Jump to content

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/archive September 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (talk | contribs) at 17:32, 6 July 2004 (→[[United States Constitution/Transcript]] — [[/United States Constitution/Transcript|Add to this discussion]]: removing, consensus was to delete this). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you want to nominate an article for deletion, please read this carefully first.

If the latest nominations appear to be missing from this page, please purge the cache.

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait seven days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:

More information.

Things to consider:

  • It is important to read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy which states which problems form valid grounds for deletion before adding comments to this page.
  • Use the "what links here" link which appears in the sidebar of the actual article page, to get a sense how the page is being used and referenced within Wikipedia.
  • Please familiarize yourself with some frequently cited guidelines, in particular WP:BIO, WP:FICT, WP:MUSIC and WP:COI.

AfD etiquette:

  • Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before adding a comment.
  • Sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~.
  • If you are the primary author or otherwise have a vested interest in the article, say so openly, clearly base your vote on the deletion policy, and vote only once, like everyone else.
  • Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith.
  • Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted.

You can add each AFD subpage day to your watchlist by clicking this link: Add today's AFD to watchlist

See also Guide to deletion | Alternative outlets | Undeletion policy | Deletion guidelines for admins | Deletion process
Archived delete debates | Speedy deletion policy | Category:Pages for discussion


6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st - 30th 29th


Template:VfD frontmatter

VfD was archived on 28 May. If you need to look at old history please see the history of Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archive_May_2004.

Note that listings more than five days old should now be moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old.

Decisions in progress

July 1

Planet Fire — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Planet Fire


Template:Elvis Presley — Add to this discussion

A template is not needed to link between only two articles. -Sean Curtin 01:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is of little use. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's about to be one article. The mini-Elvis picture creeps me out too. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article series boxes? KILL KILL KILL - we have categories now - David Gerard 16:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Which are not the same thing and cannot serve the same purposes IMO as article series boxes. Still, delete this particular template because of the number of articles it links (two, possibly soon to be one). -- pne 12:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lockergnome forums — Add to this discussion

Article lockergnome forums listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

OK, this was listed on VFD back in March. Apparently the consensus was to keep it and clean it up (I say "apparently" because whoever removed it from the VFD page after voting didn't copy the discussion into Talk:Lockergnome forums like they should have, and it's now way too far in the past to find in the VFD history). Anyway, it's been sitting on Wikipedia:Cleanup for a couple of months now without anyone touching it, the guy who created the article in the first place has never made a single edit since so I don't expect he's going to clean it up, so, basically, I don't think it's ever likely to improve. So I'm listing it here again. —Stormie 04:26, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pisses me off when this happens. What really needs cleanup is the newly-created Lockergnome. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both per reasons stated. I mean, what the hey kind of word is "embiggen?" - Lucky 6.9 05:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a perfectly cromulent word. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • D'oh! Should've known! :^)) - Lucky 6.9 06:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Website advert. Did this really escape VfD once before? No matter, kill it now. NEXT! Andrewa 19:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both lockergnome and lockergnome forums. That said, the site's Alexa rank is 16,300 and it's (apparently) been around since 1996, so it might be worth having an article iff someone creates a real article that tells us why this site merits an entry here. -Sean Curtin 20:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both: the users of those sites needn't search for information about themselves on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia needn't direct users there. (Isn't this just wallowing in their own crapulence.) 00:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Fire Star 19:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both, we don't need to advertise this crap. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Gail Edwards — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

This looks like just a spoiler, no real context, nothing to make it notable. SWAdair | Talk 05:01, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The B-Movie Bandit grows up. Almost. Delete for lack of context and writing standard. - Lucky 6.9 05:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean--lack of context and writing standard is not a reason to delete. If these aggravate you, I'd suggest you just ignore them--don't clean them, don't vfd them. Wiki will survive. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and stubify, see IMDB. Andrewa 19:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't mind me...I was kinda grouchy. We've been getting so many anonymous bots as of late that I was on my last nerve after reading this mess. Move to cleanup. - Lucky 6.9 19:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Stubbified and wikified. Still need information on what she appeared in other than Full House, though. Keep. -Sean Curtin 20:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Bless you. Full House was one of those shows I did my best to avoid. Great new stub. - Lucky 6.9 20:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added the role I recognized her from; It's a Living. (Can't believe we don't have Ann Jillian and Marian Mercer yet). Niteowlneils 03:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gail Edwards on Happy Days

This information was based from an interview in which Edwards said that she was offered a series regular role on Happy Days but was not told so by her management because they did not want her to be a "new character on an old show." It was elaborated on in the Happy Days Wiki page saying that Crystal Bernard would eventually fill the role. It was further elaborated on in the Gail Edwards Wiki page saying, “Edwards competed with Bernard for the role, and initially won the part.” This is simply not true due to the fact that Edwards was never told about the role until years after the incident. Other writings from this contributor are incorrect as well – e.g., ABC no longer controlled the show – hence, they did not cancel it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DabbsEdwards (talk • contribs) 22:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russell D. Smith — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Russell D. Smith

International Committee to Free Russell Smith — Add to this discussion

Article International Committee to Free Russell Smith listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

And it looks like I did find something else. One Google hit. - Lucky 6.9 05:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Even if RD Smith passed muster and warranted a mention, I was living in the area where this guy was when this stuff was going on, and this movement didn't make a ripple. One Google hit? Lack of significance. Geogre 12:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Does that mean Marion area? Marion is described as an ultra-super-max facility, so Google is IMO far more relevant than local awareness. I see the 3-person "international" org as more reason to infer overblown claims. But for the record, this is the kind of article where Google does not prove insignificance, but rather shows that the retentionists need to take on the burden of verifying by other means. Could have sig effect w/o public visibility; it so, show us. --Jerzy(t) 17:44, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
    • No, it means that I was in the region and involved with capital punishment opponents and prison reform groups. This movement did not achieve local notability. Since I had already not found a reference externally, I went back to the groups that would have been most likely to have been involved at the time. I.e. there was already a failure of external verification. Since VfD is now longer and longer with bitter debates every day, I thought it best not to be so verbose. N.b. that I voted for the essential contents of the case being in an article, but one that would be more likely to be searched for. The same would be true here. If this is rose beyond a very small number of participants, then it ought to be covered in a logical heading. If, on the other hand, you have any evidence that the International Committee to Free Russell Smith is famous enough that users will be searching the database for it, I will be happy to be proven wrong. More to the point, it would have been even better if the article's author had taken the trouble of providing notability. Geogre 18:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Redirect to wherever the Russell D. Smith material ends up. -- Jmabel 00:17, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

John Boone; Arkady Bogdanov; Sax Russell; Hiroko Ai — Add to this discussion

These are stub-pages for characters who feature in the novel Red Mars. The content of the stubs has been merged into the main Red Mars page, thus the stub pages are redundant and can be deleted without a loss of content. See the discussion page for Red Mars for details. Mercurius 06:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Why not just make the 4 pages into redirects to Red Mars, and avoid the need for any voting? (and avoid the chance of someone creating sub-stubs for them in the future) —Stormie 06:58, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Change to redirects. Average Earthman 11:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Never delete when a redirect makes any sense. jallan 19:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If we have Gimli, we ought to have these as well. Someone will fill them eventually if I don't get to it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) I've rewritten John Boone--that will give an example of what the rest of those could be. Obviously, my writing needs looking over (I'm a fan of the series), but again, if we have Gimli, there's no reason not to have these. Keep. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Red Mars (and the whole trilogy + short stories) is excellent; I've read the whole trilogy twice and will no doubt read it again. And I learned to read by reading The Hobbit: great fun, and Gimli's a lovely Dwarf. That said, we have too damned many pages for favorite characters in favorite books/TV shows/Pokemon games. A page per book? Good idea. A page per character? Unless the character somehow transcends the book or series (Paul Bunyan, George Babbitt, Don Quixote) to become a cultural icon independent of the original work it appeared in, this is nothing more than Wiki contributors indulging and memorializing their personal tastes with an article -- in other words, another sort of vanity page. Redirects are fine for this; separate pages are pollution. -- orthogonal 00:37, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I must say that I disagree. There's really no room for this information in Red Mars, yet I believe it belongs in any proper encyclopedia entry on the topic. It's just content that's too much for the main entry, and so needs to be split off. Nevertheless, I'll hold off on rewriting the rest until the debate period is finished. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify and expand my above comment: I don't think we should have "one liner" articles on characters, far better to gather all the one-liners together into a "Characters" section in the main article for the book/movie/play/whatever. But when character descriptions get up to the several-paragraph point (as John Boone is currently, after Meelar's fine work), I think is is unwieldy to bundle them up and they should get their own article. But either way, there's nothing here which should be deleted, it's just a matter of article editing. —Stormie 02:54, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • From the perspective of a reference librarian, I would much prefer a "character section" on the page for a book -- not only because a separate page for each character seems wasteful, but because that makes things more difficult for the reader. (As someone up the page said, I would make exceptions for obvious iconic characters. Lazarus Long comes to mind.) Maybe wikiisnotpaper, but hyperlinking back and forth is still a slow process for many of us. I recently did a page for Cecelia Holland that includes only a few lines for each of her books, much less the characters in them, and I think it works very well. ---Michael K. Smith 22:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Steamboy — Add to this discussion

Ray's home

Ray is from Manchester. In the begining of the story he lives there, and only goes to london after he was kidnapped. --ZeWrestler 22:29 March 25, 2005.(UTC)

Future of Steamboy

This article, describing the slideshow at the end, was created by an editor with unfortunately more enthusiasm than sense. Should it be merged? Deleted? If the content is to remain in use it needs to be fixed up, which I can't do as I don't own the movie, so I'll leave the decision to someone who does. --Kizor 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged it.--KrossTalk 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. --Kizor 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted and mostly rewritten. --MacSpon 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The character in front of the plane with the men is not Ray, it is Scarlett. If you look closely, her dog, Colombus is by her side. The closeup which follows then makes more sense. Also, the featurette that purports to show the ending sequence without credits shows marked inconsistencies from the original. All of the scenes involving the mysterious light have been removed, as well as those of Ray battling the monster in Paris (save perhaps of the cell of him running away from something). --walkeraj

How can we really tell that is Scarlett? What would she be doing flying planes, and for that matter, would she still look as young as she does, years later? And why would she dye her hair red? I was under the impression that this character was either the daughter of Scarlett or Ray (or both), considering these questions that have yet to be answered. Please cite the source of your information. --TwilightxPrince 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not intended to be that much later. The hair color change is common in anime to represent a character aging. Also, she's not blond, she's actually a light redhead, and her name is intended to reflect that. Look at the sequence. Notice the dog beside her. Note the name of the plane. These scenes were intended to depict possible future adventures of Steamboy. Note that they were in a chronological order. Ray returns home, Scarlett returns home, Lloyd dies, etc. What did Scarlett do with the O'Hara foundation after she returned home? Would they not have continued research into aviation? Did she perhaps want to prove herself as an adventurer as well, using the vast resources of the Foundation to acheive this goal? Those are the types of things we are to wonder about, but I do not believe they are intended to extend far enough into the future to allow for a child between the two characters. In the DVD special features Otomo himself talks about how the scenes during the credits were intended as sort of a playground for the mind, and could be used as inspiration for the team to continue the story with, after he had left.--Walkeraj 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK DVD release date wrong

It got pushed back nearly a year till yesterday, just changing now IanC 19:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afd, July 2004

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below from July 12004 to July 42004. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made here or in a deletion review. No further edits should be made to this debate.

The result of the debate was to delete copyvio version and replace with temp version once copyvio period is over. Discussion:

  • Casting and teaser info for a movie that was released in Japan two weeks ago. SWAdair | Talk 08:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • ?? Keep! Looks like a pretty major movie to me, $20m budget, director of Akira, etc. Needs a hell of a cleanup, obviously. —Stormie 09:47, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: advert, WP != IMDB. In a few years, if someone remembers what this movie was about, it can have an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:14, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, Cleanup. This should have an article - David Gerard 16:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio. That opening sentence in the synopsis is all over the net. See [1]. - Lucky 6.9 16:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the original article, replace it with the temp page, and keep. -Sean Curtin 02:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep Rather than delete, just clean it up, and make it better. If deletions come as part of that, delete. But by all means, don't kill the whole article. HereToHelp 19:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am going to see this movie next week. While I am looking forward to it immensely, I fail to see why it should get its own page on Wikipedia. This is NOT a movie database! It should be listed on Otomo's page as one of his works, and no more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N^O^el (talk • contribs) 19:52, July 19, 2004.
  • Keep Because of Akira's status, many people are curious about this new movie. That fact, coupled with the budget and caliber of the American cast, should warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Someone who has seen the film should add a few details, including specifying that Steamboy is not a sequel to Akira.
    also, there are many details that an imdb will miss, such as how these characters relate to other otomo characters. how his screenwriting skills have improved (or deteriorated), etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.67.134 (talk • contribs) 21:16, March 20, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on here or in a deletion review. No further edits should be made to this debate.

What "American" cast? Pray tell. 124.191.179.242 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nods vs. references

is there really any difference between the "nods" and the "references"? They could be under one heading. Spyderchan 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett O'Hara

Somewhere, the obvious Gone with the Wind reference needs to be mentioned. 129.7.254.33 21:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come and read my suggestion

steamboy3....

My story is a continuation of steam boy 2. If you want to see my ideas go into the future of steamboy.

In that time the technology has gone too far.

There will be new characters are:

  • John York (US)
  • Steven Wills (US)
  • col.Hamston (AUS)
  • AMR Collins (BR)
  • AMR Livingston (AUS)
  • Einsten von lieberzehn (GR)
  • Col. Barren (GR)
  • FM Wehern (GR)


If you are the the people which made Steamboy. Email me and I will explain it more about the story.


Steamboy4....ideas comming soon.

If you want to call me on 0419165053.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ideaboy2 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 December 2006.

This is not a place for original research, speculation or one's own views; see Wikipedia:No original research. Please do not add such fancruft, fanfiction or your own views or opinions in articles and refrain from continuing to add such vain speculation and original research. Please also see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and refrain from changing your text (if you wish to respond, please respond as a new entry/reply instead of modifying your original text). Ganryuu (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of Steamboy, please send your script and 10 thousand dollars in cash to my current address in Nigeria and I will make the movie for you. Please send nonsequential 100 dollar notes, it may sound odd, but I am an eccentric director that doesn't like to see two large numbers in sequential order. I mean, lol, get real, no one from Steamboy production is going to look at this page and even if they did look at the talk page, they certainly wouldn't be bothered about anything they find. This is worth keeping here just for comedic value ^_^ JayKeaton 01:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Paquin voicing Ray in the US dub

I had to do a double-take when I read the credits and saw her name scroll past. Definitely hard to single her out underneath the accent she used. --75.2.60.123 00:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Should we add the parts at the very end? Like the part with Scarlett and the plane? The Quidam 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Steamboy.jpg

Image:Steamboy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot synopsis

In the plot synopsis it claims that Edward Steam was hit with a freezing gas. It was actually high pressure steam, the gas only caused a freezing affect after the steamballs were allowed to cool to a lower temperature and then released. At the beginning of the movie the steamball was being created and thus high temperature and pressure steam was being used. Anyone mind if I change this? --Cobsterjh (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one, because the film doesn't exactly follow real thermal physics, although it does make a nod here and there (Stevenson's remark about expanding gas cooling down, for example). In real life, steam has to be generated at high pressure and scalding temperatures in order to be of any practical use, but a major point of the film is that they'd found a whole new (fictitious) way to store and use it, so there's no reason for it to conform to real physics. In the film, all of the equipment used to make the ball is encrusted with ice, and the characters' breaths hang in the air with the cold - one could even suppose that the reason the experiment takes place in Alaska is because the natural cold helps. The actual pipe that bursts and showers Eddie with high pressure fluid is covered with ice right up until the rupture - it cannot have been carrying anything hot. The trouble is, the film never explicitly states what the new technology is - the only clue is the purity of the water it's made from, taken from a cave in Iceland at the very start. The only even vaguely plausible answers based on real physics are that the steam is to be stored as a supercritical liquid, and the purity is required to prevent nucleation, or that energy has been contained in the water by some non-thermal means and so does not increase its temperature. The physically impossible use of high pressure steam at sub-room temperature may well have been a deliberate device used by the film makers.--82.69.126.85 (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG 2 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone else laugh at that?
Under budget, it says:
¥2,000,000,000,00
$20,000,000,00
Now if we properly align those to:
¥ 200,000,000,000 (200 Billion)
$2,000,000,000 (2 Billion)
I really don't think this movie had a $2 billion budget. ;) King Rhyono (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steamboy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steamboy U.S. poster

I already uploaded the U.S Steamboy poster to be used in the Release section of the movie. Now someone has to add the image to that section. I can't do it because I lack the skills. Please, someone do it. Stein256 (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stein, we try to have the earliest theatrical release poster in the infobox. In this case, that would be the Japanese one, so there is no real need to have the American one. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Studios

The removal of Studio 4°C from the credited production companies comes from the fact that they are only assisting with animation. Sunrise is the main producer, and 4°C didn't have a specific job that makes them higher than the other companies that worked on Steamboy. Should we keep 4°C, then we should also add studios such as Production I.G, MADHOUSE, Satelight, and so forth because of their involvement with the series. Taking a look at Anime News Network's encyclopedia, it's apparent that a vast number of studios worked on the film, but the only one listed as animation work is "Sunrise." Furthermore, the rest of the work was split between many other studios, making their involvement large together but minimal individually. https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=2161

The Japanese Wikipedia correctly labels the production companies without the involvement of Studio 4°, Production I.G, and etc. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%B9%E3%83%81%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%82%A4

Credits of the movie itself show evidence of this: https://imgur.com/a/XEL5KZU , https://imgur.com/a/1davjVW (制作協力 = production co-operation)

After a debate with members of the Anime-Planet community, a MyAnimeList that has mods who change the anime information rather than registered users (they also look for references and sources to verify community database submissions), they have decided that Sunrise is the only studio deserving of the main credit. https://www.anime-planet.com/anime/steamboy

Should we add Studio 4°C as a credit, then the other credits would also be necessary, as well as the fact that other movies would need tons of credits as well because movies on large scales, such as this one, generally have tons of studio credits because of expenses an the need to make the movies look good. Most commonly, like in this case, non-main studios are listed as production co-operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcataclysmal (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1994 OVA

In the production section there's mention of three 1994 ovas. I didn't do a ton of research but I couldn't find any mention of it on the internet, and the citation leads nowhere. I actually checked this Wikipedia page because a friend mentioned that they had seen the OVA, but couldn't find any mention of it anywhere online. JohnSpinker (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of defunct shopping malls — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of defunct shopping malls


Vampire lifestyle — Add to this discussion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. I note, however, that even many of the "keep" voters expressed reservations about the current content and tone of the article. Based on that concensus, I am going to reimpose the "cleanup" tag. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle

Overly credulous and fairly ridiculous description of a subculture that already gets five paragraphs in the main vampire article. Cleaning this up would necessitate cutting it down to the size of vampire's section about this group. This was previously VfDed in June 2004 (see Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete); the majority voted to delete, but no consensus was reached, and of those who voted "Keep", most added that it should be sent to Cleanup. Eight months' worth of edits later, only a few of the crazier claims have been removed. Redirect to vampire. -Sean Curtin 02:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonktalk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with vampire
  • Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Plankowner — Add to this discussion

Old discussions

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Dicdef. Joyous 16:11, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Isn't in my dictionary. Neologism? or just an Americanism? Delete either way. Google search on the term seems to indicate it means something more along the lines of owner-captain or even owner-crewman that as written. SkArcher 17:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/plnkownr.html -- This seems to be a maritime practice with some history to it. That being the case, there's no reason we shouldn't keep it as a stub, since it can certainly grow to more than a dicdef. Oh, and here's the OED's definition: "plank-owner Navy slang (chiefly U.S.), (a) a member of the original crew of a ship; a marine with long service with his ship or unit; (b) a marine with a light task; " amusingly, the creator linked to plankowner from Bruno Grobal, an article on a fictional universe, but there was another link to the term from USS Franklin that seems more, ah, encyclopedic. Okay, now I'll actually shut up. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a darned good dictdef and really interesting. The problem is that no one has added to it to broaden it out. If it gets widened, it should stay. Otherwise, it should go, very valuably, to Wiktionary. Geogre 19:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Would anyone like to see my plankowner certificate? It is a very real tradition in the U.S. Navy. And I not sure where the truth lies, but by this article at this time, the claim is that plankowners do not receive deck plate at the time of decommissioning. If that's true, then a lot of us have been lied to. BTW, I've claimed a piece from 03-189-0-Q of the USS Princeton (CG-59) because I had to scrape and paint it three times in February, 1989! (I couldn't keep my shipmates from walking on it before it cured.) --Woolhiser 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

End discussion

Removal of certificate text

The following information was removed from the article based on "Plank-owner certificates are procured by and issued to crew members of the ship being commissioned; they are not officially issued by the Navy" [2]

In lieu of an actual "plank" from the deck of a newly commissioned ship (these being pretty hard to come by in this day and age) crew members are presented with a Plank Owner Certificate commemorating their unique status of being part of the Original Crew when the ship became part of the U. S. Navy.

If additional citations can be found, please re-add the information and cite it properly. — MrDolomite • Talk 18:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testsuko Kuroyanagi — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004, article was redirected. Discussion:

Sorry! I wrote the initial content of the article and I mispelled her name! It's Tetsuko Kuroyanagi - not "Test" All the content has been moved to the new location with the proper spelling.

  • I have redirected one to the other, which is what you should have done in the first place rather than listing it here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • But shouldn't we delete the original misspelling rather than make it a redirect? -- Jmabel 00:20, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Normally we keep mispellings as redirects, on the grounds that what happened to you will happen to someone else someday, and as a bonus this of course preserves any history. But if this is not a credible mispelling (ie typing it was an absolute fluke unlikely to ever happen again) it gets a bit more complicated. No vote. Andrewa 01:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion


Teen Empowerment — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teen Empowerment

Ladle ball — Add to this discussion

Article Ladle ball listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

made up sport played with ladles. No google hits. Maximus Rex 21:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Local, uh, phenomenon. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Lucky 6.9 22:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. Amusing but not encyclopedic, the article itself ends it is just about the least safe game one can think of. Don't play it. Andrewa 01:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't even deserve the 'local' description. If you chase cheeses down a hill every midsummer for three hundred years, that's a local phenomenon. One group of teen agers playing around with ladels for a bit doesn't qualify. Delete Average Earthman 11:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. BJAODN sounds like an idea, though. -- pne 12:53, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I am against storing this in BJAODN. Maximus Rex 17:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Certainly sounds like more fun to watch than golf, more fun to play than badminton. But until some desperate all-sports cable network picks it up, it is, regrettably, NSFW (not suitable for Wikipedia). Delete. Denni☯ 01:56, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I don't think it's entertaining enuf for BJAODN. Niteowlneils 04:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Rome II — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004,was redirected. Discussion:

I started this page, but in the discussion it was suggested to incorporate the information into IBS which I have done, I do not see any other sense in this page. Dbach 21:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Make it a redirect - you thought it should be a page, others might. That's one of the reasons for a redirect - David Gerard 21:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to IBS now that the content has been merged. -- pne 12:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now redirected. Rossami 22:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

The redirect has become obsolete Billtheking 20:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome II Conference — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 1 to July 7 2004, was redirected. Discussion:

I started this page, but in the discussion it was suggested to incorporate the information into IBS which I have done, I do not see any other sense in this page. Dbach 21:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Make it a redirect - you thought it should be a page, others might. That's one of the reasons for a redirect - David Gerard 21:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually i doubt if anybody would ever inquire for this Conference - it was merely a scientific meeting of which there are thousands. The information is saved anyhow. Dbach 21:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to IBS now that the content has been merged. -- pne 12:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now redirected. Rossami 22:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. (Status quo.) JFW | T@lk 22:22, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Achilles,_Kansas — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Achilles, Kansas

Sengoku, War of the Daimyos — Add to this discussion

Article Sengoku, War of the Daimyos listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Play-by-email web game. Alexa ranking of about 1.5 million. -Sean Curtin 21:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not remarkable, ad, POV, and a how-to...hits just about all the bases except nonsense. Geogre 01:12, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks too much like an ad. Average Earthman 11:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Vahram Ter-Matevosyan — Add to this discussion

Article Vahram Ter-Matevosyan listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Why, oh why can't a person with such credentials follow a simple instruction like "please do not write about yourself?" The mind boggles. - Lucky 6.9 22:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Why can't he figure out he's not encyclopedic in the first place? -- orthogonal

  • Delete. Not significant. Average Earthman 11:58, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The first paragraph of his CV. Wikipedia is not Monster.com. Geogre 02:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

July 2

Eep — Add to this discussion

Article Eep listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

nonsense. RickK 06:21, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • Its not nonsense; it has valid content. Hone up on your policies and guidelines and RESPECT OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. -Eep²
  • Nonsense. Not significant enough to be called trivia. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Let's look at policies and guidelines. The third point in key policies is What Wikipedia is not. Under section two (What Wikipedia entries are not), look at point 2 and 11. Either this article falls under point 2 and is a dictionary entry or it falls under point 11 and is a loosely associated quotation; for the former try wiktionary, for the latter try wikiquote. Delete. Telso 07:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Significance is relative, SWAdair. What's significant to you may not be significant to another. Not your call. This is a public encyclopedia. The page has trivia; hence, it IS significant and not nonsense. Get over it and start CREATING content, not DESTROYING it. -Eep²
  • The purpose of this page is to make a call. It isn't my call, but community consensus that will decide the fate of the articles here. I merely gave my reasons for my vote to delete. BTW, the OED defines trivia as "things of little consequence" -- i.e. not significant. SWAdair | Talk 07:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Entry not encyclopedic and not significant enough for either wiktionary or wikiquote. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Content is so silly that it give even "Trivia" a bad name. ping 07:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe there's a need for an onomatopeia wiki? Ianb 08:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I concur with Telso. SkArcher 10:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. - TB 11:05, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- pne 12:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's a noise and a description of one. Didn't we just go through this with external electronic photomanipulation? Geogre 13:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, can anyone confirm that it was a song on "The Jetsons?" It sounds suspiciously like "I Told the Witchdoctor/ and this is what he said/ Oooh, eee, ooh ah-ah/ Bop bop wallah wallah ding dong" from the 1950's. Could be a parody from the show that I don't remember, but, if this is our previous Eeper, could also not be. Geogre 20:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, we did. I'm not buying the argument about "relative significance." It's onomatopeia, not encyclopedia. If the best the "word" can do is be a part of the title of a song that appeared on a single episode of "The Jetsons," it doesn't belong here. Surely Eep² can contribute better. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's an expression, it is not one that is known to the American Heritage dictionary. Dpbsmith 16:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The "Jetsons" reference is legit. It was a one-time thing in a single episode that was sung by Judy and George and some quasi-Beatles group called, I believe, "The Way-Outs." Been a LONG time since I've seen it. Oh, and the correct line in "Witch Doctor" after the "ooh-ee" part is "ting, tang, walla-walla bing-bang." I dig that early Ross Bagdasarian stuff.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 21:25, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is dumb, and the eep sound is copyrighted as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.Hayford Peirce 23:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I seemed to remember something about "Eep" on the BJAODN pages, and I was right. It says something along the lines of "Eep Opp Ork Ah Ah/The monkey says I love you." Might have been from this same guy. Check out his internet site, BTW. It's called...are you ready?...Eep. - Lucky 6.9 00:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 01:22, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Jetsons" ref for all those racking their brains to remember: Judy enters a songwriting contest, the winner of which gets his/her song performed by teen idol "Jet Screamer." George is jealous of Judy's crush on Jet Screamer and causes mischief by switching her lyrics "Jet Screamer-screamer-screamer, you're a dreamer, dreamer, dreamer..." with Elroy's secret code "Eep Op Ork Ah-Ah," which George is sure will be immediately disqualified but which actually wins, to everyone's surprise. Delete. -- Decumanus 01:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, why delete when the sound "Eep" has at least 2 references? I call that significant--hell, I call even ONE reference significant! Want some more references/significance? Acronym Finder. Leave it alone. -Eep²
  • Things I've done both on and off the internet are all over Google under my real name. I'm not clamoring for an article anytime soon. Let's be honest: Who the heck is going to look for "eep" anywhere on the internet? This was funny twice. It's getting annoying going into the third time. Please consider focusing the energy you're wasting on "eep" and either apply it to a useful article or expand an existing article that sparks your interest. Just trying to be helpful, not combative. - Lucky 6.9 05:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 07:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Alexandre 09:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Fire Star 19:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. —Stormie 04:09, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Again, who decides what's encyclopedic or not? Yet another reference was added regarding the Road Runner's "meep-meep" sound. How many references for something to be "encyclopedic"? How do you know what people will or won't search for, Lucky? You don't. Why presume no one will EVER search for "eep"? That's quite of an assumption (and a fallacious one at that). -Eep²
    • We decide. Or were you confused about what we were doing here? -- Cyrius|✎ 07:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And, I don't believe that I'm being the least bit presumptuous or assumptive. I simply asked a question which begs asking again: Who do you think would search for an onomatopedic word that exists soley in the title of an obscure song from a single episode of a 1960s cartoon show? Regarding your argument about the Road Runner, that sound is significant. "Eep" is not by a roughly twenty-to-one margin so far. - Lucky 6.9 08:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Encylopedic" doesn't mean "has 5 references," it's also a comment on how it is written. An encyclopedic version of an article on "eep" would describe the word origins, perhaps what linguistic function it serves, whether or not they say "eep" in China or not, etc. There used to be an entry on "Uh" which said, and I quote: "Uh is a sound of hesitation similar to er." Now, Uh redirects to speech disfluencies, which I think is a lot more helpful (and certainly more encyclopedic) than a simple, poor, definition. Delete, but always invite Eep² to write an encyclopedic article on the same topic if he/she feels compelled to. At the moment, it's a dictionary entry with some minor annotation. --Fastfission 00:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Just throwing my delete vote in for good measure. Ambivalenthysteria 01:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Taco Deposit 02:36, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • 'Deleep - Tεxτurε 03:22, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Goobergunch 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Adam Richter — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 9 2004, was merged with Yggdrasil Linux and redirected. Discussion:

Vanity. RickK 06:33, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't call it vanity (I doubt it was Adam Richter who wrote the article anyway), but if the claim to fame stems entirely from Yggdrasil Linux as the article implies, merge and redirect. Average Earthman 12:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There is much more to say about Mr. Richter than I have time to do justice to, so I'll merge it and let someone else write his entry another time. The entry should be written. crinkledtealeaf Sat Jul 3 14:04:47 PDT 2004.
  • Delete - very little about the man himself in this article about the man himself - Tεxτurε 03:23, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

List of military topics — Add to this discussion

Article List of military topics listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 9 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

  • Delete. I just finished merging this very short list into the much more comprehensive structure under Category:War. --Beland 06:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Some redundant categories have been turned into redirects to the categories that supplanted them; I vote that the same be done with this article. -Sean Curtin 16:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant and handled better elsewhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand from User:Khendon/List of military topics and List of reference tables#Military. Categories do not automatically replace lists, as lists can include future articles and have a more accessible history. --Zigger 11:25, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • Delete - Category is appropriate and adequate. Future articles work just find on your own user page. If not, start a project. - Tεxτurε 03:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Hardcore Dancing — Add to this discussion

Article Hardcore Dancing listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 9 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

This is a pointless article that is mostly a personal account.

  • And anonymous votes are invalid on this page. Please sign your nomination. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • what a diverse world we live in. Not my cup of tea exactly, but if hardcore dancing is "in" among the young people of today an article on such a "groovy" theme is certainly justified. Not in its present form though. Clean up or delete. Ianb 09:15, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect: This was listed on Cleanup previously. There is already a better (not a lot better, but better) article in Mosh, which has also been assigned the redirect from "slam dance." I recommend that this content be deleted and the article be a redirect to "Mosh," as it has already become the general entry for the phenomenon. Geogre 13:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Way too breezy and probably best deleted then redirected to mosh. - Lucky 6.9 16:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to mosh. This is a personal ramble. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is not written in encyclopedic style but that can be fixed. The article says that hardcore dancing is not the same as Mosh, but a more intense style. The content does not overlap that much with Mosh and in fact there seem to me to be more factual details. If I were sure that "hardcore dancing" is really a recognized term and that there is really is a meaningful distinction between it and Mosh, I would vote keep. Dpbsmith 23:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 01:20, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, a mosh pit is very different to a hardcore pit, certainly needs to be fixed though cruvers 15:21, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - One person's personal blog-like account. Not worth expanding - Tεxτurε 03:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Gary Pullman — Add to this discussion

note - this listing was removed by User:198.81.26.81, I have restored it —Stormie 06:20, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Gary Pullman and sub articles listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 9 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

I wasted a lot of time wikifying the articles for this guy and his novels, until another user pointed out that he's completely unknown - none of his titles are on Amazon. It's presumably a vanity page and should be deleted, along with the articles on his novels. Deb 07:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • If he is an unpublished author (vanity press doesn't count), and not particularly notable as an online author, then he is not encyclopaedic. Delete. Average Earthman 12:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Same anonymous user has contributed additional adverts -- Paulette ErkenBrack (another author), and A Whole World Full of Hurt, Wild Wicca Woman, The Madhouse, Revelation Point, Secret of the Silver Star, Blue Mountain Detour, Mystic Mansion, Saturday's Child (books by Gary Pullman). Delete all. I've already erased the promo link to G. Pullman from the Pullman disambiguation page. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Damn. I found these myself and thought they were legit. Let's not repeat the "Almasheol" fiasco. Delete all. - Lucky 6.9 16:17, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It seems a shame to delete articles that are well-written, but they indeed look like they were written by the author himself. Google gives less than 500 hits for him, and the vast majority make no mention of his books. Make sure to delete "Paulette ErkenBrack" too: she is just as obscure, and appears to be his sister-in-law. However, we ought to send the guy an encouraging message in addition to deleting his stuff; he could become a great Wikipedia contributor given a bit of experience. Note that the same guy wrote Dramatic structure, which is an excellent article. --Shibboleth 21:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No, he sounds legit. There's no link to any site or attempt at self-promotion, and he is listed on Google and other sites, and the ErkenBrack book is sold through Amazon.com. Not every writer sells through online bookstores; that doesn't mean that they are not legit. unsigned vote by User:198.81.26.81, who has twice vandalised this page
  • These "novels" are stories that have been published on a website. See e.g. [3], [4] and [5]! Delete Gary Pullman, delete the other articles that Wile E. Heresiarch listed!! (still, at least it doesn't seem to be fanfic, which is what I was expecting based on the anon's other edits) —Stormie 06:54, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

206 and Thinkers — Add to this discussion

Article 206 and Thinkers listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Appears to be a vanity page for a Chinese band with no Google hits and no released recordings -- Seth Ilys 07:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Ick. Vanity is right. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • 20-somethings with a band that plays in bars, delete, van... what's this? Copyvio! [6]. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, well! Cy, old guy, you get a gold star for that one. Bravo! - Lucky 6.9 23:14, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Insignificant and copyvio? Definitely delete. Average Earthman 12:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 03:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

PLO and Hamas — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/PLO and Hamas

Other metal — Add to this discussion

Moving poor metals here

I think that the labeling poor metals is at least confusing. I am also pretty sure that post-transition metals is the term used allover academia. Therefore I think we should switch all the legends also away from poor metal nomenclature. Nergaal (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about moving the content of Poor metals here but I do agree that we should deprecate the use of the term from our infoboxes and lists. 'Post-transition metal' seems to be a good replacement but let's wait for others to comment before anything is done though. --mav (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. The term poor metal can refer to different groups of metals that, for the most part, overlap the same group of metals in this article. Even this article points out that there are differing definitions of "post-transitional metals", so I don't see why poor metals couldn't be worked in. It's also a subtle way of depreciating the term "poor metal". Wizard191 (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of notice has been given. I consider the issue closed in favor of a merge and think that anybody can go ahead and do it. --mav (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am 3 years late, but I am wondering how one can call aluminium a post-transition metal when there are no transition metals before aluminium. Or have I missed something? Double sharp (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Count me in too as being confused about why we call aluminum a post transition metal. I'm also somewhat confused about why the term 'poor metal' was deprecated. What we call the post transion metals are better called poor metals, which would include aluminum. The post transition metals then become a subset of the poor metals. Sandbh (talk) 12:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaigarism?

The first paragraph of section one is copied word-for-word from http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/poor_metals.html Jhalkompwdr (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, first, the first sentence is different. After a small bit of research it appears the second sentence is completely legit. The oldest copy of your weblink is from January 2007 (here), so the last edit before January 2007 of the Wikipedia article has the sentence (here). That means the webpage copied it from Wikipedia. The third sentence looks like it could have been copied from the webpage, because it was changed in February 2007 (here). So, if perhaps the last sentence ought to be reworded. Wizard191 (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc, Cadmium, and mercury are transition metals

I think you should remove Zn, Cd, and Hg off of the side, unless... there is a reason to leaving it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wd930 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor and post transition the same, so

Since poor and post transition metals are the same set now, we could get rid of the second graph right? -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for naming? -poor metals

Anyone know Why they are called Poor metals and the history behind it? --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 01:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar (talk • contribs)

Article move

On 17 August 2013 I moved Post-transition metal to Poor metal, as part of a technical move request. Due to WP:Parallel histories the move was not simple. The old content of Poor metal has been preserved in Talk:Poor metal/Old article copy and the old talk page is at Talk:Poor metal/Poor metal old talk page. A couple of paragraphs of content were taken from the old article to the new one by cut-and-paste in 2008 and these old copies should be kept around to maintain attribution. The {{Copied}} template is sometimes used to flag these cases of copying within Wikipedia. The details of the cut-and-paste move can be seen at [7] and [8]. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move was part of "option 10" changes (diatomic and polyatomic nonmetals) WT:ELEM#Implementing_option_10. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- was it an improvement?

Personally I think not. Post transition was a well defined group of metals (unless of course you get confused by the idea of post being after!) The lede is a brave but unreferenced and probably unreferencable attempt to classify these metals by their properties. Aluminium stands out as being further from the lede definition than the rest. For example it has a close packed structure and good electrical conductivity, but the unusually high interatomic distance does not indicate covalency. According to Chemistry by Holman and Stone aluminium is called a poor metal because its oxide is amphoteric. This isn't a good criterion either - the wikipedia article on amphoteric oxides says "Some other elements which form amphoteric oxides are chromium, gallium, copper, antimony, bismuth, indium, silicon, titanium, vanadium, iron, cobalt, germanium, zirconium, silver, tin, and gold" and some of the metals in the list aren't usually considered to be poor metals. I can see why IUPAC deprecate this grouping. Axiosaurus (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote: wikitechnically, it was not a merge. Before, poor metal redirected to the content page post-transition metal. Today, it is the other way around. A redirect has or had its own section in the content page. This does not resolve the point Axiosaurus makes. As I understand it, the two are defined differently (e.g. wrt Aluminium) on this one page. In the periodic tables we have, today we only use the category "poor metal". That does not declare them the same; it's just you won't find the word "post-transition" in the PTs. -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article was suffering from underdevelopment and neglect. I expect the lede will be referenceable. Aluminium is pretty poor although perhaps, as you noted, not the poorest of the poor metals. (But this happens in the other subcategories too, each showing a spread of applicable properties, resulting in both more typical members and outliers). 1. Yes, Al does show evidence of directional bonding. 2. When pure it is very soft, so much so that people who handle it are surprised to learn that it is aluminium. 3. It has a low melting point and a high thermal conductivity which makes it unsuitable for use in e.g. military ships—should a ship burn, the low melting point results in structural collapse; the high thermal conductivity helps spread the fire. 3a. 'Fire: The strength of aluminium is halved from its ambient value at a temperature of 200° C, and for many of the alloys is minimal at 300° C.' (Lyons A 2007, Materials for architects and builders, 3rd ed., Elsevier, Oxford, p. 170) 4. For other nonmetallic properties associated with its poor metal status, plus citations, see its bio in the metalloid article, noting also that Al has the highest appearance frequency in the list of metalloid lists, after the six recognised metalloids, and Po, and At. Sandbh (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with the addition, for reference purposes, of 3a. Sandbh (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Just a point on the directional bonding. The evidence seems to be based on behaviour under shear. I am just a litle sceptical about the applicability to the unstressed crystal which is regular. Your points on aluminium structural issues are well made, however other structurally weak metals (group 1 - yes I know buildings would spontaneously combust when it rained!) do exist which are not classified as poor metals. Anyway I shall leave you to it. Axiosaurus (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't access my references so will have to take on notice some aspects of your observation re directional bonding in Al. From the metalloid article I can see (however) that Boyer et al. (2004) say that 'Aluminium presents a greater challenge to empirical potential description because of the directional nature of its interatomic bonding' and, a little later, 'Aluminium has been shown to exhibit anisotropic electron density, which is closely associated with directional bonding.' I can remember Russell & Lee (2005) (see metalloid article for ref details) say that on the metal side of the periodic table, the closer you get to the metal-nonmetal dividing line the more often you will see evidence of directional bonding. And the literature on Al is consistent with that. Yes, the unstressed crystal is regular but the electron density isn't which leads to the peculiar shear behaviour in Al. Same thing happens in polonium, as I recall from Russell & Lee (2005): regular crystalline structure but showing anisotropic electron distribution.
As I further recall, there was some scepticism about the alkali metals when they were first discovered given they floated on water(!) and were soft. Because of these properties it was initially proposed to call them metalloids. Chemically, however, they were super-metals so that, in the event, they were admitted to the true metal club. Pure aluminium is a structurally weak metal. Its extra burden is that chemically it is also a weak metal, given its amphoterism, covalent bonding tendencies, and anionic aluminate formation—unlike any of the alkali and alkaline earth metals (except for Be and, to a lesser extent, Li). The combination of the two weaknesses, physical and chemical, and the proximity of Al to the metal-nometal dividing line, explain why it is sometimes classified as a metalloid, which I think is a step too far given its ductility and electrical conductivity, but poor metal—that's reasonable, noting there is a spread of properties amongst the poor metals and some are more or less poor than others.
Next week, all going well, i'll update the poor metal article along theses lines. Sandbh (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen this paper? The Bonding Electron Density in Aluminum, Nakashima et al, 2011, doi:10.1126/science.1198543 - a bit more recent than the other ones- confirms the idea of a subtle anisotropy of electron density.Axiosaurus (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I had a look at it. Interesting paper. I rechecked Russell AM & Lee KL 2005, Structure-property relations in nonferrous metals, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ, to see what they said, which was: "Al's partially [italics added] directional bonding gives it a high stacking-fault energy..." (p. 359). I presume they describe it as 'partially' directional given there is nothing directional about Al's close packed FCC structure, and that directional bonding only occurs at the nanoscale level (which, even so, has a mechanical consequence). Sandbh (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

p-block metals as synonym?

Does the term p-block metals have significant usage as a synonym for poor metals? If so, we could mention this synonym in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is an expanded proposal to include group 12 (d-block) into the poor metals. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Make_the_group_12_elements_poor_metals.3F. So the synonym is in doubt. Then there is also the "post-transition metal" group to keep in mind. -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, near-synonym then. I think that whatever is decided for poor metal, the relation between the three terms (poor metal, post-transition metal, p-block metal) should be explained. Now the relation between poor metal and post-TM is explained although they are not exact synonyms, and this is good since it will reduce reader confusion, but the third term p-block metal is ignored at the moment.Dirac66 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dirac66. I believe the relationship between p-block metals, post-transition metals and poor metals has been covered in the proposed rewrite of the poor metals article. If not, please let me know, before the 'p' key on my poor keyboard pops out from being pressed so many times. Sandbh (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this rewrite is a much improved version of the article which does include my point. Thank you. Dirac66 (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name change from poor metal to other metal?

I updated the content of this article today. It used to comprise a redirect to poor metal. That redirect is gone and replaced with new content about the other metals. The content that was previously in the poor metal article been replaced by a redirect to this article.

Basic reason for doing so is that there is no widely recognised label for the second string metals between the transition metals and the metalloids. Wikipedia should reflect this, with individual writers and teachers being free to use more specific names of their choice, multiple examples of which are given in the article, as is the rationale for the descriptive phrase 'other metal'. See also here. Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other is an undefined word here.

My dictionary defines the word other as meaning Not the same as one or more of some already mentioned or implied .... Here the word is used as the first word of an article title, so nothing has been already mentioned or implied, and the word is meaningless in this context. Wikipedia does not have articles entitled Other molecules, Other reactions, Other countries, Other presidents etc. etc.

If I understand correctly, this name was chosen because it was felt that none of the other synonyms considered is entirely satisfactory. My solution would be to choose the least unsatisfactory synonym and to mention its shortcomings. My own choice would be P-block metals, which also means Groups 13-16 of the periodic table. Dirac66 (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dirac66: Sorry I missed your post. Nergaal is talking on this topic, here. He has already changed the article from other metals to post-transitional metals without prior discussion. I think my response there covers off on your quite interesting suggestion. Happy to chat right here or at WikiProject Elements. Sandbh (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Sandbh is rewriting this article in their sandbox as post-transition metals. Double sharp (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems with article

  • Specifics: Inclusion of group 11 is based on Demings 1940 text book. No modern reference is given. The statement "Chemically, the group 11 metals behave like main-group metals in their +1 valence states" is unreferenced and simply wrong. The statement about silver "The chemistry of silver is dominated by its +1 valence state in which it behaves like the main group metals potassium or thallium." is attributed to Rayner Canham but I can't see it in the 5th edition. If they said it then it is at best an oversimplification.
I'll add some modern references to group 11 as post-transition metals. I've copy edited mention of the group 11 metals behaving like main group metals, and added a citation. My attribution to Rayner-Canham was laziness; I have a much better reference but need to (and will) check its publication status with Rayner-Canham. Sandbh (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more recent work by Rayner-Canham is not quite in press so I've added two other citations noting the similarities in physical and chemical properties of Tl(I) and Ag (I) compounds. Sandbh (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • General points:
The article is massively over-referenced.
This will get worse before it gets better. Sandbh (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references seem odd e.g Sorensens, Metal poisoning in fish is the reference for the statement "There is an abrupt and significant reduction in metallic character from group 11 to group 12", surely there is a better known and more accessible inorganic chemistry text that could have been found. (But maybe not as other writers may not have this POV)
Good descriptive chemistry sources for the elements are hard to come by. I've clarified that the reduction in question was referring to physical properties. Sandbh (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is missing some key points e.g. chemistry of Au is heavily influenced by relativistic effects, d-block contraction isn't mentioned at all.
Relativistic effects are mentioned in the Rationale section; d-block contraction is now included in the same section. Sandbh (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axiosaurus (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elements Silicon and Sulphur are swapped in the periodic table excerpt

Can the author of the periodic table excerpt or the maintainer of the article correct the position of Silicon and Sulphur? Silicon has the atomic number 14, situated in the group of semiconductors between Carbon and Silicon. Sulphur has the atomic number 16, situated in the group of chalcogens between Oxygen and Selenium. It should also be verified if similar pictures in other articles contain the same blunder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pia novice (talk • contribs) 16:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great point, thanks. Author Sandbh will surely correct it asap into 14S sulfur and 16Si silicon. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from correcting the picture (or even "instead of"), I would suggest asking WP:Graphic Lab to vectorize the image (that is, to re-draw the image as a .svg file, which can be done for a table like this and is generally considered good for such pictures).--R8R (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So Nergaal agrees, then? Or are you speaking for yourself/by yourself? -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this comment is necessary. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be not necessary, but clarifying it is. It separates an edit request from a command to edit. And also from the afterward, backward, backhanded editwar. -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed 14Si and 16S. Double sharp (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Sandbh (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :-) Double sharp (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Temperatures

Forgive my unencyclopedic edit summary here. We cannot compare temperatures like this unless they are absolute temperatures. --John (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Steel often melts at 1370 C = 1643.15 K. Al melts at 933.5K = 56.8% of 1643.15. Does this not support saying the mp of Al is just over half that of steel? Sandbh (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, so it wasn't as bad as I thought. This would only be of use if we were in the business of heating metals up from absolute zero until they melted. For most purposes, we are starting off around 298K. I think either give the temperatures or say "much higheJust over half the temperature doesn't seem to add much to me. --John (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that using multiplicative terminology like 'twice' or 'half' with temperature scales is inherently misleading to the reader, even in the one case where it would make sense - the thermodynamic behavior of gasses. For melting points, it makes absolutely no sense at all. I think it would be helpful to have a WP:MOS policy forbidding the use of multiplicative terminology with temperature scales. YBG (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead hardness

I added the observation that anybody melting pure lead have made "(but hardens close to melting)". Is there anybody who know the reason?Seniorsag (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article, a proposed mechanism is that temperature produces a "ductility trough" and a ductile to brittle transition behaviour in the solid metal. If so, this phenomenon may be observable across all of the post-transition metals, given their relatively low melting points. Nice pick up. Sandbh (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Colour group 12 as post-transition metals

I am seeking comments on a proposal to color code the group 12 elements as post-transition metals in the Wikipedia periodic table, rather than transition metals as they are currently color coded.

The RfC can be found here. Sandbh (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blurbs on the transactinides

I have added these; references are to follow. Many of them are listed on WT:ELEM#Meitnerium through oganesson and in the element articles themselves. Double sharp (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alkali metal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further additions

Strictly speaking, boron and silicon should be added as they are often treated as "metals" in organometallic chemistry. Double sharp (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 00:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals → Post-transition metal – This title is a description of what post-transition metals are, but not what it is. Interstellarity (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional support.
The lede image makes things more complicated than they need to be.
The metals between the transition metals and the metalloids go by quite a few different names none of which are widely accepted. The most common technical one of these is “post-transition metals.” This is also a good descriptive name.
Most commonly the PTM are the metals in Groups 13 to 15.
Zinc, cadmium, and mercury are sometimes not counted as TM in which case they would be counted as PTM. They merit a 50:50 colouring.
Aluminium is occasionally not counted as a PTM given its absence of d electrons. Colour it as a PTM but add a footnote. Ditto Po which is sometimes counted as a metalloid but does not number among the elements most commonly recognised as metalloids.
Astatine is widely regarded as either a nonmetal or less often as a metalloid but has been predicted to be a metal. Colour it a halogen but add a footnote.
There a few other elements counted as PTM in isolated cases and that is all that needs to be said in the article. Colour these as their normal types. Sandbh (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the article shows, the two things are not necessarily the same, and there is not a standard name in the literature for this somewhat vaguely defined set of elements. Consequently a descriptive phrase seems to be the only possible neutral title. Double sharp (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Support. Data presented by Sandbh is convincing that "post-transition metal" is the most common term for this inherently fuzzy set. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@Double sharp: could you please consider withdrawing your oppose in light of the following information?

"Post-transition metal" would seem like a good descriptive phrase and more convenient than “Metals close to the border between metals and nonmetals”, given the transition metals occupy groups 3 to 12 or sometimes to 11. It is the most common technical term and could sustain an article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the leftover metals and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership.

Nyholm, a leading figure in inorganic chemistry in the 1950s and 1960s, referred to the properties and structure of transition metal to post transition metal covalent bonds (1966).

Kepert & Vrieze, in chapter 47 of the classic Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry (1973, p. 313), refer to bonds between transition metal and post-transition metal atoms.

Greenwood and Earnshaw (1998, p. 548) mention that "bismuth is a typical B sub-group (post-transition-element) metal like tin and lead."

Driess and Nöth, in their book Molecular Clusters of the Main Group Elements (2008, p. 19) write that, "Extensive definitive structural information on anionic post-transition metal clusters was obtained by Corbett only in the 1970s."

FA Cotton in Progress in Inorganic Chemistry, vol. 8 (2009, p. 115) refers to eight-coordinate post-transition metal radii.

Kalantar-Zadeh et al. (2021) refer to the use of low-melting-temperature (LMT) metals and alloys based on post-transition metals.

A search of Google Scholar for post transition metal/s yielded about 9,000 hits, of which 6,000 date from 2013.

Until today I wasn’t aware of how extensively “post transition metal/s” was/is used.

I suggest that if the term was used by such luminaries as Nyholm; Greenwood & Earnshaw; and Cotton, and it has appeared in notable chemistry-related publications, and numerous other publications, then it is good enough for an article title.

Thank you, —- Sandbh (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One equally finds in notable chemistry publications "p-block metals" to talk about roughly this set, e.g. one, two, three, four, five, six. G&E doesn't even say "post-transition metal" but "post-transition element" and "B sub-group", according to your quote. It does not seem clear to me if "p-block metal" or "post-transition metal" is more common (or if they are actually singular terms as opposed to intersections of "p-block" or "post-transition" with "metal"), and the area being talked about is strictly speaking wider than either of those suggest: p-block raises questions about group 12 (sometimes included comparatively), and post-transition raises questions about aluminium. So they do not quite correctly delimit the scope of the article. Double sharp (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: thank you.

None of the authors of the six PBM examples provided have the reputation of a Nyholm or a Cotton; or Deming who first used the PTM term AFAIK.

G&E’s reference to Bi as a post-transition element is quite accurate; the nonmetals in the p-block are likewise post-transition. The set “B-subgroup metals” is a redundant expression following the introduction of the 1-18 group numbering scheme in 1988.

Searching Google Books and Google Scholar for post transition metal/s or post-transition metal/s yielded about 15,300 hits, and for PBM about 6,500 hits.

Searching ACS Journals and RSC Journals gave 1,541 results for PTM and 845 for PBM.

I hadn’t previously appreciated these metrics.

p-block metals by definition, and as you note, cannot accomodate group 12. Post-transition metals can accomodate the group 12 metals given IUPAC notes the transition metals are sometimes regarded as finishing at group 11.

Post-transition metals accommodates Al, as a group 13 metal. Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals.

p-block metals can be regarded as a subset of post-transition metals in a manner somewhat similar to the refractory metals being a subset of TM.

I’m not asking you to support the proposal; I’m only requesting you to withdraw your oppose.

—- Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your third-last paragraph operates on the assumption that these categories have to somehow cover every element. This is certainly not the case. (And it's not so long ago that I had to explain that point.) The 2011 Principles of Chemical Nomenclature (p. 9) from IUPAC no longer mention the possibility of excluding group 12 from the transition metals. And finally, it's not about what only the biggest names said (noting also that Deming is hardly evidence of recent usage), but of what chemists as a whole say, which you thankfully (albeit self-contradictingly) get at by counting Google hits. Roughly 2-to-1 ratios do not seem that decisive when G&E prove that sources might very well use multiple terms for roughly the same set. Double sharp (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Double sharp: No, these categories do not have to somehow, necessarily cover every element—unless an individual author chooses to do so, as some do and some do not.

The Principles of Chemical Nomenclature: A Guide to IUPAC Recommendations 2011 edition that you mention, are guidelines only. As noted at p. 4, the colour books remain the principal nomenclature documents. The Red Book comment that the transition elements span Groups 3 to 12 or 11 thus remains extant.

I mentioned Deming since he appeared to be the originator of the term. His reputation does not hurt.

At no time have I claimed that post-transition metals is a “decisive” categorisation.

I have instead claimed that post-transition metals is the most common term for the metals in question and could sustain an encyclopaedic article on that basis, at the same time noting the range of alternative names for the subject metals, as per the G&E example, and their sometimes or occasionally varying membership. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first paragraph. But that means that your argument Excluding Al as a PTM raises the question of what sort of metal it is and results in less-used sets such as pre-transition metals doesn't necessarily hold: an author might well decide that Al is out of scope, or that it should be treated with some other set (possibly not even given a name).
True, but it's nonetheless somewhat interesting that IUPAC does not seem to think that the exclusion is worth mentioning in its guidelines (despite the fact that it would only have taken a single sentence to mention it), even if it is technically still on the books.
The originator of the term "transition metal" (Charles Rugeley Bury) didn't think Y–Tc and Lu–Re were transition metals. So I do not think looking at the terms' originators is a strong argument; we now know more than they did, and today's chemists naturally sometimes differ in usage from them.
Nonetheless, checking Ngrams does agree with your statement that this is the most common term for this inherently fuzzy set. And although it makes somewhat of a contradiction, some authors do after all include Al as a PTM. So I have withdrawn my oppose and replaced it with a support !vote. Double sharp (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Updated image in lede

Further to the previous discussion (above), and as flagged, I' ve updated the image in the lede showing the location of the post-transition metals.

Some adjustments to the main body of the article to follow. --- Sandbh (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out, unless I have missed something, that I will not have to make any adjustments to the main body of the article, since this is where all of the extras have already been mentioned. --- Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spasm — Add to this discussion

Article

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to keep following amendments. Discussion:

The first half of this is a dicdef, though I think it could be an interesting physiology stub. The second half is about a band that seems insignificant (though I can't get into amg because it only wants to give me a Scottish Power advert). Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • A high school band that never released an album is not notable; so I took the liberty of removing them from the article and adding more \hey?information on actual spasms. Keep. -Sean Curtin 16:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean: Allmusic did give me info on a band by that name with two albums out on the Invisible label (very minor independent). The person who added the band to the article was pointing at a different band with the same name. All Music Guide doesn't have any band bio, so I can't tell where the recorded one is from, but probably not Juneau. The article should nowiki the link & have more on types of spasms and the diseases that generate them, maybe. Geogre 16:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Give the medical dicdef some time on cleanup. Toss the band. The band information was copyvio: [9]. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I see the medical info has been extended and the band cut out. Keep it in this form. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion


Orgasm

Since orgasms are often linked to spasms, I have included the term. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difference with fasciculation

How do spasms differ from fasciculations? Do they? --Chealer (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

"A spasm is a sudden involuntary contraction of a muscle...". Can someone add information about the usual approximate duration of a spasm? The article doesn't clarify whether it is a matter of seconds, minutes, hours, or days. Thanks! --Savig (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spasmism

"A series of spasms, or permanent spasms, is called a "spasmism". This appeared in the article in an anonymous edit in 2007. I cannot find anything to justify this - the only uses on the web look like copies of this article. Can anyone justify this remaining in the article? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- No justification from anyone, or any source, so I deleted it. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Partisan Forces in Lebanon (UNPFIL) — Add to this discussion

Articles United Nations Partisan Forces in Lebanon (UNPFIL), C Squadron, Abu Musa SAS and Unit 13 Hunter Killer Anti-Commando Firqat listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to delete all. Discussion:

Well, we believed all the fairy tales about American soldiers torturing and brutalizing Iraqi prisoners WERE LIES, UNTIL the photos came out. That the UN is sick and tired of Israel thumbing its nose at UN resolutions, killing UN peacekeepers and destroying UN bases at Kafr Kana and refusing to make financial restitution is also known.

Israel hiding behind Americas skirts is a well known fact, lesser known is the worlds way of dealing with Israel protected by America.

So to the feelings of Germany, France, Europe and the world who gleefully will not lift a finger to help America who stepped into too much Shi'ite in Iraq.

That UN deniable forces are training Palestinian guerrillas is well known throughout the Israel Army. Israel English newspapers on June 7th, 2004 Maariv Int'l., Haaretz and Jerusalem Post all carried articles on the latest ambush of Israel elite Seals by Palestinian guerrillas. This is 4th such attack on Israel Seals in less than a year. All 4 attacks & ambushes resulted in killed & wounded SEALS.

If something happens ONCE, it's a coincidence, if it happens twice, it's deliberate and if a coordinated attack on same elite unit happens 4 times in a year, it's a conspiracy between the well trained guerrillas & their instructors.

Most of the world get along very well with the Arabs. Germany is Irans largest trading partner. England is Saudi Arabia, Oman, Dubai, & UAE's largest trading partner. France is Syrias largest trading partner and Italy in 2004 publicly signed a defense agreement with Lebanon to train it's regular army and elite units.

lIKE IT OR NOT, THE REAL FACTS ARE, IT'S IN EUROPES AND THE WORLDS BEST INTERESTS FOR AMERICA TO FAIL IN IRAQ AND ISRAEL TO FAIL TOTALLY IN HOLDING OWN TO ITS TERRITORIES.

To believe UN would not strike back against Israel in a deniable way is the epitome of naivete and is truly "PATENT NONSENSE."

The Middle East is a snakepit and if you don't live here, you have NO IDEA WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING.

Unsigned comment by 216.109.1.240, author of the article in question ______________________________________________________

Patent nonsense. Easily confused with UNFIL, which is the actual UN presence in Lebanon. This is just a great long rant by someone who really can't make up their mind whose side they're on. Almost BJAODN-worthy. Ambivalenthysteria 11:22, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Red-handed and Way — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was not reached over what to do with it. Discussion:

I can see the benefit of having a template that can be used to link wikipedia articles with articles in sister projects about the same thing, but these two articles consist solely of that link. These are not articles IMO and the only reason I haven't speedily deleted them is that I'm not sure of the policy on the use of this template. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Given that the template was created yesterday, I think we're going to have to set policy. I think it's a bad idea. If we want something like this, it needs to be handled programmatically. Trying to do this by hand is not going to work very well. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I found another one: Edit. If these were articles that only contained a link to another language wiki, or just a category and nothing else I would deleted them on sight so to be honest I don't see how these are any different. All three were created by Patrick. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I was inspired and encouraged by WP:PUMP#What_content_should_we_have_here.3F and Flagrante delicto. Of course these are not articles. They are more like a redirect, but not an actual one, because interwiki redirects have some disadvantages. It provides more integration between projects: if I am looking for info about a topic and there is no article in Wikipedia, than it is better than nothing to have a dictionary definition at Wiktionary, and perhaps it is a starting point for writing an article. But I agree that an automatic way would be better.--Patrick 19:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 03:33, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Concealed ovulation — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Concealed ovulation

List of purported cults — Add to this discussion

Article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was not reached but there were more votes to keep than any other.

This is an archived version of the delete discussion and should not be edited. If you wish to comment on this discussion please do so at Talk:List of purported cults.

I have read with interest the discussion in this page as well as the NPOV pages. I tend to agree with Uncle Ed that NPOV in this context is highly difficult and unless careful, Wikipedia gets hijacked by people to promote their own agenda of hate and fear. In my view, Wikipedia needs to remain neutral. Moral debates have no place in an encyclopaedia. The negative connotations of "cult" are self-evident. If you are accused to belong to a cult, your job, your business, your social life may be damaged as a result. What is the difference between shouting pejoratively "Jew!" or "Nigger!" or shouting "you are in cult!". No difference whatsoever... bigotry is bigotry is bigotry no matter how you dress it. Sorry...

With the negative associations to the world "cult, who owns the the moral high ground to decide what is a cult and what is not? None of us here. That is for sure.

So, my view is that this page should be deleted.--jossi 15:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep but move. I agree that "cult" now has an extremely negative connotation, but it was once a more flatly descriptive term. Perhaps this page could be moved somewhere where it would attract less counter-cultists. I think the content of the page is valuable and has often been admirably NPOV in spite of its subject. CHL 15:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Moving it where? The whole ide of a page who's title is "purported" is devinitively based on POV. As the term "cult" is nowadays peyorative, just the fact that a perosn's belief system is categorize as that, carries undeniable negative consequences. In tis page alone editors have bundled Al-Quaida, Rajneesh, Scientology and Falun Gong under one term: "cult". What use is this type of classification other than asserying a PoV? --jossi 17:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • No: "purported cult". They all are. The more I think about it, the more I think the title is also correct. Nothing is inherently POV about "purported cults". Being the raised member of one of them (LDS), I think inclusion on this list is actually imperative. If nothing else it documents a reasonably popular strain of thought, even if it is misguided--but articles shouldn't pass moral judgement, right? Any other title would be clumsy, less accurate, and counter-intuitive. I think it's unfortuate that the word "cult" makes this article a lightening rod for counter-cultists. I also think that the disputed notice will probably never disappear, but this is a good article with lots of eyeballs on it. I think this sort of controversy is sort of the cost of doing business on an open encyclopedia. Keep. CHL 18:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • So who decides and with which criteria a group can be categorized as a 'purported cut' and added to this page? One can argue that Kabbalists, Wiccans and similar are also purported cults. My PoV is that anti-cultists are using this page to declare their displease/bias against with 'cults'... and they should not use Wikipeda for these purposes. Write a page about Wicca, about Scientology, about Satanism. That is the purpose of an encyclopaedia.--jossi 23:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Sociologists decide, generally. It's a term that has an actual meaning - David Gerard 00:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • I argue below that for purposes of this article, anyone leveling the charge also validly gets to decide, so long as that accusation is interesting and newsworthy. --Gary D 00:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • Counter-cultist's claims also deserve an entry. Encyclopedias ought to cover religion and anti-religious claims without POV, yes? CHL 15:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. user:jossifresco is quoting the Church of Scientology directly on hate group to push a POV. This is part of that - David Gerard 19:18, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Pay attention Gerard. I am not a member of the Church of Scientology. That quote was an honest mistake.--jossi 19:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though this can be a very sensitive topic, if we stretch our patience and maturity as Wikipedians (see Wikilove), it will turn out fine. In one sense, this is an article about an objective phenomenon: that these groups have been or are being labeled as cults by other people or groups—whether or not any particular label appears justified to any particular observer—is a fact and is also interesting and newsworthy. Does this mean we should include on this page some raving mendicant street preacher labeling the Roman Catholic Church a cult? Well, yes, if that occurrence is interesting and newsworthy, because the subtext of this article is also about religious friction, and the forms that can take. --Gary D 00:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I'm inclined to vote keep. I don't think the title is inherently non-NPOV, but it's important to note by whom a particular group is purported to be a cult. So far the list is pretty incomplete though. The article could also use some major cleanup, but that's another question. Exploding Boy 01:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is, to put it bluntly, garbage. I can make an argument that Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all cults, just as people have already claimed with Scientology and Falun Gong. Who decides? Ambivalenthysteria 01:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I'm on the fence, but there is a sociological meaning to "cult": it's the thing you are before you're a religion. In the literature of the social sciences, people try to use the word "cultus" in preference to indicate a devoted group with common religious beliefs. It's a neutral term, except that it denotes size. On the other hand, I think "purported" is a sneaky word that ends up being a bias of selection. The list will either include everything or nothing, as whoever chooses to include/exclude is exercising a type of POV that's tantamount to judgment of value. Geogre 02:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Cult" is inherently POV and "purported cult" is no improvement. Rename to List of minor religions. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Disagree with rename, the descriptions are mostly about why people think the group is a cult, and thus does not belong in list of minor religions —siroχo 03:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list is either far too POV or far too incomplete to justify as encyclopedic. Much of it is based solely on hearsay of former members and outsiders. While valid to a point, this does not offer enough reason for so few groups to be distinguished as cults. I understand that wikipedia articles are meant to grow as time goes on, but the selection in this is too POV, and needs major revision to be saved. As such I think it should be deleted until someone shows me that it can be saved. —siroχo 03:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
    • I disagree. This selection is as such because these are some of the most-cited groups named by counter-cultists. I do think it can be more comprehensive. I'm with Gary D that any group that's verifiably called a cult by a significant or newsworthy group should merit inclusion on this list. CHL 15:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Siroxo, your assertion that the list is "bases solely on hearsay of former members and outsiders" can be proven to be untrue and is, I think, very unfair to all ex-followers of Sathya Sai Baba including myself. For example, Glen Meloy and Robert Priddy who both have been members for decades have enough experience that something is wrong with Sathya Sai Baba.[10] & [11] Andries 13:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cult is NPOV, it means the same as minority religion. Whatever you may feel the word means (especially in the current climate), is another thing, but I'm quite sure the etymology isn't terroristic. Ie. christianity is a cult in Egypt. Keep. Lussmu 15:07, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That's the problem. "Cult" is almost two words now. "Cult" has an academic and a non-academic meaning. The academic one is NPOV (small group of believers), and you can't be "purported" it. No one "purports" that the Isis cult in Rome was a cult. But "cult" also has a pejorative meaning in the lay community. That is entirely POV, and people "purport" each other cults all the time as a way of de-legitimizing (ick) and criminalizing them. True, this article attempts to catalog all the groups who have been called cults and tries to not pass judgment on whether they are or not, but what's the purpose of such a list? Why does this bit of listmania exist? Geogre 02:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Are we sure that academic use of "cult" means only that there are a small number of followers? If I'm not mistaken the term "Marian cult" is used in mainstream works on religion and in the same sense as in "cult of Isis". I don't know who counts exactly but devotees of the Marian cult must number in the millions. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The other academic use is sociological, and means closer to the lay idea of "destructive cult". Now we have multiple academic uses ... - David Gerard 10:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but a) if a religion is often called a cult, the article on that religion should say why; and b) cult should link to religions that are typically referred to as such, with a brief explanation. -Sean Curtin 04:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep the list.207.69.51.151 23:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep but use only for the clearest cases like People's Temple, Order of the Solar Temple, Heaven's gate, Branch Davidians and Manson Family. I think that the word "cult" has become so much a form of hate speech that term has little added value. I mean as David V. Barret wrote in his book "The New Believers" one should focus on what the the controversial groups do and believe. Move the bulk of the groups on the list to List of controversial new religious movements which should only list groups that have, relative to their size, a lot of controversy around them. Andries 13:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I would change my vote to Keep if this were the case. It's putting groups like the Falun Gong on here that makes this messy. Ambivalenthysteria 14:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Why? Falun Gong are purported to be a cult, by the Chinese government. How much more clear cut do you want it? Exploding Boy 14:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • This is precisely why this article will always be POV. Andries' article is perhaps a more sensible way of dealing with this, as it avoids the ultimately pejorative-laden term cult. - User:Ambivalenthysteria
      • The term "New religious movement" was created by groups branded "cult" to avoid the negative connotations of the word "cult". Unfortunately, as several of the groups continued to act in a socially questionable manner, "NRM" is acquiring the same connotations. Changing the word doesn't change what is being described - David Gerard 17:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Just to let you now that I created the article List of controversial new religious movements which is now just a copy of the list of purported cults. Please improve if you have time. Thanks. Andries 16:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • The two should be combined, else Scientology for example would go in both. "New Religious Movement" is essentially a euphemism for "cult" coined by organisations branded "cult" that attempts to escape the connotations of that word - making a new article won't stop arguments, as this discussion should have already demonstrated there isn't a consensus delineation - David Gerard 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I do not agree that new religious movement is a euphemistic term for cult. The advantage of the list of controversial religious movements is that it is objective. Every movement can be included there if there is a lot of controversy. Andries 16:45, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • I agree. Ambivalenthysteria 16:48, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • True. Take out 'new' in the title, then - because 'new religious movement' is a phrase in itself - David Gerard 17:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Agreed -- rm "new", then list of controversial religious movements is an OK title. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to List of controversial new religious movements. Fire Star 19:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Andries. Rename to List of controversial new religious movements--jossi 21:13, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
            • Jossi and David, please be aware that taking out the word "new" means that Islam would have to be included. It is a controversial religious movement here in the Netherlands, relative to its size. I am not exaggerating. I am not sure if taking out the word "new" is a good idea. Andries 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Why is "controversial" better than "purported"? It's an almost meaningless term. I've been thinking about this and I think it should be moved to something like "Cults purported by Christian Countercultists". That's in fact almost exactly what this page is about. With a few exceptions, it's the greatest hits list of the countercultists. Such a move would tighten the subject and explain exactly who's purporting these "cults", and avoid an overly broad subject (which it now is, and "controversial new religious movements" certainly is). CHL 18:00, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The key difference is that the word "cult" has been taken out - which is what most of us, I believe, are objecting to. And unless the Chinese government became a Christian theocracy last night, your suggestion for a title doesn't seem to match all of the existing content. Ambivalenthysteria 01:34, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • You're not very charitable. I said the majority of these are countercultists' targets. I don't think Falun Gong is on their "greatest hits" list, but they are named by christian countercultists [12]. At any rate, if it's moved off of this page (which I now agree is a good idea), I think I'll copy most of it into Cults purported by Christian countercultists. It's a much better fit with existing content than List of controversial new religious movements anyway. The articles can diverge from there. CHL 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • Cool Hand Luke, please not that Cults purported by Christian countercultists will contain all religious movements minus conservative evangelical churches plus all mainstream religions. I can not see a good reason for this list. Andries 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
          • It's not as if "controversial new religions" will not contain every new religion. This is not alarming to me. Rigt now only the most often and furiously purported cults need to be mentioned, and is they are. What is concerning to me are the links to the list of purported cults. Many of them are looking for purported cults. They need a page to go to, and this isn't a bad one. It acknowledges the bias in the subject matter in bold at the top, and I think it's a useful article--especially if more explicitly defined. CHL 21:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe this should be kept, and should stay where it is. It was split out from Cult some months ago. The content is going to end up somewhere, because people are going to add it, and it is better of here than elsewhere. UninvitedCompany 21:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tally

Can someone help corroborate my tally of votes so far? Thanks. Keep: 6 Delete: 5 Move/Rename/redirect: 4


Sysop intevention required

Given that 5 votes request delete and 4 votes request move/rename/redirect, can it be considered concensus that a change is needed, at least in renaming the page in a way that does not denotes bias as suggested? --jossi 19:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not after 3 days. I note you don't need a vote on VfD to move or redirect a page. Morwen - Talk 19:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I see now that it is required 5 days minimum or more time to see if concensus is reached about deletion.--jossi 20:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Inherent POV in the title and decision to include. - Tεxτurε 03:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Greed Island — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Greed Island

PYT — Add to this discussion

Article PYT listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

dicdef. Jay 17:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Michael Jackson's "Thriller." - Lucky 6.9 17:23, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary Kevyn 18:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Just delete. No evidence that this is in common enough usage to justify either redirect or transwiki. Rossami 21:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with that. I doubt anyone's going to search for "PYT" before they search for either "Michael Jackson" or "Thriller." - Lucky 6.9 21:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's really, really unlikely that anyone who searches for PYT is looking for this. Somewhere in the world it's an acronymn for something else, I'm sure (Pacific Yule Tide?). Geogre 19:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • PYT - Preliminary Yield Trial. It's an agricultural science term, I believe. Not really significant, though. Average Earthman 12:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

List of computer and video games by category — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of computer and video games by category

Svend Aage Ovesen — Add to this discussion

Article Svend Aage Ovesen listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Don't know if this guy is notable enough for inclusion or not, but it didn't seem to be quite a speedy candidate, so I've brought it here. blankfaze | •• | •• 18:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: There is a related article, N45BS, that contains all of the technical info (inventory, maintenance info) on the plane that Svend Aage Ovesen crashed in. If the Svend article is deleted then that should probably go too, but I don't know how to handle an instance where an article should be deleted only if another article is deleted first. - Eisnel 19:57, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This should be at a memorial, but a memorial for what? Mike H 18:55, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like it may have been created by his family or a friend in memorial, but he doesn't seem worthy of an article here. -Frazzydee 19:35, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreed, it's sad that it's an obituary, but he's not a notable person. A Google search for "Svend Aage Ovesen" produces just one result (Svend Åge Ovesen), a list of technical entries of which Svend is just one (probably regarding a pilot's license). - Eisnel 19:44, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've posted the N45BS article as a speedy delete. It's a cut-and-paste from what appears to be the company that sold the plane. Delete the article in question, BTW. - Lucky 6.9 20:28, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And while we're at it, add Svend Ovesen to the delete debate. These people seem to be slightly clueless. I'm sorry for the loss of the man, but this isn't the place to memorialize him. - Lucky 6.9 21:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a site for memorials. Delete, and delete the new version at Svend Ovesen as well. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but what's the criteria for worthy of an article? Are the wikimedia servers low on disk space? How is it, exactly, that that page lessens the value of of the encyclopedia? We have specific articles for red officers slaughtered in the civil war in finland, in the finnish wikipedia, and specific articles for finnish people famous only through usenet. The day we think our finnish version of wikipedia is too crowded for articles like this, the day I quit contributing. Keep. Lussmu 15:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Hi, Lussmu. Your comments here and on your user page compel me to answer your question. First of all, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia of general knowledge. Google is often applied as a litmus test to articles that are suspected of being vanity pages or pages about non-notable individuals. Though we are all sympathetic over your loss, the fact is that Mr. Ovesen simply doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. May I also point out in our defense that many articles listed here have been cleaned up rather nicely after being posted here and that everyone here has cleaned up more than their fair share of other articles on their own. Disk space isn't a problem, but nor are servers inexpensive. Thanks for listening. Your opinion is truly valued, and please accept my apology for the "clueless" comment. Many articles like this come through here and it's easy to forget there's a person on the other side of the phone line. - Lucky 6.9 18:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Svend Ovesen and keep that. He and the incident are notable as one of the few airliner-rated pilots flying a commercial (rather than recreational) aircraft to die in one of the 424 fatal accidents recorded in the NTSB database for 2002. A description of the accident, aircraft and him are useful in the context of how an experienced and capable pilot can lose control in only moderately bad non-visual flight conditions. Exactly where an article about this interesting accident should go is debatable but a page under the name of the pilot seems fitting enough, compared to the aircraft registration or NTSB docket number. Jamesday 20:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are hundreds of General Aviation accidents per year, and no indication that this one is notable. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cyber-terrorism — Add to this discussion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mistyroyall, POLS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mollymoralez, Jadeballinger.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dalton110, Hetp595, RutgersRoss27, Dk891, Eastmondm. Peer reviewers: Jbhalla3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dgerzog.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 2 to July 8 2004, consensus was to keep. See copy of discussion on /Archive 1.

jihad

Why no discussion of the cyber jihad currently being waged? Wiki strikes again. . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.0.43 (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cyberterrorism definition

"Cyber-terrorism is the leveraging of a target's computers and information technology, particularly via the Internet, to cause physical, real-world harm or severe disruption." This is the listed definition. Should this possibly be broadened? For example, cyberterrorism could also be applicable to, other than physical or severe disruption harm, be connected to perceived danger or threats (psychological effects of terrorism). I am new to the wikipedia community, so please be gentle on me if this seems silly!Dc3tech 18:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that "terrorism" belongs nowhere in the label carrying the definition given here, or by anyone. Appending "terrorism," deliberate acts of physical violence against civilians for political aims, to the word "cyber" suggests that "cyberterrorism" is a form of violence, and that it is a form of terrorism. One would have to be in a very philosophical state of mind to judge that such a tag is appropriate for what's actually described in this article. On one hand, the word "cyberterrorism" is in common use, to be sure -- I just think that this "ism" is a definition that was coined by politicians for a political, and should be rejected. 140.77.141.130 (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

"The basic definition of Cyber-Terrorism... ...subsumed over time to encompass such things as simply defacing a web site or server, or attacking non-critical systems, resulting in the term becoming less useful. There is also a train of thought that says cyberterrorism does not exist and is really a matter of hacking or information warfare. Some disagree with labeling it terrorism proper because of the unlikelihood of the creation of fear of significant physical harm or death in a population using electronic means, considering current attack and protective technologies.

in simple english: someone who destroys countries computer systems"

This doesn't actually define cyberterrorism, so I think this should be moved to another section. Also, the summation at the end beginning with "in simple english..." needs to be corrected for spelling, grammar and accuracy. Loosifur 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC

The first paragraph could be a transcript of some of of Regans's propaganda films. I've never read something so condescending in my life. I know I do nothing but suggest improvements86.41.198.183 (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Article structure

I know there's been a lot of debate over this article, so I didn't want to jump straight in and start a firestorm. I'm thinking the article needs an introductory lead-in above the contents box, which would probably render the "Cyberterrorism" section void. I wouldn't say copy it directly, but probably something loosely based around that paragraph. Comments? --Stretch (talk) 05:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-citation done anonymously on 18:46, 6 July 2008

My investigation of the edit on 18:46, 6 July 2008 leads me to conclude Technolytics alumni Kevin G. Coleman cited himself anonymously. I cannot assume good faith here: in April I uncovered Mr. Coleman posing as a man named "Brian Agent" (outside of Wikipedia).

Mr. Coleman picked a peacock secondary source for his self-citation, choosing a 2005 military document that merely quotes a 2003 piece he penned for a commercial magazine.

I am a vocal critic of Mr. Coleman, hence NPOV prevents me from dealing with his self-promotional edit. I implore others to investigate this edit and to be bold. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

There is no reason to have both this article and Internet and terrorism. They cover exactly the same thing, and I can't think of any subtle distinctions that could possibly be made. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at Talk:Internet and terrorism#Merge. Fences&Windows 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than legitamate

"...the United States has more than legitimate concerns..."

No citations, no explanations, nothing. Someone has to add a citation, or this would be WP:PEA. 93.136.74.81 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

This article is almost entirely composed of speculation. In my opinion, this article should not focus on:

  • Things cyberterrorism could do
  • "Concerns" expressed by various parties
  • "Potential" threats
  • Possible targets

Most of this is clearly original research, but some of it is from sensationalist news stories which I will grudgingly admit are acceptable sources.

So my concern is, has there actually ever been any actual cyberterrorism? A few minor incidents are mentioned, but only the Estonian incident has its own article. It looks to me like the main topics of this article should not be cyberterrorism itself, because of a lack of subject material, but rather: the definition of cyberterrorism (although Wikipedia is not a dictionary), because that seems to be under debate, and fears and concerns about terrorism. This article should clearly express that cyberterrorism is not widespread, and that at this point it is mostly speculation. Do these sound like reasonable changes to make? ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 07:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I've added an image I uploaded of the Air Botswana website (which is currently defaced as of September 7, 2010 by a group calling themselves the "Pakistan Cyber Army"). I found the defacement when I was looking up info for a school project earlier (it did give me a bit of a shock). I'm just not sure what its copyright status would be, being defaced, I doubt Air Botswana holds the copyright to it as it currently stands, and the website itself doesn't help much (it says: "Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved illegally P4Ki5t4n Cyb3r 4rmy [sic]"). If anyone with more knowledge can help, I'd appreciate it.

Having come back here, I've just realised I never signed this message, so here's my (belated) signature. — Life in General (Talk) 15:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definition and Examples

I would like to provide some insight on making the article better. In terms of the definition for cyberterrorism it needs to be simple pointing out the purpose on why it is done. We can say that cyberterrosim is a form of cybercrime by means of using computers, networks, and the Internet to cause destruction and harm for personal objectives[1]. We can also give an example on how cyberterroism can be done, such as the shutting down of critical infrastructures which may result in serious casualties for those within the infrastructure. Cyberterrosim can be done anywhere in the world since it uses the public Internet and it is considered to be a form of terrorism to further ideas and political objectives.[2]

Matusitz, J. (2005). Cyberterrorism:. American Foreign Policy Interests, 27(2), 137-147. doi:10.1080/10803920590935376

Ayers, C. E. (2009). The Worst is Yet To Come. Futurist, 43(5), 49

References

  1. ^ Matisotz, Johnathan (2005). "Cyberterrorism". American Foreign Policy Interests: 137–147. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  2. ^ Ayers, Cynthia (2009). "The Worst is Yet To Come". Futurists. 5: 49. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Examples section

"During the Kosovo conflict in 1999, NATO computers were blasted with e-mail bombs [...]" ..."blasted" sounds a bit over the top. I assume this was emails with large attachments or zip files that expanded to a deliberately massive size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip_bomb) ? It's referenced in the following article that states the attack was of limited effect: http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/nov/05/balkans 5.148.145.34 (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Stuff

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cyberterrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any feedback on my bibliography for me to add information on this page?

Canetti, Daphna, et al. "How Cyberattacks Terrorize: Cortisol and Personal Insecurity Jump in the Wake of Cyberattacks." CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, vol. 20, no. 2, Feb. 2017, pp. 72-77. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1089/cyber.2016.0338. Softness, Nicole. "Terrorist Communications: Are Facebook, Twitter, and Google Responsible for the Islamic State's Actions?" Journal of International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 1, Winter2016, pp. 201-215. EBSCOhost, libraryproxy.tulsacc.edu:2069/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=120438209&site=ehost-live&scope=site Vilić, Vida M. "Dark Web, Cyber Terrorism and Cyber Warfare: Dark Side of the Cyberspace." Balkan Social Science Review, vol. 10, no. 10, Dec. 2017, pp. 7-24. EBSCOhost, libraryproxy.tulsacc.edu:2069/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127927428&site=ehost-live&scope=site Warf, Barney and Emily Fekete. "Relational Geographies of Cyberterrorism and Cyberwar." Space & Polity, vol. 20, no. 2, Aug. 2016, pp. 143-157. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/13562576.2015.1112113. Thank you! Jadeballinger (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC) Is there anything anyone can suggest for feedback? thanks.Wikipedia Works Cited Mantel, Barbara. "Terrorism and the Internet." CQ Global Researcher, 1 Nov. 2009, pp. 285- 310, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqrglobal2009110000.[reply]

Begos, Kevin. "Protecting the Power Grid." CQ Researcher, 11 Nov. 2016, pp. 941-64, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2016111100.

Marshall, Patrick. "Cybersecurity." CQ Researcher, 26 Sept. 2003, pp. 797-820, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2003092600.

Flamini, Roland. "Improving Cybersecurity." CQ Researcher, 15 Feb. 2013, pp. 157-80, library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre2013021500. Mollymoralez (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Svend Ovesen — Add to this discussion

Article Svend Ovesen listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Delete for same reasons as for the other article about this man. - Lucky 6.9 21:04, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Looks like the author is trying to evade deletion. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - too POV; "the best pilot in the Caribbean" does not lend itself to NPOV. Page was also added to List of people who died in aviation-related incidents; should be deleted there as well if this page is deleted. -- Grunt (talk) 15:14, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • Keep. The pilot details are significant to this accident, one of the few that year to involve a commercial-rated pilot flying a commercial aircraft. Commercial aircraft don't crash very often due to flying on non-visual flight conditions and it's a useful example of how even capable pilots can die if they aren't careful. Jamesday 21:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - if a vote is already taken then it is a speedy delete candidate. Where's the first vote? - Tεxτurε 03:39, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Because I didn't want the vote to be close to tied when the time on VfD was up. If the article were simply about the accident, it could be included in an article on aviation crashes. A discussion of aviation disasters, why they occur, frequency, etc., would be fine, but, given the sincere, but misguided, memorial effort, I have to vote delete. Geogre 18:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep: There are several articles os things like "Love and marriage", a TV series that is important to american people but does not have any importance to us latin-americans. I have noted that in Wikipedia the standards of notability and importance are always given from an USA point of view. If some one who is not important to people in USA it does not means that the person is not important in other parts of the world. And Google is not the perfect judge for history or people.

One example: The caribbean pilot may be of little importance in USA. But Rudy Giuliani, some obscure north-american mayor, has an article on him. I bet that if I wrote an article on the mayor of my city, it would be deleted. Because none of Wikipedia administrators have heard a word about him. "He´s just an obscure man from Brazil", thay would think.

The encyclopedia is "world-wide". You can not judge the notability of people by north-american standards. "Married with children", "Rudy Giuliani" - no one of those subjects is important to me or anyone in my country. And we do not ask them to be deleted.

Opinion by: Fabioburch

Bonde do Solar — Add to this discussion

Article Bonde do Solar listed on WP:VFD July 2 to July 9 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

This had been over 2 weeks on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English and no one has suggested it has merit. -- Jmabel 22:37, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comments from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

  • Bonde do Solar - Portugese (Brazilian) Rmhermen 16:57, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • I strongly suspect this is vanity. -- Jmabel 21:24, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe this is one of those "hey look, it's me and my buddies" articles. If I'm not mistaken it goes The Bonde of the Palace comprises a group of heavy drinkers, who live, for the most part, in the Palace of the Nightingales .... and it lists their names. (For all I know, "Palace of the Nightingales" is an actual place in Brazil, although Google hasn't heard of it.) Anybody who knows better, do please correct me as necessary. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That's how I read it, too. I guess I could have been more specific than "I strongly suspect this is vanity"... -- Jmabel 06:17, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I speak no Portugese but I assume the translation is accurate. Andrewa 20:21, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: However, now I know where to go for a drink when I'm on my next luxury vacation (ahem). Geogre 18:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

July 3

The Stupid Ninja Game — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Stupid Ninja Game

Röns — Add to this discussion

Article Röns listed on WP:VFD July 3 to July 9 2004, was speedily deleted. Discussion:

  • German-language article about an Austrian village. Same anon poster added it to the German-language wikipedia, where it is getting some good editing. I say we delete from here & just add to the list of requests for translation from German at Wikipedia:Translation into English (the normal process for asking for a translation from a foreign-language Wikipedia. Before putting this on Vfd, I left this suggestion for 24 hours at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (the page to discuss the disposition of foreign-language content dumped into the English-language wikipedia) to give those active there a chance to object; no one did. -- Jmabel 17:05, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
"If the article is a mere copy of (all or part of) an article in a foreign-language Wikipedia, it can just get added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion: we want to discourage people who cut articles from one Wikipedia and paste to another without translating. If the intent is to ask for a translation, the correct place to do that is Wikipedia:Translation into English."
So maybe speedy delete? -- Jmabel 02:18, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, then delete this discussion. I was about to delete, list for translation, and declare intention to delete discussion if no objections, but you're way ahead of me I see by the talk page. Delete after 24 hours is good MWOT IMO, carry on. Andrewa 00:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

training manuals and training manual examples — Discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 27 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

transwiki to Wikibooks I think. Could the article be tidied to be made encyclopedic? Dunc_Harris|☺ 12:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Expedicion — Add to this discussion

Article Expedicion listed on WP:VFD June 27 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Orphan. This band doesn't have a page, so I don't see why one of their albums does. I'm not entirely sure what a band has to do to qualify for an entry, but I'm sort of doubting "Dune" does. If they do and someone wants to write a page for them, I guess we can keep this, otherwise I think this should be deleted. -R. fiend 16:40, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Allmusic.com has at least heard of the band, and notes that they do have an album by this name, but has no information on it except that it was released in 1996. A track listing and a couple of quotes does not make an article. Delete, but I'm explicitly making no statement on any potential article about the band "Dune". -- Cyrius|✎ 22:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - i'm sure wikiprojects albums can adopt this article. Remember that allmusic.com is a US site as well.... Not having an article is not a sign of non-encylopedicness. Secretlondon 22:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cyrius. A track listing and a few quotes are pretty much useless in an encyclopedy. Could be cleaned up, but do you really think anybody will bother doing it? Delete. --Alexandre 09:31, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:55, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Man of Many Faces — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion June 27 to July 9 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Confused unwikified glump of text, has been speedily deleted before but the same text keeps coming back to haunt us. Please delete (and hope the poster gets the message) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Unwikified ungrammatical mess. Perhaps someone who knows the subject should write a real page? Googling for "man of many faces" + Manga gets some 11k hits, but most of that is gratuitous fanboy service. Delete or complete re-write - or both to erase this mess from history. SkArcher 18:49, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and try to keep it from ever coming back again!Hayford Peirce 00:08, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and block user. Posting this once is bad enough. Posting it twice is grounds for exclusion. - Lucky 6.9 17:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Someone who knows something about it should write a real article. Thesteve [[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]](t) notes apparent time stamp: 06:25, 2004 Jun 29]
  • Delete: useless pseudoinformation. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it:this manga is readily available domestically and there's someone out there bound to clean up and revise this entry.In fact,I actually did some revisions/clean up and added some further useful information.Hopefully,I fixed at least some of the bad grammar by the original contributor. User:Ranma9617
  • Nice new stub. We sure have been getting a lot of this manga stuff lately. - Lucky 6.9 21:49, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The rewrite actually makes sense out of what I took to be utter lunacy. I'll withdraw my "delete" vote and change it to "neutral".Hayford Peirce 23:38, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've withdrawn my nomination of this article because it has been vastly improved since it was originally listed. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Manofmnyfaces gn.jpg

Image:Manofmnyfaces gn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Worth linking to other article?

I was reading up on the article The Monster with 21 Faces and I couldn't help but notice that there are a few superficial similarities between this manga and the MW21F. What really stuck out was that the titles are similar and that both broke crimes and sent letters taunting people. Obviously the nature of the crimes perpetrated by the two individuals are very different, but there's just enough of a similarity to where I wonder if CLAMP drew on this for the manga. I don't know if there's a good way to write it into the article or if the similarities are intentional or not, so I decided to mention it here first. I'm going to try to do a little research on this, but if anyone else knows anything about this then let me know. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

  • Researched and answered my own question. The name was taken from a book series by Edogawa Rampo, so I'd assume that CLAMP took this from the Rampo series, just as the perpetrator did. I'll work the whole Rampo reference into the article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Someone who knows something about it should write a real article. Thesteve

Good paste for large pies — Add to this discussion

Article Good paste for large pies listed on WP:VFD June 27 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Recipe stub. Transwiki. (Pulled from Special:Ancientpages.) -Sean Curtin 19:55, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This page was originally on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old but moved here due to a deadlocked discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Agree, transwiki. SWAdair | Talk 00:47, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Please also look at Risotto ZeroFuzion 01:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The article on risotto has a brief section on the history of risotto; the article does not have, and probably never could have, a similar section. -Sean Curtin 19:53, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki, I guess, or just delete. The lemma is pretty opaque, and a dough from 1881? I can't see how the project is much weaker without it. (Not paper, I know.) Geogre 12:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Recipe has no cultural or historical content, and it's not terribly relevant to modern cooking. Just delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally archaic units of measurement render this recipe unfathomable to most of the world. Denni☯ 23:10, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)
  • Aside: does "two votes to delete, one neutral vote" really count as deadlocked voting? -Sean Curtin 04:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Please pay attention to the timestamps. When this was moved back to VfD, the only vote was SWAdair's. I feel uncomfortable deleting an article with just one vote. Johnleemk | Talk 06:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't blame you. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • not an article, delete --Jiang 05:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (Inapporporiate title, too, this doesn't sound very good :P) Pyrop 04:46, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know...maybe substitute soy flour for wheat flour and you'd have a wonderfully Atkins-friendly pie crust with enough fat and cholesterol remaining to stop an elephant. Seriously, delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minestrone alla Capucina — Add to this discussion

  • What can I say, another recipe I found. Moving to wikibooks completed. Gentgeen 12:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And misspelt too. Surely it's alla cappuccina. — Chameleon My page/My talk 13:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Minimal encyclopedic content. Delete as already transwikied. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is part of the encyclopedia's coverage of the Cuisine of Italy. Jamesday 18:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - already transwikied - Tεxτurε 03:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Does this recipe really exist? I can find no references to it in Italian. — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:36, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 21:15, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GmailSwap — Add to this discussion

Not encyclopedic, not that well known. Dori | Talk 14:02, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)

  • Very well known in my circles. I hear about it or get mails mentioning gmailswap almost everyday. Maybe their fame will last only until gmail becomes an open public service. I feel gmailswap has been among the first websites to capitalize on the chain-invitation process of gmail. If gmail is encyclopedic, so is gmailswap. Jay 16:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've heard of it. Give substub a round on cleanup. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to gmail? -Sean Curtin 04:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gmailswap will almost certainly evaporate shortly. If it's still around in a year, it can have a stub. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Now merged. --Zigger 05:28, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Antipope Michael — Add to this discussion

Another case of "Where does one start?" Distinctly non-NPOV and it doesn't read like a mainstream topic, though no doubt it may be of marginal interest to someone out there. Deb 16:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete as there is already an article on the guy at Pope Michael. Arguably the leader of such a very small religious group (not sure exactly how small, but he was elected by only a handful of people, including his own parents and himself, in a store in a small town) is not encyclopedic, but apparently some people do like to keep tabs on the various people around the world who have declared themselves popes. Everyking 17:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Now I've read everything. The person responsible for this claptrap should spend more time studying basic English and less time convincing some dweeb that he's the Second Coming. If this doesn't qualify as patent nonsense and a speedy deletion, I don't know what does. I shudder to think these people are roaming free, and I happen to be Catholic! - Lucky 6.9 19:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • To be fair, it's clearly not patent nonsense and clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion. Everyking 23:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Just so long as it's deleted. - Lucky 6.9 00:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gary D 19:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's a cut-n-paste copyvio from [13]. Delete it, then recreate as a redirect to Pope Michael. -- "Antipope" is really the religious equivalent of a micronation; maybe we should clear out all that stuff. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: I only knew the term "Antipope" for that brief period in history when there were Avigninian and Roman Popes, but I see that it's whenever one person "is set up" for Pope. In that regard, there have been about 35 of them. Better without the valuative term in the article title. Geogre 16:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow. To be sure, the popes at Avignon, the famous "Babylonian Captivity" of the Middle Ages, didn't refer to themselves as Antipopes. Delete. Fire Star 19:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite. Nonsense, but encyclopedic nonetheless.--Gene_poole 02:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Did you not notice when I pointed out that we already have Pope Michael? Besides, the man is a pope and not an "antipope" as far as himself and his followers are concerned, so the use of "antipope" as the title is inappropriate. Everyking 16:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Joel Minnick Longenecker — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Joel Minnick Longenecker This looks more like genealogical info, rather than info about a person of genuine historical significance. --67.171.28.197 05:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Syracuse to Washington, DC flights — Add to this discussion

This is unencyclopedic and can change any moment. Besides, can't we just look at a timetable and get this info? WhisperToMe 17:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It absolutely can. I agree that this shouldn't be a timetable. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 19:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Information that will become dated quickly and is better available elsewhere. Wikipedia should not be a timetable. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, delete. RickK 22:46, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's automatically obsolete, and, even if it weren't, Syracuse Greece or Syracuse NY? Now hands up of all the people who find it significant. Geogre 00:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean Syracuse, Italy?
    • D'oh! Geogre 12:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely delete. Such things can really mess up wikipedia.
  • Well if you really think it's nothing for Wikipedia, delete it. But personally I don't think it's any different than many other over-detailed pages on Wikipedia. If I hadn't seen this kind of up-to-date information elsewhere on Wikipedia I wouldn't have put this kind of time into piling all that information together. newkai 03:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) Also I would like to say in response to WhisperToMe and Lucky 6.9 that would take far more than a timetable to look this up. You would need to look up SYR-IAD in the Independence Air timetable and the United Airlines timetable, then SYR-DCA and SYR-BWI in the US Airways timetable. I thought the whole great thing about Wikipedia (besides being free) is that it's up-to-date. Granted, this wouldn't be something for a paper version, but this is electronic. Anyways, I meant no harm, just thought it was interesting. newkai 12:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No offense taken. A legit effort and obvious thought given to it is always welcome even if it doesn't quite fit this format. Thanks for the contribution. - Lucky 6.9 22:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Qeng Ho — Add to this discussion

Qeng Ho is a fictional organization appearing in two novels by Vernor Vinge. There's nothing to say about it that couldn't better be said in the descriptions of the two novels. Delete. Gdr 20:48, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

Delete and merge with the novels. -- orthogonal 22:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: If you were reading the Vernor Vinge article, you already know everything this article says. If you weren't, then you don't learn anything here. Redirect at most. Geogre 00:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Redirects are cheap. -- Jmabel 00:45, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, redirected. VfD withdrawn. Gdr 21:28, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Obadiah Newcomb Bush — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush

Template:Persecution — Add to this discussion

Template:VFD/Persecution

July 4

Spiritual socialism — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 4 to July 10 2004, consensus was to redirect. Discussion:

This has been on Clean Up since April 26th. It's only linked article is Juan José Arévalo, where there is as much information as on this page. If this philosophy ever had followers or influences, two months of Clean Up didn't attract anyone to say. As it exists now, it says little and contributes nothing that isn't implicit or explicit in its parent article. Geogre 00:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Omary Ovesen — Add to this discussion

Article Omary Ovesen listed on WP:VFD July 4 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Looks like a vanity page. No Google hits.--Rlandmann 01:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Now it's time for the gloves to come off. This same user has four other similar articles up for deletion and at least one that appears to have been an attempt to avoid deletion. Delete all and block user. - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke or vanity or both. Andrewa 06:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Samuel J. Howard 06:36, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Waste of bytes. Ianb 07:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:43, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment (sorry, this was listed as a vote before but I've already voted!): Part of an attempt by an anon to host a genealogy project here. They use any one of a block of IPs so it's not trivial to contact them. (If you read this, consider creating a userid, it's free, logging in is optional so you lose nothing and we can then at least talk to you). Andrewa 21:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to significance. Average Earthman 12:29, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been on Speedy deletion, -Stevertigo 17:59, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Aarhus Airport — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 4 to July 10 2004, consensus was not reached, was listed on cleanup. Discussion:

Just runway information. Not even a stub here. --Rlandmann 02:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Same as above. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Send to Cleanup. Why is this here? It's a perfectly encyclopedic topic, just a junk article. Ambivalenthysteria 06:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. --Zigger 06:48, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
  • If there's an airport project underway, then certainly keep and move it there. I voted to delete because of another similar and suspect article already up for VfD. - Lucky 6.9 17:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Give the airport wikiproject a shot at it. Keep for now. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, I will make certain that this gets cleaned up. Burgundavia 01:15, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aarhus Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson v. Savoie — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Simpson v. Savoie

The Pedestal — Add to this discussion

Looks like an advertisement and/or a copyvio --Rlandmann 04:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Same user 68.19.120.34 has no previous edit history and has posted a LOT of substubs and possible copyvios with little more than brief blurbs and links to vanity sites. - Lucky 6.9 05:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And, this one is a copyvio from [14]. - Lucky 6.9 05:41, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paul Tennekes — Add to this discussion

Article Paul Tennekes listed on WP:VFD July 4 to July 10 2010, consensus was not to delete.

Maastricht Aachen Airport — Add to this discussion

Article assessment

Based on request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment, I reviewed article. It meets all the B checks, so I rated it a B. The article could use some copy-editing. It has several short paragraphs. Try to combine those or expand where needed. -fnlayson (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intro seems a bit long, some of the info in it could probably be better used in the main article, or merged with the first sentence like:- "Maastricht-Aachen airport (IA...) is a reg... from Maastricht and 15km from Aachen.". As for other criticism I concur with Fnlayson, better editting and fewer machine gun sentences.Petebutt (talk) 06:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Maastricht Aachen Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maastricht Aachen Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maastricht Aachen Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wildwood School — Add to this discussion

Votes for deletion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 4 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Unimportant school. →Raul654 06:50, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

    • If Wildwood should be deleted, then the entries for Harvard Westlake and Crossroads should be deleted. These are all prestigeous private schools in West Los Angeles.
Agreed - Crossroads School (lists 3 schools) should be deleted - there's nothing encyclopedic there either. PS - please sign your comments by typing for tildes (~~~~). →Raul654 06:56, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Right, well I don't see how the entries for any of these schools violates Wikipedia policy. By the way the previous link should have been for Harvard-Westlake School. Keep. (who???)
  • Keep. How could you want to delete all that good info? A stub is one thing, but this one is really good. Everyking 09:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But it reads like a brochure! Rewrite, at least. Stevertigo
  • Keep. I don't get what people have against schools when every township in the universe is regarded as sufficiently encyclopedic to be included. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 09:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rename: I have a beef against the presumption of calling something "Lakeside School" or the like, when there are dozens and dozens. Let's put these schools in their proper taxonomic position: Wildwood School, Los Angeles; Crossroads School, Los Angeles, etc. If anyone wants a reference for checking the uniqueness of American prep school names, go to the Peterson's Guide to Secondary Schools (free online). Some preps really deserve mention (Andover, Kent, Exeter, two or three of the Westminsters) because of their role in US political history, but they have to be named in such a way that they're not confused with the British schools they're named after or with each other. Geogre 12:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Geogre's suggestions. Perfectly legitimate topic. Ambivalenthysteria 13:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty good page for a school, but rename as described by Geogre -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote (I've already lost this argument), but Crossroads School is in Santa Monica, not Los Angeles. RickK 20:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can't see how this violates Wikipedia policy, it has a wealth of information about a new type of education, and as stated above, Harvard-Westlake School and Crossroads are also entries for celebrity private schools in West Los Angeles. Eskrima 23:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC) [moved from VfD]
  • Keep, per Everyking's and Kukkurovaca's arguments. I consider such topics as legitimate, as long as the articles are not useless stubs. If the authors take the time to write decent descriptions, let's keep them. --Alexandre 08:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, per Geogre's comments to rename. It also needs rewriting. -Stevertigo
  • While I'm new here, I can't think of any rational policy that would justify deleting this except for wasted hard drive space. I doubt that's a concern. At worst it adds nothing, though it certainly doesn't degrade. At best a few people out there are thrilled to find unexpected information on the school. Maybe Wikipedia will get to the point one day where additional inclusiveness becomes the new goal...a couple of tiers of importance beyond the traditional "encyclopedia." Rmalloy 21:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are a huge number of schools in LA; anything to help clear up issues and distinguish mediocrity from schools that are trying to provide good service is an improvement. A parent can always ignore this information, but not if it is not freely available. Ancheta Wis 18:47, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that more disambiguation is helpful in the name, but this is immaterial to the article being kept or not. (anon vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

End discussion


The link to West Los Angeles now points to the district of that name. I don't know the precise location of this school. If the link should point to the region, that page is now at Los Angeles Westside. EmergentProperty 06:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine - the school is on Olympic between Barrington & Bundy - WLA. Thanks for checking. -Willmcw 18:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

edits to Wildwood School page

I tried to edit the Wildwood School page today to correct inaccuracies and delete irrelevant information. I am the school's communication director, and while I understand there may be concern about conflict of interest, my only goal is to make sure the page accurately portrays the institution. My edits were undone almost immediately. How can I work with Wikipedia editors to update the content on the page? --Infoww (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who reverted your changes. I did so for a few reasons. One is that major overhauls should be discussed here or at least explained in the edit summary box. Another reason is that considerable information appears to have been lost. Unsourced information may be removed at any time, but wholesale deletions are not the best way of improving the project. Third, and most important, the changes were not in keeping with the encyclopedia's core policy, which requires that articles bewritten from the "neutral point of view". Asserting that "Wildwood School is a dynamic" school", or that "Students graduate with a genuine thirst for knowledge that they take with them to college and beyond" are biased or unverifiable statements. Finally, some of the material is copied directly from the Wildwood School website.[15] It's possible that you are the original author but the school trustees would be the copyright holder. Regardless, it's just as inappropriate to copy material about a school for an encylopedia article as it would be to copy material from an encylopedia for a school paper. I've left a "welcome" message on your talk page that contains links to important Wikipedia policies and guidelines for you to read. I also suggest reading the articles of some comparable schools. Harvard-Westlake School is an excellent example of a high quality school article.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Performing arts

The list of plays that the school has produced is very impressive. Especially the student-directed plays. Nonetheless, it is unusual for school articles to have a long list like that. This is an encyclopedia entry, not a booster page. If any productions have been reviewed in the local press then that'd be a good reason to include them. Perhaps the full list could perhaps go on the school's website?   Will Beback  talk  05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni Removal

Removed because the single entry (Tallulah Willis) is not "notable" on her own accord. Many children of celebrities have graduated from Wildwood School, but as of yet, none can be considered notable (aside from tabloid stories of which the parents are still the main subject/reason to take interest). If the section should be restored, some possibly notable entries may include: Nick Tweed-Simmons and Sophie Tweed-Simmons - Appeared on Gene Simmon's Family Jewels Rumer Willis - Actress in Sorority Row, 90210 Still, they are not noteworthy on their own accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.74.136 (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't see how this violates Wikipedia policy, it has a wealth of information about a new type of education, and as stated above, Harvard-Westlake School and Crossroads are also entries for celebrity private schools in West Los Angeles. Eskrima 23:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Collective intelligence agency — Add to this discussion

Article Collective intelligence agency listed on WP:VFD July 4 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

I searched on Google and found two hits. Both were links back to this page. There is no content explaining the phrase. There are links to other subjects, but I fail to see their relevance. Noisy 10:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Criminy! The whole thing "was conceived in June 2006?" They must really have some good intelligence there. If the whole earth is one brain (Douglas Adams would be proud), ok, but an "Agency?" Geogre 12:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wasn't there already a deletion debate on this article? MK 15:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've speed deleted collective intelligence agency as patent nonsense. Ftr it stated "The Gaia Mind hypothesis was conceived in June 2006...". -- There were a lot (dozens) of pages created by User:Information Ecologist (aka User:Information Habitat), including a lot of pages in the user space. Some of the pages created by this user got cleaned up; I guess some dedicated soul needs to look for the rest of them.... Incidentally collective-intelligence-agency.net is forwarded to collective intelligence agency here at WP. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that the user space abuse is continuing to some degree, we just got diverted to more pressing issues. Definitely some cleaning up to do at least. Andrewa 21:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Informationssystem — Add to this discussion

Page was listed on Wikipedia:Cleanup, but the content on this page is already covered (in a better way) at Information system. Marknew 11:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Rijndael_encryption_alogrithm — Add to this discussion

bad name alogrithm -> algorithm. Liso Article Rijndael encryption alogrithm listed on WP:VFD July 4 to July 12 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

  • Keep. Redirects that you think should be deleted should go on redirects for deletion, misspellings are usually kept in case someone outside of Wikipedia links to them. Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is weird. I don't think Wikipedia should "support" misspellings just because someone out there maybe uses misspelled links... Just my two cents, though. --Alexandre 08:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, perfectly reasonable redirect. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:39, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be inclined to delete this one, if it's needed replace it by one from alogrithm. A redirect from Rijndael encryption algorithm already exists. But as has been said, this isn't the place to raise this anyway. Andrewa 21:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete, it's just a typo! Erich 06:27, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete of course. the idea that random typos should be permanently kept is one of the silliest around. only common mispellings should be kept as redirects. --Zero 09:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

List of every mayor in the World — Add to this discussion

Article List of every mayor in the World listed on WP:VFD July 4 to July 10 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

List of every mayor in the World is one of those lists that will never serve any purpose and are virtually impossible to update and verify. Delete before it grows. JFW | T@lk 13:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's ridiculous - if every mayor of every municipality in the world were to be included, the list would be longer than a book! David Cannon 14:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Noisy 14:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete EddEdmondson 14:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugh my head hurts just thinking of the amount of updating ande checking this page would require. Delete! Delete now! Delete quickly! Aaaaaarrgghh! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:34, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Was this created as a protest/joke? Geogre 15:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This just has to be a joke. Amusing, but delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:26, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 19:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • BJAODN and delete. cesarb 19:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • An impossibly huge topic, delete. Everyking 21:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. Edit pattern by this user is an interesting contribution list, unsure what if anything to do at this stage. Andrewa 21:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Surely created as a point/protest? Delete Average Earthman 12:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No joke, but delete because of the improper naming convention. The title could have been inspired from the Mayor article which has a section "Mayors of the World", which indeed aims to list every mayor in the world ! However Category:List of Mayors already exists, so creating a list of lists would be duplication. Jay 15:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but find a way to generate automatically at runtime from other pages by modifying wikipedia code. -- orthogonal 12:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Del, the info is useful to each city's article but compilation adds nothing. --Jerzy(t) 06:55, 2004 Jul 7 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's ridiculous - if every mayor of every municipality in the world were to be included, the list would be longer than a book! David Cannon 14:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Noisy 14:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete EddEdmondson 14:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jonathan Despres — Add to this discussion

This guy has a high school diploma!!! (delete - vanity) Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:07, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete EddEdmondson 14:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Vanity, thy name is Despres. Delete quickly. - Lucky 6.9 17:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Couldn't figure out if he was looking for penpals or was posting a CV or meainging to make a user talk page. Geogre 17:28, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is comprehensible is insignificant. Average Earthman 12:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please dont delete, I want to give to people my vanity lol

  • Then create a user page. It's free, you can talk about yourself from now until Saint Swivven's Day and you can contribute other articles. - Lucky 6.9 21:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Universal Vehiclism — Add to this discussion

Delete. This page appears to be bogus. The only references to "universal vehiclism" are in Wikipedia and its imitators. A search for Calvin Chau likewise leads back to Wikipedia. No evidence of a Calvin Chau, philosopher from Singapore. There is a Malaysian artist by that name. The Venerable Sheng Yen doesn't appear to have talked about Universal Vehiclism and his teachings are inconsistent with what is put forward in this article. The Dharma Drum Mountain website has nothing on UniversalVehiclism. Sunray 16:59, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC) from vfd main page

  • Delete. "Universal Vehiclism" -wikipedia gets 66 hits, most of which still are Wikipedia-originated. Niteowlneils 22:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: It seems pretty unique; an evangelical Buddhism centered on a single figure alone? Combined with the lack of Google hits, it seems like this is probably a minor schismatic group. The article doesn't give us much reference to a world outside its own claims. Geogre 01:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Funny, I've seen this article before, but just thought it was some legitimate strangeness out of Singapore. And it is, but it also appears to be unencyclopedic vanity or original research. - Nat Krause 09:36, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Non-violent child discipline — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Non-violent child discipline

Absolute sex — Add to this discussion

See Talk:Absolute sex for the previous discussion on this article.

New Votes

  • For what it's worth, and I hope that's something, my feelings are the same: a separate article is warranted if the parent concept's page is too large or the topic is so famous that people outside of a Unification Church setting will be searching for it. I don't think either criterion is met, myself, and would like to see it merged back to Unification Church. Geogre 00:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Looking at the article in question, someone more expert in Unificationist theology needs to explain how this is more than the avoidance of fornication and adultery. If this is not done it needs simply a mention in the Unification Church, fornication, and adultery articles. As it stands delete.--Samuel J. Howard 04:53, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; agree with SJH above. Jeeves 06:52, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Still merge into Unification Church and delete. Noisy 08:03, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Change to redirect, just in case someone has heard of it and searches for the term, though I agree with Geogre that it's unlikely. I added the following sentence to the "Celibacy and marriage" section of the Unification Church article: "The Unification Church uses the term 'absolute sex' to refer to its teaching about sexual morality, which is essentially abstinence before marriage and fidelity thereafter." If the absolute sex article is kept as is, then its occurrence in that sentence should be wikilinked, but someone clicking on it for more information will be disappointed. JamesMLane 10:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful content with Unification Church and redirect -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect - David Gerard 18:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and rederect. Fire Star 20:50, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incidentally, I was who re-listed this; reformats of the page make that unclear (I also gave Graham ☺ a rather rough time of it). I don't see much point in having "Absolute sex" as a redirect, especially given the "[[newspeak" nature of it: the concept has more to do with abstinence and monogamy than sex per se. -- orthogonal 11:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Unless there is another use you canfind for the title 'Absolute sex' it is my understanding that a redirect is always preferable to conserve the edit history of the merged material. And don't worry about giving me a hard time, I have very thick skin... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


List of common grapple of martial arts — Add to this discussion

I originally listed this on Cleanup. User:Poccil has since put the VfD header on it, but never listed it here. It probably better belongs here. Written by a non-English speaker, who has not bothered to expand it, with an invalid title. RickK 20:29, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC) Re List of common grapple of martial arts

I originally listed this on Cleanup. User:Poccil has since put the VfD header on it, but never listed it here. It probably better belongs here. Written by a non-English speaker, who has not bothered to expand it, with an invalid title. RickK 20:29, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete. Unsuitable title, no useful content, only author anon. Unsure whether it's useful to try to contact them, their usefulness to English Wikipedia looks doubtful. Andrewa 21:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete EddEdmondson 21:16, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 23:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The author obviously meant well, but as the content is covered at the individual styles' articles as well as at martial arts, Chinese martial arts, Japanese martial arts and wrestling there isn't much point to a redundant cleanup. Delete. Fire Star 16:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • DEL, for Fire Star's reasons. --Jerzy(t) 04:07, 2004 Jul 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsuitable title, no useful content, only author anon. Unsure whether it's useful to try to contact them, their usefulness to English Wikipedia looks doubtful. Andrewa 21:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)



West Teleservices — Discussion

Wiki Article or Ad?

This reads more like an ad for West than an independent Wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.179.4 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STILL reads like a document written by West themselves. A quick check just now showed many of the same sentences on their own Web page. A lot of the differences I saw between the wiki article and West's own page is that the bill collection nature of West's activities is very downplayed in the wiki article, even though the Web pages for West Asset Management and West Corp indicate that bill collection is their main activity. Odds that their 10K filings would agree with that estimation, anyone? The entire article badly needs editing for NPOV, plus additional material from knowledgeable contributors would likely put the company's activities and policies in a light more appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Phrases like "most trusted" absolutely have no place here. 69.17.65.107 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed NPOV

This seemed to carry little relevance and a strong NPOV, thus was removed:

  • West Corporation Prides itself on being a company geared towards taking care of Management, while the average worker, earning a decent wage but paying outrageously for any type of medical benefits, seems to be the stones on which the management teams steps to get ahead.
  • "Removed NPOV," indeed. That was unintentional humor, I suppose. It sounds like the article needs a section for 'Criticisms of West' or 'Labor Controversies' or some such. Probably 'Criticisms' with a few subsections under that, including 'Labor Controversies'. Simply deleting contributions that don't show the company in a good light is what seems to have been done here. I simply don't have the personal resources to get involved in some kind of edit war with the unsigned contributor who said this has "little relevance". Nobody wants to make this a forum for lone cranks to carry on their grudges against huge organizations, but the deleted contribution is consistent with assertions and analyses by many economists and journalists about virtually every medium-sized or large corporation in the U.S.A. "Not relevant" according to who, I wonder? 69.17.65.107 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Westlogographic.jpg

Image:Westlogographic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Employee count and revenues

Employee count is estimated by the company at 39,000 in a news release 7/23/2008 regarding 2nd quarter results (http://investor.shareholder.com/west/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=324077). Revenues are approximately $2.1 billion from the Annual Report 10K SEC filing (http://investor.shareholder.com/west/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-08-58769) Comcgavren (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Chuck McGavren[reply]

Subsidiaries and Operations

Adding this in talk d/t jerk editors. Anyways, this article should mention the company's subsidiaries and cover fully its operations per http://www.west.com/about/

Subsidiaries:

Intercall (World's largest conferencing and collaboration service provider)

Intrado (Provides 9-1-1 and emergency communications infrastructure, systems and services to telecommunications service providers and government public safety agencies in the United States and worldwide.)

Operations:

West at Home: Home-based Agents

Facility-based Agents: Various facilities in the USA and abroad.

Business-to-Business Sales:

Direct Response Solutions: Handles mass media adverts

Receivables Management: This is debt collection

Automated Services: Automated IVRs

Conchobair (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Restore Reverted Edits

I made a series of edits in August 2017, and again in November 2017 that were reverted by another editor, removing major relevant information, and I would like to request these edits be restored, or at least permission to return some of the relevant content.

1) August Edits: In August I updated the info box, added the lines of business section, location section, corporate leadership section, and industries & markets served section, as well as streamlining the history & acquisition section for concision/clarity, and updated outdated external links.

Though the location and corporate leadership sections were later edited by other users as inappropriate for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, the majority of my edits remained uncontested until November. I hold that the additional information I added in Lines of business, & industries & markets served is relevant, accurate, encyclopedic content, and should be restored.

2) November Edit & Reversion:

I added a short section detailing West's acquisition by Apollo Funds.

After this edit was published, another user removed this section, and reverted back to an old version, which predated my August additions, as well as another section regarding the lawsuit with Schoolmessanger. Though other users have returned information regarding the merger to the page, I hold that this major reversion renders this page less accurate, and ask that the merger section, class action lawsuit section, lines of business, and industries & markets served be returned in order to most accurately represent the corporate entity to wikipedia readers.

3){{Connected contributor (paid)}} should only be used on talk pages. COI Disclosure: I am employed by R.Clement Creative, a creative consulting firm. West Corporation is our client, and retains us to develop content that accurately represents West within the Wikipedia's guidelines. I was not aware initially of Wikipedia's COI disclosure rules when making my previous edits, which was a failure on my part. From now on I will strive to follow them.

I'm contacting the editor who made the major reversions, and I hope we can have a productive discussion.

As an entry for Intrado and Intrado history, article is factually inaccurate.

This wikipedia article presents Intrado as a rebranded name of West. When you look to the history of Intrado you're seeing West's history instead. Intrado goes far further back than West and was a West acquisition before West ultimately chose to rebrand as Intrado. This article misses all of the pre-West history of Intrado and its predecessors. 199.71.211.90 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. West and Intrado started as separate companies, combined for a while, changed names around (causing a lot of confusion) and then split apart again. At this point, this page really needs to be split out entirely between West and Intrado. . . Ccashell (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eazel — Add to this discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (Yes, I'm closing this almost a decade later, but since it was not formally closed then, I'm closing it now.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A company that went out of business in 2001 and apparently didn't succeed in doing what they set out to do. RickK 23:15, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep, this company is fairly well known and they did create the Nautilus file manager, which is standard in GNOME desktop. Burgundavia 01:32, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable failure. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just barely notable enough for inclusion. We have articles on many people, companies, nations, deities, etc. that didn't succeed in doing what they set out to do. Hey, Einstein didn't nail the unified field theory, Napoleon didn't conquer the world, and Schubert didn't finish his eighth symphony. Dpbsmith 23:26, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: there was much hype about this product / company some years ago. Keep this page
  • Keep cesarb 23:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

July 5

gulliver — Discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 5 to July 13 2004, page was turned into a disambig. Discussion:

Fictional character from the Nintendo Animal Crossing game series. Scanning the article, and searching Wikipedia for Nintendo Animal Crossing seems to indicate that VERY few characters were deemed, by the many contributors to the rather lengthy article, to need a separate article (only two exist--also making gulliver an orphan), and I support that position 110%. Niteowlneils 01:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. All definitions are not created equal, and the world will not long remember (or miss) a Nintendo character. But obscuring Jonathan Swift's character with this ephemeron is a cultural crime. -- orthogonal 02:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I may be alone in finding things like this interesting, but I suppose there wouldn't be any harm in merging it, assuming there is not much more to say about the character than this article already says. Everyking 04:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless pseudoinformation & name collision with a real topic. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way should this be allowed to obscure the literary reference. "Useless pseudoinformation" really does apply here. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete please! As a Swift fan, I'd love it if "Gulliver" (with a capital letter and lower case) redirected only to the fairly good Gulliver's Travels article. It would be a sad thing for a user looking for book report material to hand in something based on Nintendo because she or he couldn't find the shift key. Geogre 01:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that Wikipedia articles don't have case sentitivity for the first letter - Gulliver and gulliver are the same. Morwen - Talk 07:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I redirected Gulliver to Gulliver's Travels. So no need to delete. Gdr 12:22, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it should be a disambig instead? It's also a place in Michigan (about which we apparently don't have an article, but could use one). Everyking 21:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Along those lines, there are other (now obsolete) meanings for the word, as well as the use in A Clockwork Orange as faux-Russian for "head." A lot of things got called Gullivers after the book came out. The ones I can think of are more lexical than encyclopedic, though. Geogre 22:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Disambiguate rather than redirect, on the Michigan basis alone. -- Jmabel 03:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguate, There's also a silent and B western actress named Dorothy Gulliver. I don't know if she will make it into the Wiki any time soon, but she had a huge filmography. Besides if Gulliver is a Nintendo character, it's going to be submitted again and again and again Williamb 13:42, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk) Hey, I think we should include the school Gulliver Prepatory. It would help the users. End discussion

Naccident — Add to this discussion

Article Naccident listed on WP:VFD July 5 to July 12 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

No Google hits for this term as used here (only some for an obscure Japanese company, and typos). --Shibboleth 02:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • keep / dictionary, primarily used as a network admin phrase for 'accident' or accident of a large nature.
  • Toss it if it's another @#*&^$% neologism. No hitties, no keepies. - Lucky 6.9 22:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh, and no sockpuppets. Naughty. - Lucky 6.9 04:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Information-starved and neologism. Geogre 22:48, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mechanical Gravity Theory — Discussion

Only one website is found for theory of Mechanical Gravity, and only one site (that's not a Wikipedia feed) for Mechanical Gravity Theory. (Should also be removed from List of alternative, speculative and disputed theories.) Niteowlneils 03:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Independent research, and appears to be a nonsense theory from an armchair physicist. An Internet forum post does not constitute "publication". --Shibboleth 03:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: original research. Note to readers: despite the association with Stephen Wolfram, mechanical gravity theory wasn't invented by him but rather User:Marksuppes. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC
  • Delete EddEdmondson 08:42, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Decumanus 23:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Clearly original research. Delete. --Alexandre 21:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Communications management — Add to this discussion

Essay with no hope of cleanup. Guanaco 03:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree that this needs cleanup. Most of the article sounds factually correct (although I dont know for sure). The problem is we have no regular contributors that have expertise in Human resource management. In fact, if you look through the list of human resource management topics you will find about half of them are at this level of quality or lower. This area is by far the poorest part of the business/economics section of the 'opedia. But the solution is to fix, not erase. mydogategodshat 16:46, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with mydog's points Thesteve 18:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Marine aquarium fish species — Add to this discussion

How-to, tone

This article has some major issues. It's written like a how-to in some places, and its tone is unencyclopedic. The "care level" section was removed on the correspond list of freshwater aquarium fish species due to how-to content. It should be removed here as well. Antrogh (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of this article is itself instructional in nature. The obvious direction of this and the corresponding article for freshwater fish species seems to be to direct readers to species that are kept in aquariums and how to appropriately select them or care for them. Virtually all species of fish can be kept in an artificial setting with the correct conditions and resources, barring a few extremes that may only be dependent on technological capability. "Reef safe" is almost as instructional as "Care level", but I agree that care level is contrastingly very subjective. If many sources are in agreement on a species' care level then stating "This species is easy to care for in aquariums" isn't necessarily instructional… but I agree the way it's presented in the table seems to be.
Feel free to be bold when editing articles, especially when implementing changes that are consistent with others that have not yet been contested in a reasonable amount of time. Rhinopias (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to delete a whole column of information at once without having to delete the care level section individually from each entry? (If I could figure that out, I would have done this already.) Antrogh (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go into visual editor and right-click on the column. "Delete column" will show up as an option. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of marine aquarium fish species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the text in this list from?

The sections of text introducing the categories of fish read more like they were taken from a fish handbook than like encyclopedic text, and aren't wikilinked. Is this a copyright issue of some sort? How would I check? Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be from an online source. (Copyvio detector results here, but took a long while to load for me.) I imagine it was just written poorly from an encyclopedic point of view. Rhinopias (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section Photographs

Each section of marine animals is accompanied by a photo on the right side depicting an example of it, while this is great in concept the current way it is carried out looks incredibly sloppy. I'd recommend reformatting it to match other pages that add image media in and have an accompanying border and textbox below describing a brief amount of detail about the photo. It'd look more professional in that regard and less like someone was transcribing a budget tourist pamphlet. I might be able to do some of it later when I have time although it'd be a bit of an undertaking and I would need at least a few days to read up enough on the subjects to be confident doing so.

Jyggalypuff (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I'm not sure how it got this way. It's basically just a matter of converting the plain File: format into thumbnail format, by inserting thumb| into the line (and from what's still there, I'm guessing it used to be that way). I did it for the first section here: [16], where I also fixed the caption by deleting "A" and correcting the capitalization. If you would be so kind as to do the same thing for the remaining sections, that would be great. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found that I had some time, so I converted all of them to thumbs myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I only just saw the response now. Thank you for converting them. Jyggalypuff (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse shark and Wobbegong

This article lists the Nurse Shark and the Ornate Wobbegong, before going on to remark "Grows to over 14 feet and will outgrow any home aquarium" and "Grows to near nine feet and will outgrow a home aquarium". This raises several questions. First, the entry for the Ornate Wobbegong is inconsistent with the article Ornate wobbegong which says "The maximum reported length of the ornate wobbegong is 1.17 metres (3.8 ft). Reports of a larger maximum size are due to confusion with the recently revalidated gulf wobbegong, O. halei, which for the most part is found further south than the ornate wobbegong.". So which is it? 9 feet or 3.8 feet? Second, if these species would infact outgrow any home aquarium, should we still list them? Their articles don't mention fishkeeping. I suppose unscrupulus dealers probably sell young members of these species to ignorant aquarists, and some readers may benefit from seeing the warning on this list, but I'm afraid others could see them listed here as a sign that they are indeed legit "marine aquarium fish species". Your thoughts? I'm sure there's many other entries on here that aren't commonly kept in aquaria and deserve similar review, these two just jump out at me. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds about this. I agree with you that we should not mislead readers into trying to keep fish that will outgrow their tanks. On the other hand, I do know that there is a business in setting up super-large home aquariums for keeping sharks, as well as a number of sources that decry the practice. And in freshwater, there is no shortage of people who buy silver dollars or oscars as little fish and then are shocked at how they grow, and there has been a history about some giant catfishes. I tend to think that if there is any sort of documented fishkeeping (not including public aquaria, etc.), then it's fair to include the species in the list. But when that happens, we need to accurately source the maximum size (sometimes difference in numbers reflect in-captivity versus in-the-wild), and to clearly indicate issues of potential unsuitability. As an interim measure, I'd support rather liberal use of Category:Inline cleanup templates on the list. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"On the other hand, I do know that there is a business in setting up super-large home aquariums for keeping sharks, as well as a number of sources that decry the practice" Do you have any good sources that these particular fish are kept that way/sources about this business in general? Come to think of it, lack of sources is a big problem on all the "list of X aquarium Y" pages, but usually the main articles linked from the lists have sources and "In the Aquarium" sections while here they do not. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From just a quick web search, I found these two: [17], [18]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrahi — Add to this discussion

Article Jerrahi listed on WP:VFD July 5 to July 12 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Religious proselytyzing. RickK 06:00, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • And rambling to boot. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 07:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Religious manifesto. If it's a notable one, the article could be stubified and that would be a better outcome. Make sure if you do that the stub says clearly both what this is and why it's notable. Andrewa 22:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Definitely proselytizing. Deep into the thicket of the article, you see that this is a sect with North American branches and that, at the end, you're supposed to call someone in NYC. Call it an ad. Geogre 00:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. This kind of language is much needed in these times. A language of reverence that honors old values that have been forgotten and inspires some to label it as proselitysm. ¡!
  • Keep it. It is informative, respectful and has historical data.
  • This arises the question, what is sect for Wikipedia?
    • Comment: Those last two unsigned votes and one comment are by user:201.129.48.54, who is I guess unaware that not only don't multiple votes count, neither do those from anons. Andrewa 11:10, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Biopic — Add to this discussion


Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 5 to July 12 2004, was redirected. Discussion:

Dictdef of a Variety-speak slang word. RickK 06:21, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Same user posted a bizarre dicdef/substub called Late night that I've nominated as a speedy. If anyone objects, please feel free to move it here. - Lucky 6.9 06:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Historical drama film. Jay 15:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Biographical films are an important genre of film about which there could eventually be a great encyclopedia article. So I say move and redirect. Gdr 17:56, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
  • If there were a Biographical film, this would be a redirect, seems to me. There is a ton to say about biographical films, and "biopic" is very frequently used in movie reviews now. It's conceivable that someone would want to search for it or that an author writing about a movie might use it on Wikipedia. The content of this entry, though, is less than nil: it's wrong. Geogre 19:16, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten this as a (hopefully) more acceptable stub. Is this okay now? Ambivalenthysteria 14:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's better and a fair stub, but would you mind creating Biographical film, putting these contents there, and then allowing Biopic to Redirect, or would you prefer Biographical film be a Redirect to Biopic and then get more bulk to it? The genre goes back to the very origins of cinema and has remained popular, whether we're talking Pride of the Yankees (sports biopic subgenre), Wizard of Menlo Park (heroic subgenre, I guess), or the political biopics. I don't think Lumiere did one, but Edison did, I think. Geogre 15:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

The Robert Johnson Songbook — Add to this discussion

Fair use rationale for Image:Trjs.jpg

Image:Trjs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect, don't delete. Gdr 12:17, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)

Party designation in early United States Congresses — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Party designation in early United States Congresses


Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro — Add to this discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Result recorded by Phil | Talk 16:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional Charter of Serbia and Montenegro

Just a copy from [19]. No reason not to use external links instead. If it is kept, it belongs on Wikisource, of course. -- Jao 10:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Stubified. The article can be expanded IMO, it's a very interesting document. Andrewa 21:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course it was easier to make a stub than to format document!Avala 10:12, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not sure what this is going to have that isn't well covered in other articles on S&M. Snowspinner 18:35, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
    • Than I am affraid that we will have to delete all articles about constitutions! Of course it is and idea of one simplifed mind!!!!!!!!!!!!!Avala 13:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • What does S&M have to do with Montenegro? --oh, wait, never mind. Keep. -Sean Curtin 23:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Bloodmeister Clan — Add to this discussion

Some MMORPG clan ad. Ausir 11:03, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable, ad —siroχo 12:39, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad for non-existant item (clan for a game that hasn't been relased?!). [[User:Akadruid|akaDruid (Talk)]] 14:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, couldn't be less notable. —Stormie 03:50, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, see akaDruid's comment. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

C.L.SF.N.S — Add to this discussion

Article C.L.SF.N.S listed on WP:VFD July 5 to July 12 2004, listing was unchallenged. Discussion:

"The C.L.SF.N.S, is the newest navigation system in the united states" - so new in fact that all Google has of it is a wikipedia copy. Orphan, doesn't appear notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • The geography checks out, so it might be accurate, but the only claim to notability given in the article is that it's the newest (river) corridor in the US. Delete unless someone knows why this is a notable feat of engineering or transportation. Geogre 17:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cirilo McSween — Add to this discussion

Apart from the fact the article looks dubious, there are a great lack of google hits for someone who "established a national Olympic record"... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Don't know if he deserves an article or not, but this one is copyvio. If you follow the link in the article, it's a Chicago TV news article on this guy, and the text of the article is lifted from there. Geogre 12:48, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kevin Van der Woude — Add to this discussion

Pure vanity; delete. Lupo 12:12, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete EddEdmondson 12:27, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: He does apologize, though, so give him points for that. Geogre 14:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to correct spelling, Kevin van der Woude, oh and delete. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Damnit, stupid vanity articles are supposed to leave something for us to make fun of. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And this one is particularly susceptible to ridicule. Thanks for the chuckle, Kev...but you're outta here. - Lucky 6.9 17:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Cadvision — Add to this discussion

Someone posted this as an obvious ad. Looks like a legit delete. - Lucky 6.9 18:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert by anon, and orphan. Andrewa 21:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotional, not notable enough. Dpbsmith 23:28, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I posted this here, but VFD went screwy, so I went to bed) Ambivalenthysteria 01:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bannergatta Road — Add to this discussion

badly written page on a road in Bangalore by User:Manikraina . If it is a significant road, this needs a lot of cleanup. User did not respond to his talk page and has special:contributions/Manikraina. Note however, that this chap could still become a useful Wikipedian. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) — we had a chat, he seems a nice guy. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:56, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I've travelled on this road, so I agree on the nightmarishness part ;) Send to NPOV. Jay 16:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a lot of crowded roads in poor condition in the world, and I don't see why I'm supposed to care about this one. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have traveled down this road as well, and it is nightmarish, but it doesn't merit an article with the content that is in it now. [[User:AmarChandra|Amar | Talk]] 14:57, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Honeywell Bangalore — Add to this discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 5 to July 13 2004, was redirected to Honeywell. Discussion:

I think this is a vanity page about User:Manikraina's office. Redirect to Honeywell is, on reflection, probably the best bet. Dunc_Harris|☺ 15:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


  • Keep. It is poorly written, needs some cleaning up and formatting - no reason to delete. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 16:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Large multinational corporations have offices in multiple nations. That's part of what makes them multinational. But that doesn't mean said separate offices need their own articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

  • Keep. It is poorly written, needs some cleaning up and formatting - no reason to delete. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 16:32, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dodd middle school — Add to this discussion

Article Dodd Middle School was listed on WP:VFD July 5 to July 12 2004, rough consensus was to delete (10 delete, 5 keep, 2 anon votes). Discussion:

Middle schools are out, right (with the possible exception of Dragon School). Dunc_Harris|☺16:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Middle schools are out. It would have to be a terribly singular middle school to make it (maybe Horace Mann, but probably not). And then there's my constant gripe about naming. Geogre 17:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Sorry, we don't have articles on middle schools or primary school (except, of course, Battle School). Delete. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:39, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Kiss it goodbye. - Lucky 6.9 18:14, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Middle schools are in. Keep. anthony (see warning)
  • Keep if not a copyvio. Someone explain to me the logic of keeping all high schools but deleting all middle schools. There would be more logic in requiring a certain number of students and/or a certain number of years in existence (and therefore a certain number of total students over the course of time). This school, however, has over 800 students and 45 years of history, in both respects more than many high schools. Everyking 21:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The logical position is to include only notable schools. However, whenever deleting a non-notable high school is proposed, people object; you object consistently. Some of us hoped that allowing high schools would be a reasonable compromise that would avoid the need for lengthy VfD discussions. Dpbsmith 23:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Thousands of people have attended this school! If a school has only a few hundred students and has only existed for a few years, I might agree with deletion, but this is of great importance to the lives of thousands of people. Everyking 00:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Of course you should only include notable schools. This is essentially the definition of notable (worthy of note). We include all high schools, because all high schools are notable, by the fact that they are high schools. anthony (see warning)
  • Comment: Sounds like my old elementary school. Please, can we just draw the line at high schools? Or, at least set minimum inclusion rules? I can just see this site overwhelmed with kiddie-wiki from students given an assignment to write about their school. - Lucky 6.9 21:22, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there were to be a criterion set up, I would nominate that it not be numbers, or years, but significance. I'm sure that, given just the population, PS 1 in NYC will have terribly famous alumni, but is the school itself notable? Thus, the first all-gay high school, just now in creation, would be significant, but Plan B City High would not, despite having graduated Richard Nixon, Pat Boone, and Ellie Mae Clampet. That's if there were a criterion other than high schools stay and middle/elementary schools go. Geogre 21:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Also, towns (and I get frustrated with them, too) are different from middle and high schools in that they will have historical significances, connections to nearby schools, places in biographies, etc. Perhaps Manassas, VA would have been considered insignificant in 1970, but now significant, and always historically so. St. Mary's, GA seems insignificant now, but in the Revolutionary War, it wasn't. I don't see public schools having anything like this import, and especially not with primary schools. If there is a reason to believe that the school does something notable (teaches without walls, was the first that had no curriculum, etc.) that would make it forever necessary information for knowing the town or pupils, yes. Otherwise, look at how primary schools are treated in history and biography texts. Geogre 13:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I perceive no valid reason to include this particular article about this particluar school in Wikipedia. Dpbsmith 23:35, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's no reason to draw the line at middle schools. Ambivalenthysteria 02:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wrong side of the line. SWAdair | Talk 04:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dpbsmith. Just because something affected thousands of people, that doesn't mean it's important. Otherwise we'd be including articles on individual grocery stores and McDonald's franchise locations. "This Kroger store stocks tomatillos and is located in a shopping center with a Bed Bath & Beyond." Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • But surely you can agree that schools affect their students quite a bit more than grocery stores affect their customers? Everyking 05:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure, a middle school has more personal impact. The important part is that they are all essentially the same. A single article could cover all of the actual substance of most articles on schools, including this one. There's nothing here that provides it with any meaningful separation from any other middle school. Take out the utterly generic bits and you're left with an address, the name of the principal, and two sentences on where it got its uninspired name. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • There's also school colors, school nickname, the fact that it is a blue ribbon school, the name of the assistant principal, and school hours. It's a lot more interesting than many of the articles on US cities, many of which incidently affect fewer people. anthony (see warning)
  • I'm sitting on the fence about schools right now. However for any text to be viable long term in Wikipedia it has to enyclopedic and maintained. This article - apart from needing a major rewrite - contains too much detail which will be outdated in a few months; who will maintain this level of detail? I would rather see a short "stubby" entry (xxx School, located in Hicksville, USA, was founded in 1940 by Reginald Scrubbins and is part of Gardez L'Eau School District) and a link to the school's own site (if it has one), which will probably be maintained with more energy. Also, the title should more descriptive, "Dodd Middle School, Cheshire, Connecticut" Ianb 06:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've cleaned the text up significantly. There is still a bit of outdatable information, though, which I have prefixed with "as of 2004". anthony (see warning)
  • Delete: If there were entries for every school in every town in every country in the world ... Noisy 13:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • ...then we'd have the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever. Your point? anthony (see warning)
      • You won't mind me creating an entry for every atom in the fingernail on my left little finger, then? ;-) Seriously, for a catalogue of individual schools, surely it would be more appropriate to start a separate SchoolWiki, after the fashion of the EvoWiki where individual schools can advertise their history, curricula and achievements. Noisy 14:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't see why we need to create a whole new wiki just to put encyclopedia articles on schools. anthony (see warning)
  • Comment: There are a few good reasons I could run past you. For example, a paper encyclopedia would never include these. And yes, I know this isn't paper. Also, most schools in this day and age have their own websites. Why mirror them here? Also, please refer back to the reasons I've already given. Besides, a separate wiki site that schools could access to their hearts' content is a fabulous idea. It would certainly be more useful than listing them here. - Lucky 6.9 22:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 03:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! You mean the fictitious Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is allowed, but not a real middle school!? Heheh. As long as it's a decent article (not "ABC School is a middle school in ABC City, ABC State, ABC Country") I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Maybe this school does have a history. Just because it's not in a feature film does not mean it's not worthy! newkai 11:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah, well, that's an interesting point. You say "ABC School is a middle school in ABC City, ABC State, ABC Country" won't do, and I agree. But the school would still affect the same "thousands of people" that Everyking and anthony evince as a reason for keeping such articles. My own feeling is that it is reasonable to insist that article on local interest topics should be detailed, circumstantial, colorful, and well-written on first insertion. That is, there are some situations in which stub articles are useful because they are likely to serve as a nucleus around which larger articles will crystallize, and some in which they are not useful. I would have to say that Dodd middle school is more than a stub, but I don't honestly feel that it conveys very much to anyone who isn't an alum and I doubt that it is rich enough in detail to give an alum warm fuzzies, either. With, say, a photo of the school, and a scan of the cover of the student magazine I'd vote keep. What does need to be weighed in the balance is that disk space is cheap, and also that a useless article that nobody ever reads does not do much harm to Wikipedia. People judge Wikipedia on the basis of the specific articles they look up. In case that's too even handed to interpret, I still vote to delete. Just thinking out loud about the basis on which I made this decision. Dpbsmith 00:38, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Notability. This is not a hard concept to understand. Nothing in this article suggests that this school is notable. So Delete. People need to think before they write though, there certainly are notable middle schools, such as Eaglebrook School, the national "Schools to Watch" http://www.mgforum.org/Improvingschools/STW/STWbackground.htm of the Middle School movement, and Greenwich Country Day School.
  • Keep - It's Blue Ribbon School (no idea what that is yet). Student and staff design capacity would better then current student and staff size (constants are easier to maintain then variables). --Buster 07:35, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Friesian Institute — Add to this discussion

About a "political orientation" quiz. The institute does seem to actually exist, though. Pyrop 16:51, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not an article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fire Star 16:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The historical content should be on the Friesian school or just a part of an article on Jakob Freis. The modern "Friesian School 4th series" of the linked website is barely a footnote to that information. Oddly enough, none of this seems to have anything to do with Freisland, which should also have an article.--Samuel J. Howard 22:06, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

A Theory of Everything — Add to this discussion

(William M. Connolley 19:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Page is gobbledegook, and pretty well duplicates the gobbledegook at Relative motion theory.

(William M. Connolley 20:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)) Unified field theory is more of the same, as is Wave Structure of Matter Theory

Area code 201 — Add to this discussion

Misinformation regarding rotary dialing

Hey folks! The stated rationale of assigning area codes based on population, so as to minimize total rotary dialing time is accurate AFAIK, but 201 is a substantially "longer" code than 212, the code for New York City. This is because on rotary phones, dialing a zero resulted in *ten* clicks. So, 201 is a 13-click number. 212 is actually the "shortest" possible area code, at five clicks. AlexCruise (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information was unsourced and just plain wrong. I have removed it. phreakydancin (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Area code 201

Keep it! Useful info! Maybe some people wouldn't find such an article interesting, but I think the ever-increasing number of area codes is pretty cool.172.162.112.139 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From VfD:

Barely a stub, and do we want an article about each of the hundreds of area codes? RickK 19:10, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC) Re-listed on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion Graham ☺ | Talk 23:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These articles have use value in tracking down the geographic location of incoming calls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.200.123 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but relocate it and the others to North American area code xxx. –Hajor
  • I live in the 760 area code. It's a spinoff of both the 714 and 619 area codes and is the largest in California, stretching along the eastern half of the state from just above San Diego to well past the Sierra Nevadas. Now...does anyone really care? Besides Anthony, that is. :^) Move to the list of area codes. - Lucky 6.9 21:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Great idea, move it and wait in anticipation for a few created by myself! And then I'll create an article for all the exchanges in my area code and list every phone number in each exchange. That'd sort of be like my threatened Syracuse to Washington, DC flights article! No, but seriously, area codes is a good idea. Just move it to the normed format. newkai 22:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I also support the idea of moving to North American Area Code XXX -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Graham, esp. since some area codes (e.g. 202, 212, etc.) are legitimately famous. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:58, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: not notable, subject to change. Only a few area codes are notable, we don't need articles for the rest. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as this can be easily checked, and information in these is often hard to find in one unified source. Burgundavia 00:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia that is subject to change and is easily available in other places where it is professionally maintained. (I personally downloaded a similar list as a Palm app.) Content is adequately covered in the main article List of North American area codes. Rossami 04:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why do we need articles on area codes with no particular significance? This seems to fall under my "that's why the rest of the internet exists" criterion. We don't need to mirror every bit of information in existance, especially if it's easilly available elsewhere, which area codes are. Isomorphic 07:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Quickly before it spawns Area codes that begin with "2" - Tεxτurε 17:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't List of North American area codes enough? Unless there's enough for any particular area code to require more than a one-sentence writeup, why have one for each code? This is better suited to a simple list than anything else, and we already have that. This is just useless WikiGlut. --Fastfission 22:24, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC) Okay, it's been rewritten, but I think maybe it should just be renamed "Area codes of the New Jersey area" or something like that, as it's about more than one, now. Or better yet, as an example in an Area codes article about how electronic communications have created new area code splits. So, I guess I change my vote to merge and move to a more appropriate article -- the article is not about "Area code 201," but that instead about how New Jersey has a billion area codes. --Fastfission 23:56, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. WikiGlut indeed. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article has been substantially fleshed out, and is interesting. I don't know if most US area codes have a history like this, but this one justifies an article.--gadfium 00:57, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jersey City and redirect. Things like that belong to a section within the main article for the geographical area. cesarb 23:31, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, reasons as for Graham. Aaron Hill 04:43, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Current tally at time of re-listing on Votes for deletion: 7 keep (under this or a different title), 7 delete, 4 merge (with a disagreement of where to merge to) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are some area code stubs from New York that are a bit informative, if not short. I think they're quite valid and need to be represented. Mike H 23:59, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • US-POV-centric. Needs renaming to NANP Area Code 201 (North American Numbering Plan). Other than that, keep - David Gerard 00:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why not, it's interesting and would be hard to find elsewhere. -- orthogonal 02:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename North American area code 201. Spectatrix 04:32, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)
  • I think the topic might be better served as part of an article on New Jersey area codes more generally. Everyking 07:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It'll be a useful adjunct to the categories listing all articles in or related to a particular area code. Jamesday 09:20, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - --Buster 15:23, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep & move into not US-centric name. Przepla 15:42, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Area codes 201 and 551 → North American telephone area codes 201 and 551 — (Also applies to all the other articles listed at List of North American Numbering Plan area codes.) Simply entitling these articles e.g. Area codes 201 and 551 instead of North American telephone area codes 201 and 551 represents a US-centric view, which should be avoided. 86.155.123.221 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also not in favour of USA-centrism and am interested accurate titling. However, as far as I can tell the codes are not normally called "North American telephone area codes". They are called simply "area codes". And, since you agree that there's no disambiguation, then there's no need for an original research title. — AjaxSmack 21:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only recently did the rest of the world start referring to there codes as "area codes". It's not our fault they can't use another phrase. North America originated the area code. --PhilthyBear (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any evidence to back that up? I'd be very surprised. You're stretching the definition of "recently" somewhat also; I certainly used the term in Europe more than 20 years ago, and it didn't seem like a new term then. I must get around to writing a page WP:INSULAR for everyone that hasn't travelled outside of North America... Aubergine (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalize template

I removed the globalize template on the article. It was said that there are millions of people in China that use a 551 area code. However, a separate article should be written rather than changing this article to include information about the Chinese area code. They are separate things and the only common elements are that they are both area codes and they share the same number. As an example, when two or more cities share the same name, like Springfield, separate articles are written about each city, despite the fact that they share the same name. In addition, it is even more inconvenient to add information about the Chinese area code to this article because it covers the 201 area code, as well. It is unlikely that the Chinese have done the same area code split. If someone writes an article on the Chinese area code, then there should be a disambiguation page or at least a link to the Chinese article at the top of this article. -- Kjkolb (talk) 01:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Area codes 201 and 551. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Area codes 201 and 551. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Area codes 201 and 551 → United States area codes 201 and 551 – Area code redirects to a paragraph that talks about area codes all over the world. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MJ Moonwalker — Add to this discussion

Gushing ad for an unofficial Michael Jackson fansite that celebrated its first anniversary. Whoopie. - Lucky 6.9 21:11, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advert. Site is adequately mentioned in the Michael Jackson article. Andrewa 21:55, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad, for a site that gets "hundreds of visitors per day". Color me unimpressed, why dontcha?. Also suffers from Opening Heading Syndrome. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promotional. Adds nothing to the knowledge of mankind (or its reputation for spelling either!) David Thrale 13:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete --Martin TB 15:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Tεxτurε 17:23, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Viennese school — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Viennese school

Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Media coverage of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict


ISOBuster — Add to this discussion

ISOBuster was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

Yet another promotion. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 23:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC) Relisting on vfd due to a deadlocked discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It's an advertisement. Delete it. - utcursch July 6, 2004
  • Discussion was moved here by Graham ☺ | Talk, was originally listed under June 30th.
  • Sockpuppet alert! And a delete vote alert as well. - Lucky 6.9 02:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Seems pretty popular, at least according to google. Weak keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can prove that forensics investigators use this product - Tεxτurε 17:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've heard of this, and I think it is pretty popular. Pretty sure but not certain. FranksValli 18:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Regarding forensics investigators - it seems to be distinct from forensic crime scene investigators as we're used to hearing about. Computer forensics? See [[21]] Scroll down a bit to see the article on ISO Buster as a forensic tool. FranksValli 19:07, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:26, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but rewrite. POVvy and ADVy. David Remahl 11:02, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's very useful and popular freeware program. Shall we vfd all of these too? Category:Microsoft software
  • Keep - It is indeed very popular and well known, I've seen it mentioned for forensic use but I can't recall where (If I can find it I will post it), most of all it nicely shows all these file-systems that are mentioned, for free, and a 'picture' says more than a 1000 words.
    (Last two anon votes added from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)
    NOTE: Unsigned votes on vfd don't count. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:58, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeeves 23:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current tally at time of relisting is 5 delete, 3 keep (excluding two unsigned votes). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • It's a shareware, Windows-only CD exploration program. If it's important, it's only because Windows doesn't provide an equally effective a way to browse CD and DVD file systems yet. Delete, we don't offer free advertising here. --Ardonik 00:34, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • So we're going to delete this article because it performs functions that should be included in Windows? Rhobite 20:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment - Theres a very functional freeware version as well. --Buster
  • Delete. Can't honestly compare it to Microsoft Word and the likes. Allowing this one will really open the floodgates. -- Solitude 01:50, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for good measure. What Solitude said. Ambivalenthysteria 07:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Solitude too. Unless maybe it has a major role in real forensics or something. Ianb 16:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a popular and well-known program among Windows users. Rhobite 20:23, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is an ad. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:58, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Quite a well known and handy utility. Chuq 04:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utility has many others like it out there. Does not belong on Wikipedia. --Costyn 17:02, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs to be edited with NPOV so that it functions as an article and not just an ad. Arevich 04:14, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 15:00, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. bbx 00:56, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page. Keep - I've heard of this, and I think it is pretty popular. Pretty sure but not certain.

Olga valmar — Add to this discussion

[[User:Poccil|Poccil (Talk)]] 14:41, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: The only claim to notability made in the article is that she lived, danced, and had an alternative lifestyle. That's not exclusive company. Geogre 17:49, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Discussion was moved here by Graham ☺ | Talk, was originally listed under June 30th.
  • And apparently she didn't capitalize her surname. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity - Tεxτurε 17:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If this is along the lines of the Nadia Cohen fiasco, and I suspect it is, delete this one as well. - Lucky 6.9 21:21, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Spoofy. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wact — Add to this discussion

Article Wact listed on WP:VFD July 5 to July 12 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Much like an ad; software is hardly notable. [[User:Poccil|Poccil (Talk)]] 14:41, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Ad, no claims to notability made by the article. Geogre 17:43, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Discussion was moved here by Graham ☺ | Talk, was originally listed under June 30th.
  • It gets a decent number of google hits, but this is not an article. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ad. Delete. Pyrop 04:55, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 17:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete please. Why shouldn't these ads be speedy deleted :-( JFW | T@lk 00:34, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The concept of the Web Application Component Toolkit could be more than just a software/ad - as it is basically an open source language framework, that has evolved from a pure wiki form to become actual usable code. (see opp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET)
  • Keep - Its not an advert and it is no better than most stubs on official PHP libraries. See: PHP_programming_language#PHP.27s_libraries. Lets clean it up and add a subsection to the PHP libraries for unofficial libraries. --Buster 08:21, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Those supposed "PHP library stubs" are links to real articles describing the subject of the library, and not the library itself. Additionally, even if they were poor stubs on the libraries, the existence of one poor stub is not justification for keeping another. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - http://wact.sourceforge.net/index.php/TemplateView represents a significant theoretical contribution to the art/science of html embedded template programming.
  • Delete. Advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July 6

Nadia Cohen — Add to this discussion

Looks to me like a hoax by User:81.155.239.29. Can't find evidence to support it. Moriori 01:04, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

If she was born in the lower East Side, and whored herself out in Chinatown to pay for her studies, then how was her hometown Zona? There's no town of Zona in New York, and it's not a neighborhood of NYC. Also, none of the names of books or people have any hits on Google. Delete. Pyrop 01:41, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • There is nothing as insidious a a bogus article disguised as fact. Speedy delete if possible. - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And it gives an irrelevant, dumb porn site as a reference. I am going to pretty much blank it (for simple reasons of Wikipedia's credibility) because I'm not sure it's OK to speedy delete (though I'd be for it). Same name was also a victim of another hoax, deleted a few weeks back. I figure the only reason to look at this is for this discussion of deletion. If you want, you can still see the page before I blanked content, at least till it gets speedy-deleted... -- Jmabel 03:22, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I foolishly checked the link in the article before I saw Jmabel's comments. Ick. What a weird hoax article. Delete it a lot. Geogre 03:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably hoax. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - link from contributor makes it a hoax or nonsense - Tεxτurε 17:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Guess what? It's back, and by the same user! I've posted it as a speedy. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Derek Austin Thomas — Add to this discussion

14 year old actor, "hasn't had MANY roles" ... "was also in various other camcorder recorded programs". No google hits for "Derek Austin Thomas". Delete, vanity. -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Vanity plus micronation divided by inadherance to the rules equals delete. - Lucky 6.9 02:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • delete - for the above reasons - dramatic 02:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: "Ladies and gentlemen, Maxell recording artist Derek Austin Thomas!" Geogre 03:35, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, has his own micronation as well. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I want my own micronation. Maybe I'll name it after myself... "Tεxas"? - Tεxτurε 17:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I love the name, but then we'd have to vote to delete your article about it. :^)) - Lucky 6.9 18:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if I think it is unfair for his dog in North Carolina... --Alexandre 21:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Considering that I had previously, yet erroneously, believed that the Dominion of Langley WAS NOT a Micro-Nation and that Micro-Nations WERE real countries, this article has revolutionized my views on two subjects. Delete nevertheless. - Nat Krause 09:48, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've decided I'm going to start my own micronation, so that I can have a wikipedia article of my very own. I'm going to call it George... Can you tell it's 3am and I haven't been to bed yet...? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Conflate — Add to this discussion

Dicdef. Unsalvageable. Ambivalenthysteria 03:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Not even worth sending to Wiktionary. That etymology sounds kinda questionable, and the "definition" is just a list of synonyms. Isomorphic 05:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I added the vfd-tag.) Lupo 11:48, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: The etymology in English is correct, but they give the wrong Latin (con+flatus, against/with + wind/blow). A subpar definition. Geogre 12:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless waffle. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Chigga — Add to this discussion

Dicdef and summarization of a Crank Yankers sketch. Pyrop 03:23, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

  • Even though it is slang, this isn't even the primary definition of the word :) See [22] (if link fails, look up 'chigger' at [23]) Delete -- Chuq 03:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Someone is writing an article about a word heard exactly twice on a single episode of a single television show on cable TV in the US. Geogre 02:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Koi photo with six types — Add to this discussion

This article was created as a way to have a "click here for a larger image with caption" link on the Koi article (see old version: [24]). I have just copied the caption over to the Image:Six koi-700px.jpg page and used thumnail markup to achieve the same thing, so this page is now an orphan whose function is redundant. Bryan 03:41, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete. (I actually think the image description page is reader-unfriendly and shouldn't be displaying both reader-helping captions and reader-mystifying editor aids, but I seem to be alone in that concern.) Stan 04:37, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, unnecessary. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That should have been a speedy delete. Deleted it. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal Cinema — Add to this discussion

Article Personal Cinema listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus (barring anonymous votes which do not count towards consensus) was to delete. Discussion:

Oh, joy! Rapture! Another ad! - Lucky 6.9 04:19, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Lucky: Hey, I'm sorry if you see it that way. I added the site because it is a description of an organization that is doing some really exciting work with artistic adaptations of video games. Here are some further URLs that you can peruse to see what I'm talking about. Perhaps you read one of the earlier drafts without seeing where it was going? User: Andy 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Wrong! This is totally germane to the category Artistic_computer_game_modification unsigned comment from User:66.114.67.118, who is both the creator of the article and the author of the comments signed "Andy"
  • Looks like personal promotion. No evidence of any notability. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The work shown in Madrid and more recently at the City Museum of Skopje, Macedonia, is more interesting than the game-patch work that was shown in this year's Whitney Biennial. Suppress this if you like, but I'm sure it belongs here. Andy
  • Aw, nuts. Why am I the only guy that gets called out on these things? Andy, Cyrius has it right. There has to be a certain degree of notability to be included here. It's subjective, to be sure, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. And, there has to be a certain degree of encyclopedic content with history, usage, impact and the like. What you've written comes off as an ad. Ironically, this may not help your cause since this is an ongoing general reference work, not an advertising repository. Nothing personal, and I wish you luck with your project one way or the other. - Lucky 6.9 05:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Google doesn't turn up anything that marks it as encyclopedic to me. Nifty project idea, but I still vote to delete. Mindspillage 05:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've refined the historical aspects of the entry, in case anyone wants to review. I wasn't aware that Google was the arbiter of history. The Greeks will certainly be amused to learn that!
  • This still reads like a press release. Unless it rewritten, delete. Morwen - Talk 08:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thou dost protesteth too much. Delete. Ambivalenthysteria 09:32, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - advert - good luck - Tεxτurε 17:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As Terry Pratchett once said: oh deary deary me. Delete -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sure that it is a difficult matter to choose what is knowledge and what is not. I like the "google" empiricism this is the right way to search for the truth of the linguistic networks .Great work -- Do not delete -- alex


Nutella banana toast — Add to this discussion

Almost-recipe. Entire content is a picture and the sentence "The name and the image fully describe the ingredients and the receipe of Nutella banana toast." SWAdair | Talk 04:20, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. (We don't have — or need — entries on, say, peanut butter toast, or butter cinnamon sugar toast, or toast with butter and jam, or what have you.) -Branddobbe 04:24, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. btw it has already been speedily deleted once. Oh, and the picture is ludicrously huge (2560x1920, 1273661 bytes). —Stormie 04:32, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I think this is my favorite new article, probably because I'm hungry. My wife and I are each considering the possibility of a run to the store soon for the "receipe." Though I vote delete, this shall live on in my gut, though in very limited quantity. I've lost twenty pounds and counting and I don't want to put it back on. :^) - Lucky 6.9 04:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I love Nutella. Delete anyway. Odd. Isomorphic 05:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Even though this has prompted me to go get Nutella later, delete. Mindspillage 05:33, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If one person can come up with a reason, why we should keep french toast and delete banana nutella toast, then delete all toast articles. All toasts are created equal, or are some more equal? 2nd: You voters have to be more careful with the feeling of people who make an effort to submit their knowledge. A person may choose to never submit anything ever again. 3rd: Is there anything untrue about this article? Anything incorrect? It's real and true. And all such things should be in an encyclopedia. Knowledge is power! Inventor and creator of the Banana Nutella Toast and its article Fri Jul 9 11:05:47 HKT 2004
  • Yes, it is. We thank you from the bottom of our carbohydrate-craving hearts for the idea which, quite frankly, sounds utterly delicious. Especially since I happen to be of Italian extraction and Nutella is arguably the national spread of Italy. The difference is this: No one will come to a general reference work looking for "Banana Nutella Toast." Try ordering that in a restaurant sometime. You're going to get one weird look. French toast is widely known...and widely eaten. There are also a bunch of variations of the theme, therefore making it worthy of an article in any encyclopedia. We're having fun with this, to be sure, but the consensus is that it doesn't belong here. Still, thanks for the terrific idea. - Lucky 6.9 05:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • My personal favourite is banana and toffee toasted sandwiches. I can't stand nutella so delete with a vengeance. (If you want a real reason it's becasue this is unencyclopedic). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Cannot verify if bread is actually toasted, looks like plain white bread. --Buster 22:09, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

Programmabilities — Add to this discussion

Looks like an ad -- and not a very good one, either -- for a site with an Alexa ranking of 5,586,796. Mindspillage 05:28, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. —Stormie 05:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advert - Tεxτurε 17:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No, wait! A company "that provides information for programmers and webmasters", this is a new and brilliant idea! No? Oh well. Delete, then. --Alexandre 21:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Ghastly. Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:30, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete. You are a bunch of Microsofty snobs. "Programmabilities" is a real word and thus belongs in an encyclopedia. It is also the name and domain of a corporation - like the name "microsoft" which is in the encyclopedia. You can delete your encyclopedia but you can't delete a real word. I am managing this word. And when I get time I will improve its encyclopedic entry. User:programmabilities
  • Delete. Same advert posted by User:programmabilities to his userpage and usertalk page. Maximus Rex 03:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As we've said, if it quacks like an ad... - Lucky 6.9 23:01, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad. - Szabo 01:10, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Boden (family) — Add to this discussion

Boden (family) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was m:transwiki to Wiktionary. As of 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC), the article is still in the queue to be moved. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and similar pages - non-enc. jimfbleak 06:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Commenting on receipt of message -

"User talk:82.145.213.10 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Hi - I have been deleting some of your family name articles on the basis that they are not encyclopedic. I realise that they are posted in good faith, which is why I'm contacting you. If you are not happy with this, please discuss it on Votes for Deletion. jimfbleak 06:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Reply - As the contributor to Boden, obviously a definition of encyclopedic would be helpful before I dedicate any more of my time to this Wiki project, (a definition I understand to mean broad in scope or content). Do you mean the project is not broad in scope or content, or do you require the entries to be broad in scope or content? The reason I ask is that my entry did not appear to be any different from a number of other pages I came across during browsing random pages, hence my decision to contribute (prompted by the major feature on BBC's "Click Online" on BBC World).I had considered adding the bullet point that it was also a family name to the Boden (place in Sweden page), but that appeared to be inappropriate.

Perhaps Jim could also kindly clarify what he has deleted of my contributions as a guide? I have submitted new items and amended typos and other errors in some items I had browsed. Thanks - Mark Grace

  • Delete: On this entry, the author defines the name, which would make it a dictionary entry, rather than an encyclopedia entry. (I also think the derivations are off, but that's another matter.) On family name entries in general, the problem is that these duplicate myriad genealogical sites on the Internet and serve a different set of interests from those of encyclopedia readers. They list, rather than contextualize. They set up a strictly hierarchical organization of human generations, rather than a taxonomic, lateral and vertical, organization of human knowledge. Thus: Boden should be deleted for being an etymology/dictionary entry. Genealogy in general should go to one of the sites that serve those interests. Geogre 19:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Try wiktionary where I believe they are looking into surname entires (though this wouldn't cut the mustard there either). -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:06, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article's changes make it a better Wiktionary entry. I think it will be helpful there, but maintain my vote to move to Wiktionary (delete here). Geogre 02:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Congress Hall — Add to this discussion

All the information currently on this page is about Independence Hall, which already has an article. Furthermore, Congress Hall and Independence Hall are seperate buildings in Philadelphia. I'd also like to note that it is copy-and-pasted from the public domain site, http://www.nps.gov/inde/indep-hall.html. Chris N. 07:30, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: The name should be preserved, and there needs to be an article on Congress Hall, but the content here is insufficient for an article on Independence Hall and doesn't even attempt Congress Hall. Perhaps "Congress Hall" should be put on the list of most-wanted articles after this is deleted. Geogre 12:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • What Geogre said. Delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why Canada sucks — Add to this discussion

  • Should be deleted immediately. utcursch July 6, 2004
  • Totally unencyclopedic. Was tempted to speedy-delete this soapbox rant. andy 08:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • With a title like that, do I even need to look at the article? Isomorphic 08:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's also a copyvio [25]. Speedy delete if you wish. Fredrik | talk 08:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, certainly. Charles Matthews 08:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete the thing, by all means.
  • All thumbs up. Delete this. yaz0r 08:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Fatal problems of style, substance and NPOV: remove quick. Adhib 08:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Kenny TM~ 09:59, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why wasn't this immediately deleted? Now we have to go through the torment of seeing it for a whole week. It's blatant racism, and the contributor should be blocked. Deb 11:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Um... "racism"? The Canadian race? Maybe "countryism"? - Tεxτurε 03:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obvious whining, vandalism, and the postings of an anacephalic. Geogre 12:47, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Either delete, or rewrite and change to Anti-Canadian sentiment. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:53, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've speed deleted it as patent nonsense. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:09, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I remember nominating a copy of this article for a speedy delete a while ago. Probably the same little bugger, who vadalised a few pages too. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Canada does suck. The 51st state is the scum of the nation. BJAODN --Jiang 22:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey Hey watch the language, I'm french canadian Personally, I believe that canada has no right to be country! 

 The United States should be able to claim what is rightfully ours!  We need a place to store all of our crap!  And canada fits that perfect cuz its all ready full of crap!

Bostock — Add to this discussion

Article Bostock listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 13 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Surname page. Nonencyclopedic. Ambivalenthysteria 09:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: As a word definition, it belongs in Wiktionary. As a family trace, it belongs to another project. (Hmm, bo-stock from boef stock (a doublet, possibly meaning stockyard)? Onomastic etymologies are weird.) Geogre 20:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cottrell — Add to this discussion

Surname page. Nonencyclopedic. Ambivalenthysteria 09:31, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but there's quite a famous old estate in the Vale of Glamorgan called Cottrell, so I would like to change the article accordingly if I can find some info on the subject. Deb 12:01, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if not remade into estate article - Tεxτurε 17:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: At this point, the article is still a surname definition, and I'm doubtful about that (but that's just because names are really weird eytmologies). Perhaps Cottrell estate as a new article? Geogre 02:49, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dentsu — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dentsu

AEGEE — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

  • I think this looks like a vanity page? — Timwi 12:54, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • AEGEE is a pretty big organization in european universities, so I think it's a good idea having a page on the organization. I've been working in 3 different universities across Belgium an the Netherlands, and AEGEE was very present at all three of these, gathering hundreds (maybe thousands) of students across Europe. I thus vote against deletion of this page. Maybe you could explain why you think this is a vanity page --Anthony Liekens 15:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. AEGEE is big enough to deserve an article in Wikipedia. However, it is not very encyclopedic in its current form. Cleanup needed. --Alexandre 22:00, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • i suggest to keep it. I therefor vote against the deletion. I will propose another version of the text so that it will be more academic. --[[User:adrian.pintilie|adrian pintilie] 19:27, 7 July 2004 (UTC)
  • i suggest to keep it. I therefor vote against the deletion. AEGEE is almost a historical organization concerning european student exchanges.

End discussion

Requested move

  • I think AEGEE would be a more concise title, and there isn't any other acronym that conflicts with it. The title is too long, and it isn't meaningful for English speakers. The full title is normally only used to explain the acronym. Sharcho 02:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's already a redirect from both AEGEE and European Students Forum to this page, so anyone typing those into the search box would still find this article. Per the naming conventions, pages shouldn't normally be named with an acronym unless it's already world-famous, and so far I don't think AEGEE is. Moyabrit 13:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AEGGE logo.svg

Image:AEGGE logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of AEGEE

Currently there is a logo of AEGEE-Europe in the article. I think the logo should be changed to a logo without Europe (so just AEGEE). Van der Hoorn (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the change of the logo. The article is mainly about AEGEE-Europe and thus the logo of AEGEE-Europe should be there. Next to this, the logo represents an ideology (having the shape of a key and so on). Using a logo without "Europe" in it would take away this meaning. next to this, the operators manual states that teh AEGEE logo should not be used without the name of a body (Either Europe, a local or a working Group).
patrick (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AEGEE-Europe doesn't exist; you won't find it in the statute anywhere. Formally it's called AEGEE, hence the logo should represent this. Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zivot Je Cudo — Add to this discussion

  • I think I fail to see the relevance of this article even to its title? — Timwi 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It's an advert for a movie, and a copyvio: [26] -- I'll post it on the copyvio page. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:11, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is an article about the movie.Avala 10:17, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kerridge — Add to this discussion

Advert. Not even relevant to the village of Kerridge, so no merit in even keeping as a stub. Noisy 13:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Paedophile Scoutmaster — Add to this discussion

Sorry, Forgot to log in before I put this up for deletion.

No band known as Paedophile Scoutmaster listed on google. If it exists this entry mey be personal advertising. Gratuitous use of foul language under the guise of song titles in my opinion. Possible Troll. --Martin TB 14:57, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Speeedy delete as patent nonsense/vandalism. AMG does not know a band by this name, although there is a DJ Paedofile. [27]. Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:58, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Meishu Sama — Add to this discussion

Article Meishu Sama listed on WP:VFD July 6 to July 14 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Obvious vanity page (first person POV religious rambling is a slight clue). Possible speedy, but it is almost BJAODN Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:27, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Takes all kinds, doesn't it? I thought for a moment that this was a Nigerian advance fee scam! Delete, delete, and delete. Send it to the light, brothers. - Lucky 6.9 16:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - and delete any other article that starts "I am a yogi" unless it ends in "... bear". - Tεxτurε 17:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Or "Berra." :^P - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Aha! Did anyone catch the references to other VfD candidates "Johrei and Reiki?" Her (enlightened) colon demon was cured by them. I wonder if this "not recognized as a religion" Reiki is mounting an organized infiltration. Delete on the grounds that Wikipedia already cures (enlightened) colon demons, except those in the bodies of medical interpreters. The article amounts to an ad. Geogre 17:08, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • "Tufts University School of Medicine Faculty member "? Remind me to check the diplomas of all doctors I visit to make sure they didn't get their degreees from Tufts. Delete. RickK 19:51, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Comment: the article is being rapidly edited. I think the "Tufts faculty" means that she was a medical interpreter for the Tufts hospital. I may be wrong, but that's what I got from the first iteration of the article. Geogre 20:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Decided to add that to List of diploma mills... Rhymeless 23:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • It may have been edited, but it sure as shootin' isn't any better. My colon demons compel me to maintain my vote to delete this enlightening bit of puffery and to enlighten all of you to the possibilities deletion will bring, such as increased disk space. So shall it be done. - Lucky 6.9 21:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Get thee behind me, Colon Demons! 'Recto Me, Satanas!' - delete. DS 18:09, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

O-Zone — Add to this discussion

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/O-Zone

The lies that men tell — Add to this discussion

This appears to be a vanity page about a six minute long film by students. Looking more closely, there have been several other POV edits to Fabio Burch Salvador, and Building of Horrors including one by User:Fabioburch and several others coming from the IP range 200.175.XX.XX. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:56, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Let's see:

  • Delete all - also delete Fabio Burch Salvador who lists in his accoplishments this film along with a "fake electoral campaign" and showing his "movies" on channel 6 and Building of Horrors - another of his movies listing most of his family as cast and crew. - Tεxτurε 17:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete all: What's the point? Wikipedia is not a free web host, not an advertising medium, not a bulletin board, not a jobs service. The channel seems to be a community access channel. Geogre 17:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I´m coming in this discussion to say some words. Well, first: I wrote about myself. Just because people write to me and sometimes ask me if I exist. My fake campaign makes people email me to ask if I do exist! And, well, my movies have some relatives in the cast list. Of course they have! They are trash home-made movies. But Channel 6 shows those home-made movies, and there´s an Orkut community to discuss those masterpieces of home-made trash movies (the community: "Os filmes do canal 6" - or, in english, it would be "the movies of channel 6". It´s a city-wide channel. And the funny part of all this is that our movies are REALLY BAD ONES! All movies there have relatives of director and producers in the cast. Some examples: "Fatman and Robada", "The Reflex", "Anumatus Immaturus", and more. In fact, "Animatus Immaturus" has only one name: the same guy is the director, writer and actor. His older brother was the camera operator.

Then why not set up a user page? Let people find all that information there, quench their curiosity, and learn important things about you? The student film is not, at present, a notable contribution to the world. Geogre 17:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. In the US, we call this "public access cable." PAC shows nothing but programs produced by local residents. The cable system where I live loans equipment and studio time to those who wish to contribute. They aren't broadcast outside the service area. Yours sounds like a fun project, but it simply isn't notable enough to be in a worldwide cyber-encyclopedia. - Lucky 6.9 17:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio again: Well, I tought that WIKIPEDIA was supposed to have ALL knowledge in the world to anyone who wants to read about any thing. And I tought it would be nice if people of my town could read about those things.

Oh, and I almost forgot to say: Some one sai that THE LIES THAT MEN TELL was "another movie where cast crew are most of my family". Well, let me ask you something: where did you find a relative of mine in "THE LIES THAT MEN TELL" ? Let´s see: Script: Isidoro GUGGIANA Director: Fabio BURCH Actor: Otavio ABUCHAIM Actress: Carol MILANEZ

The list of crew members includes surnames DEXHEIMER, SANTANA, LERMEN, and others. Teachers who guided us during the work: Anibal DAMASCENO and Glenio POVOAS. Where are my relatives?

Fabio once again: Ah, thank you for saying our communitarian Tv is a funny idea. this is ho it works: The Communication Law of brazil states that every Cable TV company must give one channel to communitarian activity. In Porto Alegre, it´s Channel 6. Well. There are some shows in this channel. One of those shows is "Curtas Gauchos", or "Gaucho Short Movies". If you want your movie to be shown, you must send the tape to the Tv administrators. They will select the movies and put them on exhibition.

My movies are really bad, because they have cheap effects and unexperienced actors. But they are funny to watch, so the Tv guys selected them.

Do I have to overthrow the president to enter Wikipedia?

I did not like when a guy said "Wikipedia is not a free web host...". I do not intend to use Wikipedia as a free web host. I worte the article about Count Orlock, I wrote some other articles (one about Joao Goulart, and others). I have contributed, and will contribute a lot more, with all knowledge that I have. You, who wrote that "free web host" thing, who do you think you´re talking to? I´m not going to tolerate such offenses. You´re protected by distance, because you would not be man enough to tell me that in person.

  • Fabio, our broadcast laws regarding cable TV are similar in that regard, although most of our programming, at least in my area, is community service-related. No public access program would be considered for inclusion here. They are not of broad enough interest. One local example of ours is a talk show hosted by a delightful acquaintance of mine named Patti Caruso. Patti happens to be the mother of MTV's Carson Daly. Carson was a radio DJ here in the Palm Springs, California area for several years before hitting the big time. BTW, I'd only met Carson a couple of times before he moved to San Francisco, and then only briefly. Does Patti's "Valley Views" program merit inclusion here? IMO, no. Your other contributions are appreciated and we share your frustration, but you're not going to win many supporters with an attitude like that. - Lucky 6.9 17:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No matter how much you contribute (and we do appreciate it) you don't gain the right to create pages about yourself and your work. Please continue to make this a better encyclopedia. You get credit in the page histories and get to talk about yourself on your user page. - Tεxτurε 17:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio says: once again you did not understood what I just wrote. i am not saying that by contributing I get the right to put anything I want on Wikipedia. I said that i contributed with some articles, and was just making anothe contribution when i wrote about my own movies.

I did not know that a subject needed to be "important" to be in Wikipedia. i tought that Wikipedia was going to have ALL knowledge possible. So, if one man, in one town, wanted to read about a very obscure subject, he would find it here.

Of course, I was wrong, Wikipedia is only for "important" subjects. So, delete the pages about me, and if somebody comes searching for them, I will have to tell the people that there are some things that Wikipedia just won´t have a text about. I´m not looking for propaganda here. Let´s see: My movies are in portuguese, no one of you would watch it. I am not looking for greater fame on those movies, because they are underground ones, I do not want to remembered for them in the future. It´s just for play.

But I am concerned that this "World Wide" encyclopedia has some obscure subjects located in USA, India, England. Some subjects that I never heard about. And I am not asking them to be deleted.

And bout my attitude not getting many supporters... well, I am not going to play the good guy just to get some supporters. I never played the good guy. And I will never do so.

  • OK, let's try once more. Take a deep breath and relax. Better? Now that we're calm and collected, please reread the comments Texture and I left for you. No one is trying to deny you anything and no one is asking you to play the "good guy." Your contributions about general information are appreciated. And, no one is out to destroy the articles up for debate. The information would best serve you and the project on your own user page. If you want to tell the world about your public access work, then by all means please do so, but do so within the context of the site. Friends? - Lucky 6.9 18:52, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to store all the knowledge in the world. We have the Internet to do that. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Continue this discussion in the talk page for the account that I hope the contributor will create. Andrewa 21:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this film of any importance or note? If not, and it is not deleted, what is to stop me posting articles about fictional essays that I wrote whilst at school? David Thrale 21:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good evening, Fabio. Please consider creating an account so that we can all discuss in more detail without cluttering up this page. (If you have an account, please sign your comments with four tildes.) Briefly, you are not alone in thinking that Wikipedia should try to capture all knowledge. You are, however, in the minority. The current standard set by the majority of the Wikipedia community who chose to express an opinion is that we will choose to restrict our encyclopedia to "notable", "verifiable" and/or "useful" information for reasons that have been discussed at length at What Wikipedia is not and its archived Talk pages. While that decision should be periodically reevaluated, the discussion should probably be started on Village Pump, not here. Based on the current standards, delete. Rossami 22:51, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Though I am part of that small minority that (may) believe that all knowledge belongs in Wikipedia, I still vote delete. I'd say there may be a time for such things, but the time is not now. Rhymeless 04:33, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fabio´s words: You may be thinking why did I left the discussion board earlier today, and returned now. Well, I just had to go to work. In fact, I have been thinking about all those questions, and, when I calmed down from being offended by some messages left here, I just figured out that it´s not the right time for me to be on Wikipedia. The time will come when I will get a place on the list of world notable persons. But this time is not right now.

So, just to finish, I would like to vote for deletion of articles "Fabio Burch Salvador", "The Lies that men tell" and "The Building of Horrors".

You must be thinking: "Why is he deleting his own stuff". Well, I tought Wikipedia had ALL things on it. Now I know Wikipedia is only for the world wide important things, I must say: I´m still not world wide important subject. I recognize that, and I´m asking you to delete it.

You may not believe that I´m really Fabio and that I am writing this, but I am. I have an account but I don´t know how to sign with my account name yet.

With no further opposition, it´s a consensus: delete the 3 articles.

I just wanted to add one thing: My attitude was not writing about school work or something like that, as som one said. We have almost no mainstream cinema in Brazil. We have no Hollywood here. So, university movies are most of our "mainstream" production. There´s real space in our society to such almost-amateur movies. Because, without them, the country would almost not have any national cinema production at all.

In fact, I just deleted the entire text of the 3 articles right now.

It was a nice discussion. Apart the few offensive messages that some people wrote about me, it was a fair discussion. Now I must work on a new text about one of our historical movements: Integralism, the doctrine of the sigma. Good night to all of you.

Fabio - user: fabioburch

Building of Horrors — Add to this discussion

Vanity from same stable as The lies that men tell. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:04, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Fabio Burch Salvador — Add to this discussion

Vanity from same stable as The lies that men tell. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This section describes how to list articles and their associated talk pages for deletion. For pages that are not articles, list them at other appropriate deletion venues or use copyright violation where applicable. As well, note that deletion may not be needed for problems such as pages written in foreign languages, duplicate pages, and other cases. Use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for discussion of mergers.

Only a registered, logged-in user can complete steps II and III. (Autoconfirmed registered users can also use the Twinkle tool to make nominations.) If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.

You must sign in to nominate pages for deletion. If you do not sign-in, or you edit anonymously, you will get stuck part way through the nomination procedure.

I – Put the deletion tag on the article.
  • Insert {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Do not mark the edit as minor.
    If this article has been nominated before, use {{subst:afdx|2nd}} or {{subst:afdx|3rd}} etc.
  • Include in the edit summary AfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. replacing NominationName with the name of the page being nominated. Publish the page.
    The NominationName is normally the article name (PageName), but if it has been nominated before, use "PageName (2nd nomination)" or "PageName (3rd nomination)" etc.)
II – Create the article's deletion discussion page.

The resulting AfD box at the top of the article should contain a link to "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page. Click that link to open the article's deletion discussion page for editing. Some text and instructions will appear.

You can do it manually as well:

  • Click the link saying "deletion discussion page" to open the deletion-debate page.
  • Insert this text:
    {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~
    Replace PageName with the name of the page, Category with a letter from the list M, O, B, S, W, G, T, F, and P to categorize the debate, and Why the page should be deleted with the reasons the page should be deleted.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
  • Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion for [[PageName]]. Publish the page.
III – Notify users who monitor AfD discussions.
  • Open the articles for deletion log page for editing.
  • At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert:{{subst:afd3 | pg=NominationName}}
    Replace NominationName appropriately (use "PageName", "PageName (2nd nomination)", etc.)
  • Link to the discussion page in your edit summary: Adding [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]. Publish the page.
  • Consider letting the authors know on their talk page by adding: {{subst:Afd notice|Page name}} ~~~~
    If this is not the first nomination, add a second parameter with the NominationName (use "PageName (2nd nomination)" etc.): {{subst:Afd notice|PageName|NominationName}} ~~~~

[[fr:Wikip&eacute;dia:Pages &agrave; supprimer]] [[sv:Wikipedia:Sidor som b&ouml;r raderas]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/archive_September_2004&oldid=4475171"