambiguation), some disambiguated by middle initials, others by parenthetical qualifiers. It is indeed desirable to use middle initials in cases where the individual himself or herself used or was known by such an initial, but inappropriate where that was not the case.

There is more to be said on the subject, which may be expanded upon in future communications if you so desire. Returning, however, to the immediate topic of Adrian P. Burke, while there are good arguments for the use of the middle initial, including its use in the title of his memoir and in a number of newspaper references announcing milestones in his career, a larger number of newspaper articles, referred to him simply as Adrian Burke. You will find many or even most official references giving the full name (including middle initial or middle name) of public officials even when the official himself never used the full name. I was recently involved in a lengthy discussion regarding main title header James Stewart (actor) versus Jimmy Stewart, as the actor was affectionately known. Since, unlike Jimmy Carter, James Stewart rarely referred to himself as "Jimmy" and was not billed in a single film as "Jimmy Stewart", the main header, quite properly, indicated him as "James".

Finally, if you insist on using middle initials in main title headers, you must create redirects to the name without the middle initial. Until I created the redirect, Wikipedia users typing Adrian Burke or Adrian Paul Burke (which, as of this writing, is without a redirect) will find that there no such article. Most users, as I'm sure, you will agree, do not usually type Harry S. Truman when accessing the article on the president, but simply type Harry Truman and the same would be true for Adrian Burke not Adrian P. Burke. I suggest you return to your previous articles and create redirects for those which (almost all, most likely) are bereft of those essential links.—Roman Spinner (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter - Thank you for your support

Your post is extremely well-written, cogent and comprehensive. It is unfortunate that it is also futile. The category will not be re-populated unless some very heavy-duty admins step in, restore the category and ban User:MSGJ.

Again, thank you for joining the fray.

JimCubb (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind words. I think you are right in assuming that Category:Biography articles with listas parameter will not be repopulated. I would bet that this time the change will not be made because of the warning that the template should not be changed without very strong consensus due to the effect it will have on the servers.

By the way, the three losing battles I have fought – {{WikiProjectBanners}}, {{lifetime}} and Category:Biography articles with listas parameter – have all involved deprecation. Who decides that a template or category is deprecated and are there any procedures governing that decision.

Thank you again.

JimCubb (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Talk:James Robinson

Hello Roman Spinner, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Talk:James Robinson) without specifying a CSD category. So for future reference I've deleted it as {{G6}} as non-controversial maintenance. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied (it also saves us admins from having to think too much). Thanks again! and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 13:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Julie Payne

In "moving" (a totally inappropriate word, but we seem to be stuck with it) the articles on the two actresses known as Julie Payne to bear the parenthetical qualifiers "1960s actress" and "post-1960s actress" respectively, you wrote in your edit summary, "neither performer used a middle name and/or initial as part of her stage name." As was previously discussed here, somebody was credited as "Julie K. Payne" in a 1991 episode of the Chris Elliott/Fox network sitcom, Get a Life. With that date we can be reasonably certain that she isn't the daughter of John Payne and Anne Shirley (who has, IIRC, has at least as many credits in the 50s as in the 60s), but since we have three different sets of birth dates/places (Terre Haute, IN, September 11, 1940; L.A., CA, July 10, 1940; and Eugene, OR, September 11, 1946), this might be, as theorized in that thread, a third woman. Why would the Oregon JP use an initial that long after the second gen. thespian quit the business, and only once? One might speculate that we have one woman born in Indiana and raised in Oregon with the two years of both confused to give September 11, 1940 for Terre Haute and the same month and day in '46 for Eugene, but this Eugene newspaper article says she was born in "Sweet Home," and does not identify it as out of state. So that's out the window. (I've put your talk page on my watchlist pending the outcome of this discussion, so you can reply right here and I'll know.) --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided to communicate with me about the Julie Payne entrtes, thus providing an opportunity to explore the matter in greater detail. There are two distinct issues at the forefront of this discussion — use of middle names or initials in main title headers and, crucial to the subject, distinguishing among individuals who are known by exact same names. As an illustration of the first topic, a few weeks ago I moved Walter Kelly (comedian) to Walter C. Kelly, since that is how the star vaudevillian and occasional movie actor was always billed [his middle name was Charles], presumably to disambiguate himself from all the other Walter Kellys of this world. The names of Edward G. Robinson and Leo G. Carroll would look very odd without the middle initial which was an integral part of their stage name and their identity as an actor. Well-known non-entertainment-industry personalities with common names such as William Douglas also adopted the use of a middle initial (William O. Douglas) and, outside a specific context, would be virtually unrecognizable without it. Similarly, highly recognizable full names such as John Stuart Mill, John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith or George Bernard Shaw would lose their distinctiveness, individuality and, very likely, recognition, if referenced as "John Mill", "John Keynes", "John Galbraith" or "George Shaw". Occasionally, a distinctive middle name, followed by the surname, is used instead of the full name but, unless it becomes frequent practice, such a reference may seem forced. On the other hand, two of my other moves — Dawn Evelyn Paris to Anne Shirley (actress) and Joanna Cook Moore (birth name Dorothy Cook) to Joanna Moore exemplified an opposite problem from that presented by Walter Kelly (comedian), whose name needed the middle initial instead of a parenthetical qualifier. Research of records from those actresses' eras indicated that neither used her birth name as her stage name, although Dawn Evelyn Paris, during her period as a fairly well-established child and adolescent actress named Dawn O'Day (name redirected to Anne Shirley (actress), at least used her birth given name.

The other, more important, matter of a duplicate name is of key importance to actors, since any uncertainty or confusion about identity may represent the difference between success and failure in the profession. Names are registered with acting unions Screen Actors Guild (SAG) and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) which prohibit newcomers from using stage names of current members. In same cases even a similar name presents a problem — in 1960 Mike Kellin filed a grievance with SAG and AFTRA against recent member Michael Callan whose name he perceived as sounding too similar to his own, but a union committee decided that since the 38-year-old character actor and the 25-year-old lead hopeful were not competing for the same roles, there was enough difference to allow Michael Callan to retain his name unchanged. Using the IMDb to research the career of virtually any actor, one almost always finds numerous other entertainment industry personalities with the same or almost-same name. In the case of established actors, the other same-named actors are usually one-role or bit-part non-union players. They may also be players from other countries, usually Britain or Australia (English actor James Lablache Stewart was obliged to change his name and became Stewart Granger), or they may be actors from another era. Silent film supporting performers named James Mason (whom the IMDB lists as "Jim Mason" and Wikipedia as Jim Mason (actor) despite the fact that he was never billed as "Jim Mason") and William Holden are two examples of actors with the same names as future stars. Names which become available at SAG or AFTRA as a result of their previous possessors' retirement (with resulting non-payment of dues) or death are infrequently revived with new dues payments by other individuals who want the name for their own use, but the Julie Payne case is one of those rare examples.

Continuing from that last sentence we can try to elucidate the heart of the matter. Julie Payne (1960s actress), the daughter of film and TV leading man John Payne and the previously-mentioned child performer, later leading lady, Anne Shirley (actress), despite being billed in two 1960–61 sitcom episodes as "Julie Ann Payne", appears in SAG and AFTRA membership guidebooks and 1961–67 casting guidebooks (available at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts) as "Julie Payne", which then constitutes her official stage name. Also, as far as can be determined, other than three half-hour TV series episodes in 1959, the remainder of her career lasted from 1960 to 1967, at which point she must have stopped paying her SAG and AFTRA dues, thus losing exclusive use of the name "Julie Payne". In 1968 or 1969, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress), must have gained membership in SAG and AFTRA and, having already performed with the improvisational comedy troupe, The Committee, using her birth name, made a decision to continue her acting career under that name, despite its previous use by another actress. Judging by the fact that Wikipedia's own article, South Eugene High School, lists her among "Notable alumni", class of 1964 (my experience with high school and college articles is that alumni keep a close watch for accuracy) indicates that the correct birth year is 1946, as originally listed in IMDb, and the birthplace is in Oregon. Whatever presumption might have existed of her birth in Terre Haute and moving with her family to Oregon at a young age, is dispelled by the link on Talk:Julie Payne to the July 1976 interview with her in Eugene's newspaper, The Register-Guard, in which her age and place of birth are specifically indicated. One must therefore assume that one of IMDb's associates, attempting to correlate the two actresses named Julie Payne, conflated their data, thus assigning to both the earlier birth year, 1940, along with marriage to Robert Towne in November 1977 and the birth of one child. The single "Julie K. Payne" credit in a 1991 episode of a sitcom, must be presumed as a mistake, fluke or one-time experimental billing, and the listing of Terre Haute as the birthplace, which has been copied by other sites is, likewise a mistake. Ultimately, lacking direct confirmation from either Julie Payne, one is forced to make some assumptions, but the preponderance of evidence, including this Birth Records Search, confirms the conclusions.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Far more than I expected, and with all due respect, very little of it news to me. I do feel that dismissing Terre Haute and the initial in Get a Life simply by declaring each "a mistake" is ill-advised (and for the latter, "fluke" is merely another way of saying mistake, and "one-time experiment" just doesn't make any sense to me, at least that's how I feel about both in this context). As soon as (if) a station or channel I receive reruns that series, I'll pay attention to the airing sequence and find out if it is indeed the Oregon Payne in that episode and whether or not the initial is there. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My previous three-paragraph posting is, indeed, overlong, with the first two paragraphs concerned not with the main topic of identity, but with examination of the stylistic appropriateness in using middle names or initials as opposed to parenthetical qualifiers. The last paragraph, which did focus on differentiating the two Julies, attempted to elucidate what was already discussed on Talk:Julie Payne and Talk:Julie Payne (1960s actress). As far as the central point is concerned, it seems to have been agreed upon that despite what is written on IMDb's biographical pages for the two Julies, Robert Towne obviously did not marry both women in November 1977 and have one child with each of them, but his status as the April 1975 winner of the Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) did ensure that his marriage to (and subsequent divorce from) the actress (or recent, but no longer active, actress) daughter of then-still-living former movie stars was covered in Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and a number of other publications.

Lacking celebrity parents, celebrity husband or attention-attracting film and television parts, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress) has had relatively little press coverage in her 40-year show-business career. She was cast in supporting roles as a regular in three 1983–86 TV series, but each series was canceled after less than three months. The only specifics come from a 33-year-old interview in the Oregon near-hometown newspaper. The link to Birth Database, which I provided in the previous posting, does not connect to specific searches but, for the record, it does list one Julie Payne, born July 10 [not August 10, as was indicated in a couple of other references], 1940, last residing in Los Angeles. It also has two listings for Julie K. Payne, born September 11, 1946, last residing in Studio City (first listing) and in Sherman Oaks (second listing). Although I could not find any references which confirm that the "K." stands for Kathleen, the existence of the middle initial in the Birth Database listing does seem to confirm that "Julie Payne (post-1960s actress)" and "Julie K. Payne" refer to the same person. While IMDb lists seven women named "Julie Payne" and two more whose extended name includes "Julie Payne", acting credits are indicated for only four of those names, two of which we already know and the remaining two (possibly the same person) seem to be non-union, non-professionals with a single bit part in obscure non-union productions.

Ultimately, over the last four decades, since 1969, only one performer, Julie Payne (post-1960s actress), has had SAG and AFTRA legitimacy to use the name. Therefore, in view of the Birth Database confirmation that Julie K. Payne, born September 11, 1946, lives in the Hollywood area of Studio City/Sherman Oaks, there can be virtually no doubt that the Julie K. Payne in the 1991 episode of the sitcom Get a Life is the same Julie Payne who holds rights to the name. The likely explanation is that although her stage name is "Julie Payne", she may be in the habit of signing her checks and contracts with the addition of her middle initial "K.", to differentiate herself from all the other holders of that name, starting with those listed in IMDb. In constructing the end credits, the production office must have inadvertently used her work contract signature instead of determining her standard billing. Any other explanation, including the sitcom's use of a non-union performer who has virtually the same name as an established actress who has been appearing in TV shows and films for over twenty years (since 1970) is difficult to accept.—Roman Spinner (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary page moves

Please stop moving the pages of VC and GC recipients from format (VC). This is a well established and discussed disamb. Please have the courtesy to discuss any change on the Milhistory talk page and seek consensus prior to any further moves Kernel Saunters (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your contacting me on this matter. In view of the inconsistent use of the disambiguating parenthetical qualifiers "(VC)" and "(GC)" in main title headers such as David Russell (George Cross) and the numerous uses of other qualifiers such as "(soldier)" remaining in incoming links, I did not realize that the subject was previously raised in discussions or that any form of consensus had been reached regarding the proper form of these specific disambiguating qualifiers. Since you profess knowledge of such discussions and/or such consensus, it is customary to provide appropriate links to MOS or WikiProject topics in one's initial communication to bolster one's argument.—Roman Spinner (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if any formal consensus has ever been reached, but my experience of doing quite a bit of work on VC and GC related pages is that these are the most common forms of disambiguator. They are well known abbreviations and postnominals for the respective awards, adn the preference is to keep disambiguators as short as possible, so it seems to me that they are the best choices. Like Kernel Saunters, I would ask that you refrain from any further moves until this has been sorted. Simply working through List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign and its sublists, and the equivalent GC lists shows that the simple VC or GC form is the most common, even if not universal. Because of the way many VC pages were created by migration from another website, rather a lot use full names rather than normal disambiguation in fact. David Underdown (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "(VC)" and "(GC)" have always been used as disambiguators here. There is absolutely no need to change this. I'll add my request to that of the other two gentlemen. Please refrain from these page moves. Can I also point out that using your own previous edits in the edit history to justify further moves is not really good policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Scaled down in proportion to the volume of response generated on the talk pages of Wikipedia's hot-button controversial issues, a three-message mini-chorus of disapproval (with more to come, possibly) does indicate a lack of support to a significant enough degree that any further such moves would not be advisable. Some additional points, nevertheless, can be raised. The use of "(VC)" and "(GC)" as disambiguating parenthetical qualifiers seems to be a leftover from Wikipedia's earlier years when post-nominals such as "(OBE)", "(KBE)", "(MP)", "(SJ)" or "(PhD)" were appended as disambiguators, while other editors preferred using a pre-name title or honorific such as "Sir", "General", "Doctor", "Professor", "Father" or "Sheikh", even in instances when its function as disambiguator was obviated by the subject's unique name. While Wikipedia users expect a parenthetical qualifier to impart some basic form of information regarding the subject, such as "(writer)", "(footballer)" or "(politician)", if one is able to create a more-detailed description to place the subject within a group or sub-group receiving specific coverage in Wikipedia, such as my move of Thomas J. Kelly (US soldier) to Thomas J. Kelly (Medal of Honor recipient), then choosing greater specificity should become the prime prerequisite in formulating the parenthetical qualifier.

Unfortunately, except for acronyms which have entered popular culture, such as "FBI", "CIA" and "MI5", the great majority, including "VC" and "GC", tend to be obscure to most people, thus, ironically, making the earlier, unsatisfactory, generic main title headers, "John Kirk (soldier)" and "James Kirk (soldier)", more informative than the current versions, "John Kirk (VC)" and "James Kirk (VC)". While it can be pointed out that, in a broader sense, the content of the parenthetical qualifier matters little in its practical application, since all names with qualifiers are ultimately sorted out in disambiguation pages or hatnotes, an encyclopedia is still symbolized by its style and uniformity, as exemplified by one of the entries in Henry Kelly (disambiguation), which lists a possessor of that name as simply, Henry Kelly (VC), with no further description, thus, theoretically, rendering it meaningless to most users, while a listing which could be used as an alternative, Henry Kelly (Victoria Cross recipient), would at least provide some minimal information even to those who have no specific knowledge of what Victoria Cross represents.

Finally, points have been raised regarding Wikipedia's purportedly traditional use of "(VC)" and "(GC)" as disambiguating qualifiers. While a small number of those can be traced back to 2005, with other qualifiers being changed in 2006 and 2007 to reflect that formulation, the majority of main title headers carrying such varied disambiguators as "(soldier)", "(Ireland)" or "(Georgia Cross)" have continued to be revised through 2008 and into 2009. In any event, given that the transformation of headers using qualifiers "(VC)" and "(GC)" is nearly complete, some uniformity in this regard is on its way to being achieved, thus leaving the basic topic of the qualifiers' appropriateness for those who wish to revisit it in the indeterminate future.—Roman Spinner (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there are big differences between using "(GC)" and "(VC)" and, for example, "(OBE)" and "(PhD)". In the former case, the disambiguator will almost always be the reason why the individual is notable, whereas in the latter case this is not true. Nobody is inherently notable for having an OBE or a PhD; they are inherently notable for having a GC or VC. There is absolutely nothing obscure about the abbreviations VC or GC; in fact, it is common practice to describe a recipient as "a VC" or "a GC". Certainly everyone who knows what the Victoria Cross or George Cross are is also likely to know what the VC and GC are. If they don't know what they are then "("Victoria Cross recipient)" is no more helpful to them than "(VC)"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Precisely, as I said VC and GC are sufficiently standard to suffice, if you're searching simply from the box, the connection to Victoira Cross is pretty obvious, and if someone ends up on a dab page, there'll be more description there. Being bold is all very well, but if you're going to move large numbers of particular classes of articles, some disucssion first would generally be helpful - by defintion all VC winners are covered by the MILHIST project, so that would ahve been a good place to start, or the VC or GC articles themselves. David Underdown (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)