Clarityfiend

Happy New Year, Clarityfiend!

Happy New Year!

Clarityfiend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 00:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Something fishy going on...

Have you got a problem with haddocks? A bad experience at a fish-and-chip shop? I see a common theme in these nominations... (no offence intended; it just amused me as I read through AfD; have a great weekend). Elemimele (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: I was tidying up Haddock (disambiguation), and one thing led to another. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

... what fish next? I shall have to mull-et over, and get my skates on... Elemimele (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Shakespeare said it best: "Cry 'Haddock!' and let slip the dogs of deletion." Clarityfiend (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Terry edit in The Adventures of Rusty

Hello, thank you for pointing out that Terry is not listed on the IMDB page for The Adventures of Rusty, I added a source (albeit not a super great one) and I thought I'd run it by you. CardboardWolf (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@CardboardWolf: Hmmm, I seem to have missed this request. Better late than never. I searched, but couldn't find any other sources to corroborate this claim. Since your source also stated that Toto broke her paw in The Wizard of Oz (which would have required longer than two weeks to heal), I don't consider it to be reliable, so I'm going to remove the uncredit from both Adventures and Terry's own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Snake Davis - userify

Hi

I was wondering if you would be willing to revist the article by sticking it in my user pages so I can add a cople of refs.

It was deleted due to failing notability under WP:MUSICBIO ... However, I feel it does meet 1. and 10. for a couple of counts, and so would like the chance to see what was there and try to get the article on main again.

There were several tracks he performed in that are notable, as well as him performing the theme tune for a TV show, which all fulfil 10., I guess that just leaves 1.

I can see a couple of reliable sources interviewing him, for example https://www.recordproduction.com/interviews/snake-davis, which is an award winning site, so surely must fulfil 1.?

There is also an article on the Yanagisawa saxophpones manufacturer website, https://www.yanagisawasax.co.jp/en/artists/view/118, which I believe is independent enough and reliable enough to give 2x 1.

If you feel that would probably be enough, as well as me finding other refs, please go ahead and stick it in my user pages for me to at least look at and work on.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: I'm not an admin, so I don't have the ability to recover deleted articles. WP:REFUND is "a central location to request that deleted content be userfied, restored as a draft or emailed to you so the content can be improved upon prior to re-insertion into the mainspace". I should note that interviews are not independent. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Some rant about your deletion of my article

Hello! I have just noticed that you nominated and successfully deleted an article about Helen Graham, the main heroine in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I don't deny that the article was not very informative and needed reworking. However, there are numerous articles about fictional heroes of the same quality. I don't mention it because I want them to be deleted too, quite the contrary. I think reworking articles about Dickens', Brontes', Austen's etc. heroes would benefit the project much better than a speed deletion. Anyway, I plan to write the article about Helen all anew with the better sources and I hope there will be no edit war. And please, next time you nominate not so well written article about an important topic for deletion, consider contacting its author(s)/contributor(s). Not that I want to dictate you what to do, but once again, discussions about articles' quality surely will benefit Wikipedia. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Terrible Mutant Hamster: Twinkle automatically notified the article's creator, which is not you. Nobody goes around notifying everyone who made an edit. Also, it was not your article: see WP:OWNERSHIP. Furthermore, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for keeping something. Finally, it was not "speed" deleted. A consensus was reached, with none of the participants raising any objections. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: ideally, substantial contributors should be notified as well, not just creators (according to WP:AFD: [w]hile not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion). @The Terrible Mutant Hamster: as you can see, this is recommended but not a formal requirement. In practice, the majority of people who nominate articles for deletion use the tool WP:TWINKLE, which will send a notification only to the author of the first edit in the page's history (and if that edit was the creation of a redirect, then the person notified won't even be the creator). Unfortunately, it's rare that nominators would take the trouble to track down and notify substantial contributors. If you'd like to keep abreast of what's happening to the articles you're interested in, you can add them to your watchlist, and then check that watchlist every couple of days (if you don't want to do that so frequently, you can change your settings so that you get an email every time someone makes an edit to a page on your watchlist). And as for this AfD, the community agreed with Clarityfiend that this article wasn't needed in its current shape. As far as I can see from the discussion, there was also rough consensus that the topic was notable and that an article could be recreated, provided it's more in-depth and it doesn't duplicate the relevant content in the article about the novel (that's my understanding at least; if you'd like to play it on the safe side, you may want to double-check with the closer of the discussion: Star Mississippi). – Uanfala (talk) 12:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Absolutely agree. I've already have an eye on several such articles that require improvement, so this little drama is actually for the best. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

No need to be that rude. Actually, I've made it with my previous account, but it's of no importance now. I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I just inform you that your deleting of the pages that will be restored (hopefully in better quality) is a waste of time. Yes, I fully admit that many articles about fictional heroes require improvement. However, we need a more comprehensive approach to the problem. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@The Terrible Mutant Hamster: No need to be that rude? Look in the mirror sometime ("rant"?). Also, you have this odd notion that I somehow wield such power that I can unilaterally delete articles. It was discussed by multiple lvoters, and they all agreed. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: It's time you knew about Sarcasm (word "rant" didn't mean an actual rant). I never told that the deletion was your personal fault, I told that wikipedians need a more comprehensive approach to the problem. Also, let's appreciate the common goals, we both want Wikipedia articles to be more informative. Peace 😉 The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So sarcasm isn't rude? Telling me what I should or shouldn't do isn't rude? Claiming I'm being rude for daring to disagree with you and refuting each of your points is somehow unacceptable? Trying to have the last word to justify your behavior. If the deletion isn't my fault, why are you even here? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Carlton - People

Hello, User:Clarityfiend, I have noticed you reverted my edit at Carlton (disambiguation) and will assume this is a contribution in good faith. It appears you added "and fictional characters" to the subtitle to section People. This, however, is a disputable edit. Please seeWP:MOSDAB. Jones#People, Johnson (disambiguation)#People, Smith#People, Anderson#People, Sebastian#People Goodman#People Baker (disambiguation)#People. BurgeoningContracting 03:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@BurgeoningContracting: How is it "disreputable"? MOSDAB says nothing about fixing incorrect section titles (why would it?). As for your examples, they're just errors that need to be (and are going to be) corrected. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-read MOSDAB. Pray do tell me where it says these sections need "fixing". I have looked at other Dab pages with surnames and the only ones that read "People and fictional characters" are ones that you have edited, like Jackson BurgeoningContracting 04:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Show me where MOSDAB (or any other guideline) says to ignore inaccurate section titles. Fictional characters are not people. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:LONGDAB suggests that the section name be People. That combined with existing precedent leads me to believe that it would be best to leave these sections as People for the sake of Wikipedia's general appearance of matching pages when it comes up to DABs, since most DAB pages have only People and it looks like you are a one-man operation. BurgeoningContracting 04:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

LONGDAB does not support your claim. Enough of this nonsense. I'm opening a discussion at Help talk:Section#Section title dispute Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Section title dispute. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

It would have been best if you had not "corrected" the examples I provided until we receive input at the dispute thread you created. BurgeoningContracting 08:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I am that confident. Further comments should be made at the MOS talk page. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:LONGDAB is a guideline

And guidelines should be followed except when there is a good, articulatable reason not to. On Mac, you made some improvements, but you also ignored this bit of WP:LONGDAB (emphasis in original): "all entries that belong in that subject area must be there". If a dab has a section called "Organizations", then all organizations must be found there, either directly or (less ideally) via a hatnote. Likewise "Places". (Schools are both places and organizations, and we should expect readers to look for them in either of those sections.) I'm not sure what you meant by "overly broad" with respect to "Organizations" and "Places" - there is no guidance limiting the number of entries in a section, so long as they are appropriately organized into subsections.

And, less significantly, LONGDAB also says: "List groups of people (such as ethnic groups) and titles shared by several people separately from individuals."

Thanks, —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 19:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I would hardly call a school an organization, except in the broadest sense. In any case, that section heading is redundant, and I have removed it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Then we have a problem, because 1) "Organizations" is recommended by the guide, and 2) a school is an institution and therefore, no two ways about it, an organization. So says our category structure, Wiktionary, and Wikidata, for starters. I'm happy to try to convince you of that, but I don't need to, because as you know, in a dispute, the status quo ante bellum stands. A consensus involving a number of other editors will be needed to change it, if you choose to seek one; I stand firm on that. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Swpb: You are misinterpreting LONGDAB. It says "if Organizations is used", not that it is "recommended". What you are ignoring is "most disambiguation pages will only use a few of these headings" and "Readers should be able to find their target with minimal reading". You have complicated things and made it more difficult for the reader by added one or more unnecessary layers of sections and subsections. In addition, you have stretched "Places" to include entries that are not normally placed there in other dab pages, e.g. schools, museums, art centers, train stations. Why not add yet another layer of "Things" while you're at it. Other quibbles include that "mac" is not short for "macaroni" by itself (do a search of "mac short for macaroni" and you will find that it is all about "mac and cheese", not plain pasta). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"You are misinterpreting LONGDAB". Friend, observe the edit history of WP:LONGDAB. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 14:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

For what? Does the fact that you had a hand in writing it invalidate my points? It does not. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see value in continuing talking here; your talk page is not where this is going to be resolved. I'm only writing now because, for some reason, probably my fault, the edit summary I wrote for this edit got cut off. The summary I wrote was something like: "'Contrived' and 'problematic' are opinions, and ones I disagree with. Macau is absolutely referred to as MAC in documents using the ISO codes; such codes are always put under "Places". And per LONGDAB, repetition of entries is not a problem." Now since I'm here, I'll just re-iterate my most recent summary: on two points where we can't agree, I'm going to stand hard on WP:STATUSQUO. If you want those two changes, you're going to have to do it the long way. —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 20:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Challenge accepted, and on your home ground too. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Lee Mavers

I’ve added a section on the talk page of List of Recluses where we can discuss why I disagree with you as to why you remove him from the list Bob3458 (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Recluses

I know some of my additions to the list may be highly debatable and you’re justified to remove them but I feel Bill Watterson and Terrence Malick fit the description of a recluse.

If you disagree then please let me know. Bob3458 (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bob3458: I do disagree. I go by the definitions in various dictionaries:

• "a person who lives alone and avoids going outside or talking to other people" Cambridge Dictionary
• "a person who lives alone and deliberately avoids other people" Collins Dictionary

I draw a distinction between "reclusive" and a "recluse". To me, the former describes someone who dislikes being in the limelight and protects their privacy (an anti-Kardashian, in other words), while the latter is someone who essentially cuts themself off from society in general. In Watterson's case, his own words put him in the former category: "Besides disliking the diminished privacy and the inhibiting quality of feeling watched, I valued my anonymous, boring life." Mallick is a borderline case, though I would still not call him a recluse. He certainly isn't one now; he is still making films, so unless he's a one-man jack-of-all-trades, he interacts with his film crew, financiers, etc. Does his roughly 20 year interlude between Days of Heaven (1978) and The Thin Red Line (1998) make him a recluse? How can we tell? He could have been out partying all night, every night, for all we know. Lack of knowledge of his "lost" years doesn't mean we can conclude he was a recluse. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there anyone not on the list who you consider a recluse? Bob3458 (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Bob3458: Not sure if it counts, but while searching, the name of Marcel Proust came up. It appears I deleted him before (I'd forgotten), but upon further digging, I was wrong to oust him. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you feel Steve Dikto belongs on the list because I see him on a lot of these "Famous Recluses" lists. Bob3458 (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are some sources that label him one, but his family doesn't think so, nor does this website of uncertain reliability ("Comic Legends: Was Steve Ditko Really a Recluse?"). I don't have time right now, but I will think about it later. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Shubnikovs

Hi Clarityfiend, you removed the hatnote on Alexei Vasilievich Shubnikov with the comment "silly hatnote". You also removed a similar hatnote from Lev Shubnikov. I respectful disagree with your removals for the following reason.

The article on A.V. Shubnikov was created specifically for the purpose of distinguishing the two scientists, as on 17-11-2020 user Parcly Taxel had created a link to Lev Shubnikov from Magnetic space group where it referenced Shubnikov groups. In fact these groups are named after A.V. Shubnikov not Lev Shubnikov. Two days later I created the A.V. Shubnikov article and added hatnotes to both articles to prevent other users confusing the two scientists in the future. Please consider reverting your removal of these two hatnotes. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@GreatStellatedDodecahedron: I see what you're trying to do, but you're going about it the wrong way. Nobody is going to specifically type "Lev Shubnikov" looking for the other person, and vice versa. It appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that neither scientist towers over the other (c.f. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC). In that case, Shubnikov should not redirect to one or the other, but should rather become a surname page listing both, which I will now create. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Now if one was significantly more famous than the other, the correct procedure would be to use Shubnikov as a redirect to the better-known person and add one hatnote only there, using the redirect hatnote template to link to the less well-known individual. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation and for creating the Shubnikov surname page. GreatStellatedDodecahedron (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Oscar Holmes

On 2 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oscar Holmes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during World War II, Oscar Holmes became the first black US naval aviator only because the still-segregated Navy initially thought that the light-skinned Holmes was white? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Holmes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oscar Holmes), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,406 views (867.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Time-Date-City wristwatch

In the Chucklevision episode Market Forces, Paul got a wristwatch that tells the time & date in 12 cities at the same time. And when Barry asked when did he get it, he said "A week next Thursday". Funny, strange or silly, whenever Barry asked what time it was and what day it was, Paul would say the month rather than the number or day (e.g. Hour: 20-past June. Day: January), and Barry does not say "What do you mean, 20-past June?" nor "I said day, not month." When today was actually Saturday, Paul's watch said Friday, which is one of the days the markets open, only the markets were empty today. So maybe it was only Friday in Tokoyo. See the episode on Youtube. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Time-Date-City_wristwatch 86.130.77.121 (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

In Traditional Chinese medecine...

Would it be possible to remove this sentence from your User page, it is a bit rude to Chinese people? 2001:48F8:3004:FC4:48EA:35CE:A536:B342 (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's mocking people who believe in nonsensical things, not Chinese people in general. (See, for example, this article about all the nasty stuff that could be found in bat guano.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You don't even have to be Chinese to believe in it. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Request on 13:31:46, 17 July 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by HWilson Archivist

• HWilson Archivist (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Stephen Manson Benson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am following up on the recent rejection and feedback on our submission on Stephen Manson Benson. This article was created as part of the Wiki GLAM initiative, the stated mission of which is to " share their resources with the world." We are following the example of others in our sector, for example the Frick Collection GLAM project which has successfully published articles such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winthrop_Kellogg_Edey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Johnson_Howell

I do not see how our content differs from this, in the significance of the subjects/individuals discussed nor the nature of the sources referenced. Both are highlighting prominent individuals and collections within our respective institutions collections. Stephen Manson Benson may not have left a mark on a global scale, but his collection of photography is extremely significant for documenting the early history of our county. I would have thought the intention of GLAM wiki would be to highlight the history of smaller institutions and communities equally with that of larger or more prominent ones. I therefore am left wondering why their articles were approved while ours was rejected. Are we missing a tag on our article to mark it as part of the GLAM initiative?

Thank you for your help.

HWilson Archivist (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@HWilson Archivist: Both Edey and Howell have New York Times obituaries, indicating that that newspaper considered them notable. Edey has other good sources. I am actually a bit uneasy about Howell, as her short obituary is the sole independent source. However, in Benson's case there are none. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

So for some one to be notable they must be of high profile. That's essentially what this works out to. How does that allow for balanced content on wikipedia? How are we, stewarding the history of a smaller community, able to contribute to the GLAM wiki initiative? 199.48.103.194 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. Reliable independent sources have to have written about them. It's not Wikipedia's function to spotlight people whom others have not. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

States attorneys

On that category you might want to point out we have one article. I think it would help if people read through that article, and maybe our helpful (in seeing how messy this is) article List of district attorneys by county

The latter is truly a mess. Each state calls them by their own name. Districts often correspond with counties. In Iowa they call them County Attorneys, but 2 of the 97 cover 2 counties.

Some of these are appointed, some elected. However all are head prosecutors for a local prosecuting office. I do not think the notion of merging them into the American prosecutors really makes sense. At least we want to think about it. There are essentially 4 American attorneys who would count as prosecutors. 1-US Attorneys, used to called US district attorneys. They lead offices that do prosecuting for the US government. Each state has 1 or more judicial district, each district has a US attorney. They also handle civil as well as criminal cases, so they do more than just prosecuting. 2- Assistant US attorneys. A lower percentage of these are notable, and some it might be harder to say it is defining. They are usually the poeople doing the main work, and far out number the Distict Attorneys. 3-The state level district/states/county (attorney or prosecutor) officers, I have not covered all the names. They oversee the prosecution of most crimes in the US. There are thousands of them at any given time. 4-The attorneys under those attorneys who handled the actual prosecutions in most cases, unless it is a very small district. There are a lot more of these, but they do generally serve longer. So we have 2 questions. 1-do we want to distinguish the state-level and federal level prosecutors by cat. 2-do we want to have sepeate categories for the people who act as leads of office, as opposed to those who work in actual prosecution in the court room. My initial guess is we want cats for US attorneys, who in most cases are notable for the office and often do other notable things, being an assitant US attorney is an important part of someones bio and worth having cat as such, I also think the nature of the lead local prosecutor whatever it is called makes it a notable office, and having sub-cats for each state makes sense because the legal system is different in each state, and having one US cat would become huge. To me the biggest question is weather those who work in the prosecuting office but not as the lead local prosecutor are distinct enough from other attorneys to justify a category for them, but I am pretty sure the other 3 are, and by state for state level makes sense. However I think the thing you nominated is a case of grouping people by shared name, instead of by actual nature of the office. There are distinctions between state attorneys in various states, If they are appointed or elected and if they are elected in partisan or non-partisan election, and probably other distinctions, but those are not in ways that would correspond to what they are called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Ack. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Check redirects when splitting dab pages

I see you split off Branching from Branch (disambiguation). A friendly reminder to make sure when you split dab pages you add the new dab page to the "see also" section (or other appropriate section) of the old one, and to reconcile the redirects as needed (in this case, retargeting Branching (disambiguation) and Branching (chemistry)). Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Fritz Lang film 'M'

You appear not to have read the linked star chamber article. The modern usage is not limited to the British courts. As the article states that it is a general term: "In modern times, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings, no "due process" rights to those accused, and secretive proceedings are sometimes metaphorically called "star chambers"." The use of the phrase 'kangaroo court' currently in the article is very poor; if you do not like 'star chamber' for whatever reason, then at least change 'kangaroo court' to something more useful indicating its criminal and malign nature. HenryRoan (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Kangaroo court is correct. It is for entities with "little or no official standing", unlike star chambers. Also, the term does strongly indicate a "criminal and malign nature". Clarityfiend (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Texas Shootout for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Texas Shootout is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Shootout until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

UtherSRG (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. I did something similar to the Enterprise list (moved, started main cast). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Clarityfiend:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Mark Twain

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark Twain, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Category:Hoarders has been nominated for deletion

Category:Hoarders has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Robin and the 7 Hoods

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Robin and the 7 Hoods, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:War criminals has been nominated for deletion

Category:War criminals has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Afddiary (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction X

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 22 § X in fiction X on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sharpe

Just read through a bunch of your Sharpe articles. Great stuff! Sbierwagen (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a griffin's claw full of Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec21}} to your friends' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Films about paraplegics or quadriplegics has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films about paraplegics or quadriplegics has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of MIT alumni founders article

Sorry I didn't participate in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies founded by Harvard University alumni -- I did not receive any sort of notification, although I have contributed to both the MIT and the Harvard articles.

As for the claim that Stanford is uniquely noted as a creator of new companies, that isn't true. Look at:

• From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community, 2021 (see Foreword by Bob Metcalfe)

Blurb: "MIT is world-famous as a launching pad for entrepreneurs. MIT alumni have founded at least 30,000 active companies, employing an estimated 4.6 million people, with revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion. In the 2010s, twenty to thirty ventures were spun off each year to commercialize technologies developed in MIT labs (with intellectual property licensed by MIT to these companies); in the same decade, MIT graduates started an estimated 100 firms per year. How has MIT become such a hotbed of entrepreneurship?"

• "Building builders: entrepreneurship education from an ecosystem perspective at MIT" 2018
• "Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT" 2007 (I'm not including the many other publications by E.B. Roberts on this topic)
• "Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience" [1]
• MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science 2002

So it seems to me that if the MIT article is to be deleted, so should the Stanford article. --Macrakis (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Well, there are two paths you could take: Either nominate the Stanford list for deletion or try getting a WP:REFUND based on your sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. For now, I think I'll accumulate additional citations at User:Macrakis/alumni-founders. --Macrakis (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dulcie

Statistics about the usage of the name and its variants are relevant. I have restored the cited material you removed from this article. Please discuss on tge talk page before deleting it again. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AfDs

Perhaps you wouldn't mind chiming into the other discussions listed at the articles alerts on WikiProject Anthroponymy? I am dealing with a particular user who seems to have a tough time understanding guidelines, who you have had an experience with as well. Thanks for any help. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Carlton

Based on your reversion happiness, I see you are on the path to wanting war. You are incorrect in your addition of "and fictional characters" and are alone on these changes you make little by little to section titles that have had a long-standing precedent of existing as they are and are featured in the Manual of Style. I suggest seeking venues of content dispute resolution or other means on gathering a consensus rather than you make these futile changes yourself merely because you think it is right. If we all had it that way, well, this enyclopedia would be different, to say the least. BurgeoningContracting 04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just what part of the MOS are you claiming I am violating? The section title is correct. Fictional characters FYI are not people. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

mos:dab of course. I will continue reverting your attempts to disruptively change established precedent because I am that confident I am correct. Until we can get a discussion and consensus for this issue since it is obvious we are both willing to die on our respective hills. Reminder that it is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. BurgeoningContracting 04:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in MOS:DAB that backs you up, nothing that says to be inaccurate. Be more specific. Which particular section or sentence? There are none. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's right there. That and the aforementioned long standing precedent. I'm signing off for the night, but as I said, I am in the hopes you are willing to further have productive discourse on this, as communication is vital instead of wanting things your way. Changing precedent because you believe you are right is disruptive if it causes a dispute like the one we are presently having. BurgeoningContracting 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You may also find it on wp:longdab BurgeoningContracting 04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's ironic that you say "communication is vital" when you won't (or more likely, can't) answer my question. "It's right there" is not an answer. Be specific or go away. LONGDAB says "Use the same section names as similar dab pages, if practical. (bolding mine) Is that what you mean? Because it doesn't support your stance at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been communating the whole way here. I don't know what to tell you. It's right there. Says "People". I am confident you want me to "go away" because you're wrong, but that's only my opinion. Reminder to remain civil. Again, we need community consensus on this since neither of us seem to want to budge. I have already sent some three other reasons why that would be preferable. It seems to me you are suffering a case of disruptive behavior if you cannot agree to open a discussion since you have no real MOS policy backing you, only "I'm right." I am telling you for the last time, I hope you can begin a consensus-building discussion over the issue if you are so passionate and certain you are right and that others will agree with you, because otherwise, I also think I am right and will act on it. BurgeoningContracting 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DABPEOPLE says "For people", including the italics to clue you in that non-people are excluded. Fictional characters are people in your mind? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

See what I did there? I pointed to a specific section and quoted exact words, unlike your vague handwaving. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes no sense, man. Other sections have the italics just to describe that the section for people is to be formatted that way. You're using the incorrect way and I will continue fixing these pagess until we can get a broader consensus because your behavior here is obviously intentionally disruptive. BurgeoningContracting 15:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong about the italics. BUT, that section still makes it perfectly clear it is for real, flesh-and-blood people since it asks for birth and death years. Again, why are you conflating human beings with fictional characters? The notion that an encyclopedia should be inaccurate and that I should refrain from correcting obvious mistakes is head scratching, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't innacurate and I'm done with you since obviously, you're not here to build an encyclopedia with your disruptive editing you disguise as being constructive. I have linked enough policy and essay here for you to learn from if you're willing to start adhering by what makes this platform what it is. That template should contain everything you need to know should you have any more doubt. BurgeoningContracting 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You have not produced a single, solid instance of anything supporting your position. Just vaguely pointing at policies and saying it's in there is ridiculous. You are the one being disruptive and "innacurate" (hah!). For the umpteenth time, do you think fictional characters are people? That's what it all boils down to. How about you answer that question? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

I just wanted to leave a message to thankyou for the time you invested in improving both the style and presentation of this article. Your interest and assistance is most appreciated. Bw. 82.38.214.91 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we discuss this please?

You changed the redirect Styx River from Styx to a section of that article. I disagree with this change so I reverted you. You then reinstated your change with no discussion. Although when another editor reverts your edit, the standard procedure, per WP:BRD, is to discuss the proposed changes, before making further edits. So can we please discuss your proposed change?

Here's my view. In Greek mythology Styx (just like Oceanus) is a single thing which happens to be both a deity and a river, rather than two different things with the same name. So in Greek mythology "Styx River" and "Styx" refer to exactly the same thing, and whether someone enters "Styx River" or just "Styx" they should arrive at exactly the same place. Just because our article Styx happens to have a section which focuses on Styx as a river doesn't mean that the rest of the article doesn't also apply to the Styx River (or the River Styx for that matter). I don't want to participate in an edit war by reverting your edit again (something your revert of my revert unfortunately started). So I think you should undo your edit, at least until we can arrive at a consensus possibly including other editors.

Thanks, and best regards Paul August ☎ 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: Styx RIVER refers to the river aspect of the goddess, so why shouldn't the redirect be to the river section? This is in full agreement with WP:SURPRISE. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, as I tried to explain above, "Styx River" does not just refer to the river aspect of the goddess. In this context "Styx River" = "Styx", they are synonyms, they both refer to the same thing, a river who is a goddess and a goddess who is a river. Conceivably the article could be named "Styx River" instead of "Styx". So just as "Styx" directs to the whole article and not just a subsection, so should "Styx River". They are identical things. The reader should not be misled as you seem to have been into thinking that "Styx River" only refers to that section of the article. Paul August ☎ 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to the average reader, nor even to a semi-knowledgeable reader such as myself. The goddess is named Styx, never Styx River. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The goddess is a river, and Styx River is another name for the goddess just like the River Styx is. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Prove it. Show me a reliable source that says that "Styx River" or the more common "River Styx" is the name of the goddess, not the river. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The river and the goddess are the same thing. Paul August ☎ 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not the claim I am questioning. Show me a source that states one of the goddess's names is "River Styx" or "Styx River". Otherwise, you have no grounds. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you don't dispute that the river and god are the same thing, then you can't dispute that whatever is true of one is true of the other. The conclusion follows from the following logical syllogism:

A = B.

B is C.

Therefore, A is C.

Paul August ☎ 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That logic does not apply here. We're talking about terminology. When I see River Styx or Styx River, I expect to find something about the way to Hades, Charon and the coin fare. I do not expect a goddess. So, unless you can show that River is part of the goddess's name, as I have stated before, SURPRISE applies here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, now that I think about it, A doesn't even equal B. One aspect of an entity doesn't equal another. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So now you do claim that the goddess and the river are two different things? Paul August ☎ 23:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I said two different aspects. For example, Joe Biden is a Democrat and President of the United States. Are Democrat and POTUS equal? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the aspects goddessness and riverness are the same thing, obviously not. I'm saying that goddessness and riverness are two different aspects of the same thing. And that thing is the thing which our article names as "Styx" but which is also named, for example, the River Styx, which therefore redirects to Styx. Paul August ☎ 23:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course you said they were the same thing. What else could A = B mean (also B is C)? 99.99% of readers do not expect a goddess when they click on River Styx, no SURPRISE. (Aside: In fact, I'm wondering if the article shouldn't be revamped and renamed River Styx, since it appears to me that the river, not the goddess, is the WP:primary topic.) Why can't you accept that? If you are unable to do so, I suggest you ask for a WP:third opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Styx River (disambiguation) states that the Styx is a river only; no mention of the goddess, strongly implying that (1) River Styx is not her name (still waiting for sources saying otherwise), and (2) the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known, and hence the primary topic. I may very well propose moving the page. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like you, many readers will not know that the mythological River Styx (or the less common Styx River) was a goddess. All the more reason why the target for "River Styx" (or "Styx River") should be our article on the mythological river goddess (which is currently at "Styx", as it should be since "Styx" is by far the more common name for the river goddess, if you think otherwise you are welcome to propose a move, although I don't think that such a proposal stands much chance of succeeding, see below). Having "River Styx" (or "Styx River") direct to the section "Styx:Mythology:River" is misleading since the River Styx was more than just a river, and since a section redirect implies that only that section applies, which is simply not true in this case. For example, an important fact about the River Styx (as the previous section "Styx:Mythology:Oath of the gods" discusses at length) is that the river was the "oath of the gods". Redirecting to "Mythology:River" would cause the reader to infer that river had nothing to do with oath taking and didn't really apply to the river. And isn't it obvious that the section "The Arcadian Styx" also applies to the river (don't you agree?) In point of fact everything in this article applies to the river. So any redirect targets for the mythological river need to be the entire article not a subsection.

That Styx River (disambiguation) failed to mention that the river was also a goddess (I've now fixed that) does not imply anything other than the fact that Wikipedia articles are not always perfect. Since the goddess Styx was also a river she was often referred to as "the river Styx", and and since the river Styx became such a famous river, "River Styx" came to be used as a proper noun. So the "River Styx" is another name for the river goddess, more commonly called simply "Styx". As for sources which say that the goddess and the river are the same thing see any of the sources cited in the second note of Styx : "Grimal, s.v. Styx; Tripp, s.v. Styx; Parada, s.v. Styx; Smith, s.v. Styx." Or look at any general reference work. Your saying that "the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known" makes no sense since the river and the goddess are the same thing. What would make more sense, and perhaps this is what you meant, is that the name "River Styx" is the more common name for the river goddess than "Styx". But in that case I think you are wrong. And this is born out by the fact that, for example, the reference works cited just above all have entries for the river goddess under the heading "Styx" rather than "River Styx". And, for what it's worth, I can tell you that I've been doing research in this topic for a long time and every reference (as far as I can remember) I've ever looked at (and I've looked at many dozens over the years) all commonly refer to the river goddess simply as "Styx".

Let me point out a few more things. In all of what I've said above I've been treating the terms "River Styx" and "Styx River" identically, since, in a mythological context, both terms obviously refer to the same thing. And so I've been assuming that, in particular, wherever we redirect those terms, they should be the same place. Furthermore, since every argument you've given for redirecting "River Styx" to "Styx:Mythology:River", applies equally to "River Styx" (don't you agree?), I've also been assuming that you think the same thing. But notice that River Styx redirects to Styx. So was leaving "River Styx" as a redirect to Styx an oversight on you part? Or do you think we should be treating the terms somewhat differently? However, I'm now wondering if I was wrong. While "Styx River" certainly refers (in a mythological context) to the same thing as the term "River Styx", the latter is by far more common. So uncommon in fact that in a general context "River Styx" may, in fact, more commonly refer to one of the several geographical rivers listed at Styx River (disambiguation) than Styx itself. Thus I'm now wondering if the term should instead redirect there? Or rather that we should move Styx River (disambiguation) to Styx River. What do you think about this?

I've tried above to address all the concerns you've raised. I hope you find what I've said persuasive. In any case, I've carefully considered all that you've said and I still don't agree with your proposed change, and I can't think of anything particularly relevant left for me to say. So, since so far you are the only editor in favor of this change there is obviously no consensus in support of it. Therefore I'm going to revert your change, and copy this discussion to Talk:Styx, to see if other editors have any thoughts about all this.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: That's a pretty ridiculous argument to make. There's no consensus because no other editors have chimed in, so you get to decide unilaterally? Whatever happened to WP:THIRDOPINION? You yourself have admitted the river is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC! Your job is not to override the expectations of the average reader in a misguided attempt to enlighten them. (I was aware of the other redirect, but preferred to reach a consensus first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slacks (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slack.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

also why is this discussion still going on? Obviously this is a deadlock. (diff)

It's still going on because no uninvolved editor has come along to close the RfC. If you can find one who is willing, please do ask them to come along and close. Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Alasdair Crotach MacLeod

Hello, could you clarify the rationale for this edit? As I explained in the edit history, MacLeod received the epithet of Crotach from an actual deformity he developed after an injury, how would he be any different from Konrad II ("Garbaty") or Alfonso Fróilaz ("el Jorobado") ? Orchastrattor (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The title List of people known as the Hunchback provides the answer. It includes people known as "the Hunchback. Is he known as Alasdair MacLeod the Hunchback? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Louis VIII, Duke of Bavaria doesn't seem to be referred to as such in English either, but more broadly I think if we have non-anglophones on the list then it would only be natural for readers to assume the list is for people known by an epithet referring to Kyphosis-like symptoms, including direct equivalents in languages other than English; it feels unencyclopedic to have to crawl through all available sources to determine whether or not the obvious, literal translation is commonly used enough in English to consider including. Many of the subjects are fairly obscure either way, even if their page uses the English "hunchback" it could very well just be one or two historians throwing out a quick translation of their epithet and not something actually reflective of how they would be discussed in the wider historical record. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew J. Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)