![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep re-adding a link that was redirected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please create a disambiguation page for Rajput, in similar manner we have for yadav. I would appreciate your help. Ikon No-Blast 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I quite understand your feelings! — Robert Greer ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. It appears that you have been a regular editor at WikiProject U.S. counties and I thought that project might be interested in doing this. I am going to contact some of the other members of the project as well. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --- Kumioko ( talk) 06:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I obviously agree with you at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move, and would like to see this reasoning more clearly explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but am having trouble coming up with persuasive arguments for those who seem to think that surnames in particular, and "partial titles" in general, don't count in determining primary topic, unless the topic in question is particularly known by the surname or partial title (as in Einstein). For the general discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topics_with_other_titles. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding how you distinguish between Freston and Cliburn. First, the two places both get about the same (very low) number of page views. But about Freston you say, "The term is ambiguous and there is a reasonable probability that people entering Freston in the search box will be looking for either Kathy or Tom", but apparently don't think "cliburn" is ambiguous or "there is a reasonable probability that people entering Cliburn in the search box will be looking for Van". This is hard to understand since Van gets about 10x more page views than Tom or Kathy, and, in terms of ghits:
I just don't see sufficient distinction that warrants having the place Freston disambiguated but not the place Cliburn. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
My name is Donald D. Harsen, III. I can assure you that my great-grandfather was not a "Dutchman" as he was referred in this article. His family had been in the U.S. since 1624, so I would say that hardly makes him a "Dutchman". He was a Dutch-American, but he was also of Huguenot descent. I have extensive records to prove all of this. He comes from a family of Calvinists, like the Puritans, whose roots in this country probably go back further than any of yours.Please change this.
Sincerely,
Donald D. Harsen, III
donaldharsen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.238.61 ( talk) 06:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi "Older Wiser". It is possible you are reading too much into some guideline, though I don't see how [1]. What possible reason could there be for linking through redirects with "disambiguation" added unnecessarily, Spalding links to and from Spaulding. You haven't given a reason, and it seems simple, revert yourself and get a second opinion please. cygnis insignis 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I did read it, I have created and fixed a number of redirects to content I am adding. It now has an instruction to do it, but no rationale has been ventured; the discussion and stability of these 'guidelines', not rules, has become so confused as to be unusable. I spent some time sorting out the content linked from these dabs, there was some particularly confusing aspects of encyclopædic content which I resolved; having a redirect only hindered my sorting it out. The only possible reason I can see for linking from one dab to another through a redirect—with "(disambiguation)" added—is to justify its own existence, I'm changing it and getting back to the purpose of the site.
I am uncertain as to whether you are operating under a misapprehension, or if there is some other explanation for your insistence on this, can I PLEASE ask that you turn attention to something other than these pages, and accept that I'm certain I have improved their arrangement, made a significant investment in the pages, and have a clue about redirects and disambiguation. cygnis insignis 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi: It is a minor thing, but I have to wonder why you change the description of Lilith in the disambiguation page. Your last description said you changed what I had put to be "a neutral description". As I took the text verbatim from the definition in the article entry, I am not sure how it was not neutral. Could you explain your viewpoint? I know that it is common within Christianity to follow the mythology that Adam and Eve were created as the first humans in the garden of eden. As Christianity flowed from Judaism, and in Judaism (and Islam) the mythology is that Lilith was created first, as an equal to Adam, rather than as subservient to Adam.
Now it is not important which mythology one prefers or wishes to ignore or whether they believe or or not, or what religion they are from, as documented by the article on Lilith, indicating that she was the first woman. In a disambiguation page, there needs to be enough detail to give people direction. Lilith is best known for being the first woman, that is the most notable aspect, and in fact the origin of the name. One does not need to be a descendant of Ishmael or Isaac in order to follow the disambiguation page.
I guess not listing her as a "demon" is more neutral. Atom ( talk) 14:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not place the "demon" part into the description. My comments were also directly quoted from the article. It is my view that for the purposes of a disambiguation page that only sufficient detail to allow a user to resolve which entry applies to their interest or search is needed. As the most notable aspect of the name "Lilith" is that she was the first woman created by G-d, I guess that seemed like a good description.
The first two para's in the Lilith article read:
"Lilith (Hebrew: לילית; IPA: lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud,..."
And,
"In Jewish folklore, from the 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."
From Encyclopedia Mythica (
http://www pantheon org/articles/l/lilith.html)
"One story is that God created Adam and Lilith as twins joined together at the back. She demanded equality with Adam, failing to achieve it, she left him in anger. This is sometimes accompanied by a Muslim legend that after leaving Adam Lilith slept with Satan, thus creating the demonic Djinn."
It seems supportable that Lilith and mythology preceded the invention of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The name preceded Ishmail-Abraham-Isaac and all Mythology that came from those religions.
Regardless of all of the theory, It seems clear that for the purposes of disambiguation, We could use something like "In some versions of the Judeo-Islam-Christian creation myth, Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."
Or if that is too long. "The first woman within some mythologies." The focus being on giving enough detail for a user to discriminate between usages. And Lilith as the first woman is the most notable characteristic of the name. Atom ( talk) 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I see we have Patricklaviolette ( talk · contribs) and PLaV ( talk · contribs). I guess it doesn't matter that much so long as they don't edit together. Dougweller ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, excuse me but why did you remove the entry I made on the Roots page, did I do it wrong? How should I have done it? The Roots program still has a users group [2] and played a big part in shapping todays genealogy programs. I believed that wikipedia is meant for this type of historical/encylopedic stuff. Thank you for reading 114.76.89.229 ( talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that one. It's true that in English "caribou" is a common near-synonym for "reindeer", but only in English. Elsewhere the word used is always a variation of reindeer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a biology teacher in the town of Reed City and was surprised to see a detailed addition to the Hersey River topic. My students and I have been doing research on the river for years. This year I wanted to post water quality test results on wikipedia. You obviously know quite a bit about the Hersey River and we are interested in hearing from you. ANy information about the history of the Hersey River would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
24.180.216.25 ( talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) dcarlson
BK, There is a question about the proper use of categories here at Barber's pole. See ole english talk page. There are 'too many notes.' Die Entführung aus dem Serail (section The "too many notes" tale). Your guidance would be appreciated. Thank you and happy holidays. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
Isn't this considered support? - Tournesol ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
...the discussion we are having at Pine Valley, I would like to apologize for my tone. While I did mean every single thing I said and stand by my position, for civility sake I should have been able to word my replies better. For what it's worth, please accept my apologies, if you can. It's obvious we both are passionate about the topic even as we interpret the guidelines differently and hold vastly incompatible views regarding the implementation details. Best,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 21, 2010; 19:32 (UTC)
Conrad, Im correcting the problem with the disamb page. There are a lot of meanings for stalker, so I have created Stalker (disambiguation), to try to correct that, now is necessary put the {disamb} in the rest of meanings-- AeroPsico ( talk) 13:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | ← | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Orlady ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do you keep re-adding a link that was redirected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, can you please create a disambiguation page for Rajput, in similar manner we have for yadav. I would appreciate your help. Ikon No-Blast 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I quite understand your feelings! — Robert Greer ( talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{ WikiProject United States}}. It appears that you have been a regular editor at WikiProject U.S. counties and I thought that project might be interested in doing this. I am going to contact some of the other members of the project as well. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. --- Kumioko ( talk) 06:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I obviously agree with you at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move, and would like to see this reasoning more clearly explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but am having trouble coming up with persuasive arguments for those who seem to think that surnames in particular, and "partial titles" in general, don't count in determining primary topic, unless the topic in question is particularly known by the surname or partial title (as in Einstein). For the general discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topics_with_other_titles. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding how you distinguish between Freston and Cliburn. First, the two places both get about the same (very low) number of page views. But about Freston you say, "The term is ambiguous and there is a reasonable probability that people entering Freston in the search box will be looking for either Kathy or Tom", but apparently don't think "cliburn" is ambiguous or "there is a reasonable probability that people entering Cliburn in the search box will be looking for Van". This is hard to understand since Van gets about 10x more page views than Tom or Kathy, and, in terms of ghits:
I just don't see sufficient distinction that warrants having the place Freston disambiguated but not the place Cliburn. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Sir,
My name is Donald D. Harsen, III. I can assure you that my great-grandfather was not a "Dutchman" as he was referred in this article. His family had been in the U.S. since 1624, so I would say that hardly makes him a "Dutchman". He was a Dutch-American, but he was also of Huguenot descent. I have extensive records to prove all of this. He comes from a family of Calvinists, like the Puritans, whose roots in this country probably go back further than any of yours.Please change this.
Sincerely,
Donald D. Harsen, III
donaldharsen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.238.61 ( talk) 06:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi "Older Wiser". It is possible you are reading too much into some guideline, though I don't see how [1]. What possible reason could there be for linking through redirects with "disambiguation" added unnecessarily, Spalding links to and from Spaulding. You haven't given a reason, and it seems simple, revert yourself and get a second opinion please. cygnis insignis 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I did read it, I have created and fixed a number of redirects to content I am adding. It now has an instruction to do it, but no rationale has been ventured; the discussion and stability of these 'guidelines', not rules, has become so confused as to be unusable. I spent some time sorting out the content linked from these dabs, there was some particularly confusing aspects of encyclopædic content which I resolved; having a redirect only hindered my sorting it out. The only possible reason I can see for linking from one dab to another through a redirect—with "(disambiguation)" added—is to justify its own existence, I'm changing it and getting back to the purpose of the site.
I am uncertain as to whether you are operating under a misapprehension, or if there is some other explanation for your insistence on this, can I PLEASE ask that you turn attention to something other than these pages, and accept that I'm certain I have improved their arrangement, made a significant investment in the pages, and have a clue about redirects and disambiguation. cygnis insignis 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi: It is a minor thing, but I have to wonder why you change the description of Lilith in the disambiguation page. Your last description said you changed what I had put to be "a neutral description". As I took the text verbatim from the definition in the article entry, I am not sure how it was not neutral. Could you explain your viewpoint? I know that it is common within Christianity to follow the mythology that Adam and Eve were created as the first humans in the garden of eden. As Christianity flowed from Judaism, and in Judaism (and Islam) the mythology is that Lilith was created first, as an equal to Adam, rather than as subservient to Adam.
Now it is not important which mythology one prefers or wishes to ignore or whether they believe or or not, or what religion they are from, as documented by the article on Lilith, indicating that she was the first woman. In a disambiguation page, there needs to be enough detail to give people direction. Lilith is best known for being the first woman, that is the most notable aspect, and in fact the origin of the name. One does not need to be a descendant of Ishmael or Isaac in order to follow the disambiguation page.
I guess not listing her as a "demon" is more neutral. Atom ( talk) 14:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I did not place the "demon" part into the description. My comments were also directly quoted from the article. It is my view that for the purposes of a disambiguation page that only sufficient detail to allow a user to resolve which entry applies to their interest or search is needed. As the most notable aspect of the name "Lilith" is that she was the first woman created by G-d, I guess that seemed like a good description.
The first two para's in the Lilith article read:
"Lilith (Hebrew: לילית; IPA: lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud,..."
And,
"In Jewish folklore, from the 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."
From Encyclopedia Mythica (
http://www pantheon org/articles/l/lilith.html)
"One story is that God created Adam and Lilith as twins joined together at the back. She demanded equality with Adam, failing to achieve it, she left him in anger. This is sometimes accompanied by a Muslim legend that after leaving Adam Lilith slept with Satan, thus creating the demonic Djinn."
It seems supportable that Lilith and mythology preceded the invention of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The name preceded Ishmail-Abraham-Isaac and all Mythology that came from those religions.
Regardless of all of the theory, It seems clear that for the purposes of disambiguation, We could use something like "In some versions of the Judeo-Islam-Christian creation myth, Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."
Or if that is too long. "The first woman within some mythologies." The focus being on giving enough detail for a user to discriminate between usages. And Lilith as the first woman is the most notable characteristic of the name. Atom ( talk) 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I see we have Patricklaviolette ( talk · contribs) and PLaV ( talk · contribs). I guess it doesn't matter that much so long as they don't edit together. Dougweller ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, excuse me but why did you remove the entry I made on the Roots page, did I do it wrong? How should I have done it? The Roots program still has a users group [2] and played a big part in shapping todays genealogy programs. I believed that wikipedia is meant for this type of historical/encylopedic stuff. Thank you for reading 114.76.89.229 ( talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that one. It's true that in English "caribou" is a common near-synonym for "reindeer", but only in English. Elsewhere the word used is always a variation of reindeer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am a biology teacher in the town of Reed City and was surprised to see a detailed addition to the Hersey River topic. My students and I have been doing research on the river for years. This year I wanted to post water quality test results on wikipedia. You obviously know quite a bit about the Hersey River and we are interested in hearing from you. ANy information about the history of the Hersey River would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
24.180.216.25 ( talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) dcarlson
BK, There is a question about the proper use of categories here at Barber's pole. See ole english talk page. There are 'too many notes.' Die Entführung aus dem Serail (section The "too many notes" tale). Your guidance would be appreciated. Thank you and happy holidays. 7&6=thirteen ( talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
Isn't this considered support? - Tournesol ( talk) 09:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
...the discussion we are having at Pine Valley, I would like to apologize for my tone. While I did mean every single thing I said and stand by my position, for civility sake I should have been able to word my replies better. For what it's worth, please accept my apologies, if you can. It's obvious we both are passionate about the topic even as we interpret the guidelines differently and hold vastly incompatible views regarding the implementation details. Best,— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); December 21, 2010; 19:32 (UTC)
Conrad, Im correcting the problem with the disamb page. There are a lot of meanings for stalker, so I have created Stalker (disambiguation), to try to correct that, now is necessary put the {disamb} in the rest of meanings-- AeroPsico ( talk) 13:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)