User talk:Rogerb67/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Rogerb67! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

How should I determine whether a UK road is "inherently" notable

{{helpme}} I nominated A749 road for deletion on the basis it didn't establish notability - another user removed it asserting its "A" designation makes it inherently notable; this is fine and obviously I can nominate it to AfD if I want to proceed. However there's little point in doing that if it's true that GB A roads are inherently notable - the guidelines for notability talk about US roads somewhat but I don't know enough about US roads to understand reasonable comparisons.

Additionally there are red links to "B" roads in the article, presumably the road enthusiasts will argue that all "B" roads are inherently notable too.

I don't really see what an article such as the current one adds to Wikipedia; neither do I see how an encyclopedic article of any value could be constructed for your average A road.

How should I proceed from here? Is there any further guidance available on the Wiki or precedents for this kind of thing to follow? Are my expectations for what may be notable too high? WP:N states "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. Can this really be satisfied (or assumed to be satisfied) for every A road?

The article also appears to be a simple paraphrase of http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/roadlists/r10/notes.php?number=A749. Does this violate wikipedia policies? How do I determine if http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk count as a primary, self-published, questionable or reliable source? My initial instincts tell me that as a road enthusiast site, it would be primary or self-published.

Thanks in advance for your guidance --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• First of all, consensus has established that highways with a number are generally notable. Sources from highway departments (we call them Departments of Transportation in the US; I'm not sure what the UK equivalent is) can help verify the highway's existence and history. I would imagine that a decent length article could indeed be written on every "A" road, given that there are many US-designated highways that have achieved good article status. Also, the source looks to be a reliable source to me; it doesn't seem to be advertising anything, and it doesn't seem seem self published. If you're doubting that source's reliability, a good place to check is the reliable source noticeboard. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response, it was very helpful. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

re: {{N}}

Please see Template talk:N. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Rogerb67/sandbox

Hi, User:Rogerb67/sandbox is causing an entry at Category:Inline templates. Maybe it shouldn't or is temporary. -Colfer2 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry it was a sandbox for an edit I did some while ago - I didn't realise it was showing in categories! It should be removed now. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -Colfer2 (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know...

I have indented your vote on the Nobel icon TfD. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 15:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words in Steve Fossett

Re your "weasel word" comment in Steve Fossett, I probably exceeded editorial license by stating the fact regarding human hair in an uncertain manner. I would not object to you changing it to reflect the certainty reflected in the referenced source article: "Both human and animal hair were found on the sweatshirt."[1] Nor would I object if you should choose to remove the weasel comment. Absent either, I'll probably change the article to reflect the confidence asserted in the source. I feel that it warrants some mention, in either case. —Danorton (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for messaging me. If a reliable secondary source states it as certain, as far as wikipedia is concerned, it's certain unless and until another source can be found that contradicts it (at least as I understand it). My impression reading the articles was that it was reported by the hiker, although this was not explicitly stated. This makes it somewhat less than certain, assuming the hiker isn't a forensic expert in fibres. Of course to state it was the hiker would be original research. Probably the best thing is to attribute it to the secondary source itself, which is Fox News I think? --Rogerb67 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Fox news is the secondary source and they failed to identify the primary source. Personally, I consider Fox news to be a very poor quality news source (one of their reports mentioned "body parts" found). The primary source should be easy to locate through some other secondary source. —Danorton (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your {{who}} addition to the phrase "some reported that ground searchers found human remains", this ambiguity is reflected in some of the referenced articles and detailed in others. I encourage you review the easily accessible sources and fix the article yourself. Some of these passive-voice and weasel-word issues aren't necessarily more vague than necessary, but simply reflect the lack of specificity in the sources, so please keep that in mind as you apply these tags. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, but WP:WEASEL doesn't say or imply that it's OK to use weasel words if the source did, or if it's hard to be more specific. Weasel words should be avoided, and it's the original author's responsibility to do so, not subsequent editors' to check if maybe the sources use them. If the source uses weasel words, you can always attribute to the source (e.g. "according to Fox News<ref..."), or find a better source, if one exists.--Rogerb67 (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:WEASEL:

"This page in a nutshell: Avoid using phrases such as 'some people say' without providing sources."

Sources were provided in the instances you cited. —Danorton (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading on.

"It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source."

"The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion or b) to change opinionated language to concrete facts."

Sources should be provided inline, not as footnoted references. In any case, I've edited the page and removed the weasel words. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we have different understandings of the meaning of "sources" in this context, but some other key words that stand out to me are "avoid" (as opposed to "do not") and "should" (as opposed to "must"). In other words, it's a judgment call.

The tags you inserted are appropriate when it's clear that no judgment was exercised in words chosen for an article, and especially for articles where the problem is overwhelmingly pervasive. In the article you tagged, however, the facts are generally referenced quite thoroughly: I would venture to say better than 95% of Wikipedia articles. For the items you tagged, a review of the sources referenced reveal that reasonable (perhaps not the best) judgment was exercised in the words chosen.

Instead of applying the weasel tags, the generous number of sources cited would have allowed you to fix the problems without a lot more work. —Danorton (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding use of the word "sources", "sources" need not mean citations. As there is the possibility of ambiguity, I've suggested improving the wording of both nutshell and article on WP:WEASEL's talk page. As that page is a guideline, you are correct that compliance is not mandatory (in fact, WP:IAR makes it clear almost nothing is mandatory on Wikipedia). However, in general noncompliance with guidelines (or policies) degrades the quality of an article. In my judgement, this was the case here so I flagged it. In general, determining how much judgement has been exercised in writing a particular fragment is difficult; instead, Wikipedians are requested to assume good faith, which I believe I have; on no occasion have I imputed motives to the editors who between them produced the phrasing I tagged. I could have just edited the article, however I don't find the result particularly satisfying, nor do I consider it good use of my time to spend longer than necessary on an article section that will probably be unrecognisable in a fortnight. I was hoping someone closer to the subject could find a better solution and implement it quicker than I could. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Center for Advance Studies in Engineering incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Center for Advance Studies in Engineering to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved, to automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

links to church

Hi. I just put back the links you removed from the church page. This is a disambiguation page, and as I was fixing links leading to it, I came up with articles were the meaning was clearly not described by any of the other entries. The fact that "church" might be a synonym for "clergy" is exactly the reason why links should exist in a disambiguation page. Thanks for the attention though, if you insist that the two entries should be removed, diskuss it first on the Church Talk page. Maniadis (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Placed message where it should have been put; at the bottom of the page. --Rogerb67 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please return to Talk:Bill_O'Reilly_(commentator)#Requested_move

Thanks --Dweller (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Leo

I noticed you put the dab-cleanup template on the dab page Leo. What, specifically, do you think still needs cleaning up on this page? Thanks, — Swpb^{τ • c} 14:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Swpb^{τ • c} 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, they're obviously neither surnames nor given names, but I think it makes at least as much sense to split them off. Lists of popes and monarchs make good set index articles, and doing so shortens up a lengthy dab page. I don't think there's really a consensus in this area, though. — Swpb^{τ • c} 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, moving them up from "see also" makes sense. I don't know if it would be best to put them in "other uses", or make a "people" section with given name, surname, monarch, pope, and that Léo guy from above. I'm thinking the latter. — Swpb^{τ • c} 03:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article PUB incomplete

You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page PUB to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:

1. Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
2. Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
3. Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Too many capitals

In this edit, the capitalization of the initial e in entertainment conflicts both with the other headings in the same article and with WP:MOS. (I fixed it.) Michael Hardy (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate the patience and way you conducted yourself in our recent eventual agreement at consensus.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Your collaborative and reasonable spirit may be needed back at this article again ... if you have the time. Especially with regards to the use of quotations. Thanks.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

New requested move at Flag of Ireland

You are receiving this message as you took part is a past move request at Flag of Ireland . This message is to inform you that their a new move has been requested GnevinAWB (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Token of appreciation

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		for your intelligent and good humoured self-deprecation at Big Ben. It is a pleasure working with you. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ascendicate

Roger,
Thank you for alerting me of the speedy deletion notice of The Ascendicate. However upon inspection, you did not nominate said band but Roses Like Razorblades, an album by the artist. When alerting of further speedy deletion nominations, please include the correct article. Thanks! GreenRunner0 04:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I did make the proposal; [2]. When making further acerbic comments, please check the article history first. --Rogerb67 (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. You are correct and I was in the wrong. Thanks again for alerting me. Have a good day! GreenRunner0 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Thanks for the Barnstar. If you have some spare time, would you like to cast an eye over Headend? I have notability concerns: the article cites several external links, but whether they demonstrate sufficient notability is unclear. Another opinion would be valuable. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I put some comments on the talk page (better there where anyone can see and comment). Hope they're helpful. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AWB Approved

This is just a quick note to say that you have been approved to use Auto Wiki Browser as a user. If you need any help please ask on the AWB talk page or my my talk page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 17:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange goings on around the article Shellback (songwriter)

{{Helpme}} Shellback (songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) also:

Shellback (Johan Karl Schuster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shellback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm a bit concerned about some editing patterns around the above article and related pages, which seem unusual to me. It's almost as if User:Ploghbill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) does not want the professional name Shellback linked to Johan Karl Schuster's work with Blinded Colony. Also note the edit of User:83.233.9.82 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Shellback (singer), which removed the same information without comment; information which is now supported by what I think is a reasonable reference (this information can be found on many less reliable sources including Blinded Colony's own website, and in the Blinded Colony article), replacing it with a more general and unreferenced statement. Also see User:acbaird (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)'s edit summary on Shellback (singer) and this mildly irritating response to my templating acbaird about his copy-paste move and edit summary.

I've left a couple of messages on talk pages with as yet no response. I'm concerned I might be getting into a bit of a nasty edit war so would value some advice. Am I right in thinking that the information repeatedly removed is encyclopaedic and now reasonably referenced, and there is no obvious reason why it should be removed? Do you consider the edit patterns at all unusual? I'm very concerned to stick to the spirit as well as the letter of WP:AGF; hopefully a reasonable dialogue with the other editor(s) can be established; if not, how should I proceed? Would it be appropriate to raise WP:COI at this stage?

I also note this name association [3]

--Rogerb67 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest waiting a while, and if they keep adding the misinformation, maybe go to WP:AN. Some IPs are very uncooperative. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK cool. In the meanwhile, is it reasonable to revert (bearing in mind WP:3RR) unless a dialogue is started? --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't breach 3RR I don't see a problem. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fine. Thanks for the advice. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians and demographic sources

Thank you very much for your attention and kindness. Unhappily, the link you provided isn't very useful; it seems to use different concepts for different ethnicities, and it makes some factual errors (Arab Brazilians, for instance, are not Muslism, but majoritarily Christian). Anyway, thanks again. :) Ninguém (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was to a list of resources for that site; did you check all of them? Also, I doubt that there is any resource for this kind of data entirely free of problems; certainly from your comments, your current sources are not perfect. No doubt if there were such a source, everyone would be using it. Presumably the reason for using different concepts in different cases is because the underlying data they used to compile their statistics use different concepts. This is probably unavoidable without commissioning fresh research worldwide applying very tight guidelines, which would be very expensive. Perhaps the very fact that the data presented is open enough for you to discern these differences points to its usefulness as a source? --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Roger, I would like to thank you again for your help, and to say that I'm sorry that I have unwittingly exposed you to Opinoso's style.

I would like to point you the inconsistence of the following argument:

Well, about the Embassy figures, I don't know for what reasons they would "inflate" the number of Italians and descendants in Brazil. Remember that Italy grants Italian citizen to people with Italian descent, then it would be a bad thing for Italy itself if its own government start to inflate the number of people with Italian descent in Brazil and in other countries.

Evidently, if Italy has an interest in avoiding Brazilian immigration, and if inflating the estimate of the number of Italian Brazilians actually changed their number, there would be good reason that the Italian Embassy would avoid doing it. But the fact is, whether the Italian Brazilians are 25 million or just 10 million, their number will not increase or decrease because of estimates.

In fact, if Italy has an interest in avoiding Brazilian immigration (and I am not saying they have), it is possible that inflating the number of potential immigrants is a good way to cause alarm.

Again thank you for your kindness and patience, Ninguém (talk) 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

something else?

Actually I thought they were quite helpful. When I wrote that the basic premise was not to elevate the status of any particular value, NPOV was nagging at me as a possible exception. It is also the hardest of them to nail down, because in one sense it is inviolable, but in the another sense we violate it all the time. I guess if everyone uses a biased name, then our using a biased name doesn't actually imply that we are biased. e.g. Battle of Pinjarra. Hesperian 01:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. if the problem was not knowing the best place to comment, perhaps you should start the talk page for the proposal. Hesperian 01:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem in the end was I was banging on about WP:V and WP:OR when they were right up at the top of the page. If I missed something so obvious, I shouldn't be editing at the moment. I was also unsure about the etiquette of where to post to some degree, but that wouldn't stop me discussing it somewhere. If there was anything actually useful in my edits, please go ahead and take it on board; I was only retracting any parts not based on fact, to save everyone the trouble of refuting them; the trouble is I'm not sure right now which parts those are. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Stephen Leopold

Dear Wikipedia Moderator,

I was disappointed to see the profile of Stephen Leopold drawn into question. I would think that the points I make below will more than confirm that he is a man of very substantive accomplishment who deserves to be in the encyclopedia. In reference to the questions you raise, please take into account the following five factors relative to Leopold's notability:

(1) In commercial real estate in Canada, he will always be remembered as a remarkable innovator. Leopold effectively invented the business of exclusively representing the corporate users of space, and then built a firm of some 100 employees on the basis of that concept. Many, many articles in a variety of highly reputable national (Canadian) regional (Province of Quebec) , and local (Montreal) publications attest to and confirm these facts.

(2) Leopold was clearly a notable business leader for at least one reason in addition to his business genius, company development, and very high profile that he attained in the Montreal and Canadian community. He sparked and led a widespread and successful business leaders boycott in Canada of South African apartheid practices during the apartheid era. (See Wiki article attachment)

(3) Politically, Leopold's notability transcends his involvement with the Senate Watergate Committee. To have been the Executive Assistant, during one of Canada's two major national political party's leadership campaigns, to a man who later became Prime Minister of Canada represents a highly prominent achievement in the political circles of Canada. This particular piece of Canadian history may not have made it to the American radar screen, but it has earned Leopold a spotlight in the Prime Minister's memoirs as well as in multiple books about the Prime Minister. Leopold is known widely in Canada as an individual who played a part in the emergence and success of Brian Mulroney on the national stage and international stage. Canada, though often off the radar of American news is a member of theG7 and and is the largest trading partner of the United States. In the words of Wikipedia, Prime Minister Mulroney was also "the instigator" of The Canada_United States Free Trade Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement.

Mulroney is also given credit for having "spearheaded" The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA along with President Carlos Salinas of Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

NAFTA is easily the most important trade agreement that the United States has in terms of dollars. IT has played a huge role in the US economy and became a major issue during the recent Presidential elections

It should also be remembered that Prime Minister Mulroney's world stature was such that along with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of England, he was amongst the three persons to have been chosen to deliver a eulogy at the funeral of Ronald Reagan.

If Wikipedia is focused principally on American matters, then Leopold's political notability in all that he did in Canada would perhaps not be sufficient to gain him entry into the encyclopedia. However, as Wikipedia is an international organ, much referenced by Canadians, and much referenced by Americans who deal with Canadians in cross-border affairs, between the two largest trading partners in the world, then I respectfully submit that Mr. Leopold's biography certainly belongs in Wikipedia.

(4) Many of the sources cited in reference to Leopold's notability were published previous to the digital age and the Internet. Surely Wikipedia does not and should not make its judgements on inclusion on the basis of prominence that is only recent enough to be digitally documented with the help of Google! Many articles about Leopold are not available on the Internet, but only through photocopies of the original publications. But they are certainly reliable source articles from respected Canadian publications. I respectfully ask, "Which articles do you judge NOT to be reliable sources"?

(5) One more point should be made about the notability of Stephen Leopold in reference to the last half century of American history. What are arguably the two most politically impactful Events of the past half century in the United States were Watergate and 9/11. Both brought about major changes in multiple American laws of huge consequence and in the way the US Government interpreted individual liberties and the constitutionality of various parts of the American democracy Remarkably, Stephen Leopold was involved personally in both events. At Watergate, he rose from a volunteer position to become an Investigator for the Senator Sam Ervin's Senate Watergate Committee. In reference to 9/11, the second plane went directly into the floor that his business was then turning into a sky-lobby food court ie his floor. Mr. Leopold is quite likely the only person in the world with such a close connection to both of these seminal events. Forrest Gumpish perhaps, but Leopold's persistence and acumen to have chosaen to become involved in Watergate and to have chosen to build and obtain the rights top build over two acres of food courts in the largest office complex in the world

As to "background, this is harder to establish as to veracity. That said and for the time being I am looking for a link to an article that appeared in front section (National and International News"), not the obituary section of The Montreal Gazette, Montreal's only english newspaper and Canada's oldest daily newspaper with a readership in the quarter million mark and with journalists who yearly receive national newspaper awards. The fact that the article on Irwin Leopold was on the front section and not in the obituary section speaks volumes. A link to the Rhoda Leopold Award follows

http://multiculturalcanada.ca/cdm_item/mcc_cjr/32753/100/86

I remember reading a book on the Montreal Jewish Community and its history and am trying to track that book down for more authoritative sourcing on that. Please bear with me in the meantime. Thank you. unsigned comment on 20:46, 23 February 2009 by Jjh122

First of all, I am not a moderator; I am simply an editor like yourself. Wikipedia asks that editors work together to reach a consensus that represents the best solution for Wikipedia, in line with the five pillars and wikipedia policy, the most important of which are verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. If you are not familiar with these, it would be helpful to read them. I will take your points in turn:

(1) If this were true I would expect there to be verifiable evidence in reliable, published sources, per WP:V. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the majority of the references currently provided for this material do not meet this standard, and those that do have only short references, insufficient to demonstrate notability as Wikipedia defines it (see WP:N and WP:BIO). My searches on the internet have proved fruitless, however that does not mean such references do not exist. If you are able to provide some that would be an enormous help.

(2) His involvement in the Apartheid boycott is indeed encyclopedic and would be part of his biography, wherever it ends up and however it is presented. But the coverage I see in the sources provided is insufficient to establish notability on its own; as it is at the crossover between business and politics, it doesn't really change my opinion of Leopold's main notability being for his political involvement.

(3) Reliable sources do mention Leopold's involvement in other political activities, including his involvement with Brian Mulroney. I have to confess I am not intimately familiar with Canadian politics, however reliable sources from Canada are as good as from anywhere else and the criteria for notability are the same for Canadians in politics as for everyone else. If you can provide evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as you appear to be claiming, then Leopold does indeed deserve an article for being notable for his political activities. As far as Mulroney's notability is concerned, I do not think this could be seriously in doubt; however, notability is not inherited but assessed on an individual basis (WP:ITSA). Leopold's involvement with Mulroney makes it more likely he may have been given the significant coverage in reliable sources required, but does not directly improve the case for his notability. No doubt major supporting figures for the winning figures in major political parties' leadership elections do sometimes achieve independent notability, at least in part for that role, however I do not think it can be taken for granted and needs proper supporting evidence. A mention in Mulroney's book could be considered a primary source; while it would be sufficient to mention the fact once notability is established, it does nothing by itself to establish the notability of the involvement.

(4) You are absolutely correct, Wikipedia should not discriminate against those whose activities predate the internet, indeed there are essays on the dangers of recentism and related matters. Unfortunately though it does make matters harder for editors to assess each others' work, but I do try to be conscientious in taking this into account. I would also note that archives of reliable sources such as newspapers are starting to appear on the internet, easing the problems of this issue. Referencing newspapers and other reliable sources not currently available on the internet is considered just as good as referencing an internet source of comparable reliability; providing internet accessible copies as has been done for this article is fabulously helpful but not in fact necessary; the fact that suitably located editors or readers could access the material (at a library for example) to verify it is in fact what is required. It was always my intention should dialogue be established to discuss my assessment of the quality of the current sources, and invite comment, as this is key. I didn't do it earlier because as you can appreciate, this takes some effort, and sometimes editors choose not to establish communications. I will post my thoughts as soon as I can on Leopold's talk page.

(5) Unless it can be established that this "coincidence" is somehow culturally relevant or has received significant attention in reliable sources, in my opinion it does not further Leopold's case for notability, although no doubt it would deserve a mention if a longer piece on Leopold is possible and it can be verified (I'm sure it can).

Regarding background, I wish you success in your search for references.

Thanks for establishing communication. I think it would be best if we continued the discussion on Talk:Stephen Leopold, as this will be where any other interested editors will naturally look. I will put further comments there soon.

--Rogerb67 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I think I found the link to the Rhoda Leopold Award myself independently, however the article mentions only the award and not any biographical details of the individual that could be used to verify she was related to the Leopold under discussion, so its usefulness in verifying this section is strictly limited. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ship name links

I'm not quite sure what you mean by not following MOS:DAB. The convention for ship articles is that a redirect is created for each use of the ship's name, with and without a prefix. For example, Titanic, SS Titanic and RMS Titanic all lead to the same article. If there is more than one use of a ship name, a disambig page can be created, such as Celtic (ship). In the case of Morion, as it was already a disambig page, I just added another entry. Sometime, a hatnote will suffice to assist people in finding articles. Any further questions please ask. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, all of that was correct and fine, that you added the link is helpful. I'm not meaning to suggest your entry should be removed. The issue is, the line you added has two links in it. Per the style guide, in almost all cases, a line in a disambiguation page should have only one. The only exception I am aware of is where it is appropriate to use a redlink that also appears somewhere else. Additionally, one of the links you gave did not mention MV Morion. I edited this one article to make it work as I would expect, however I note you have done the same on other disambiguation pages, so I thought it was worth discussing, first of all to see if I am missing something, and secondly to make sure any similar changes made in the future were as helpful as possible. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now. Ship's name was linked to the List of Empire ships - F, and the Ship type was linked to the article on the ship type. While this may not fit in completely with MOS:DAB, both links were, IMO, useful. Mjroots (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree; it seems to me that there's nothing special about this case suggesting more than one link is needed; there's no reason the list article itself cannot point to the ship type. The fact that the ship type article does not mention the name Morion makes this argument more convincing. I know it seems like ridiculous escalation of a storm in a teacup, but if we can't agree, I'll post a quick note on an appropriate talk page to solicit some further opinions on this. --Rogerb67 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better idea, how about linking like this - [[List of Empire ships - F#Empire Fang|MV ''Morion'']], an Empire F type coaster in service with William Robertson & Co, Glasgow, 1946-52. Which would produce MV Morion, an Empire F type coaster in service with William Robertson & Co, Glasgow, 1946-52. Mjroots (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Still does not conform to MOS:DAB: "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages" (this entry does not meet the exceptions).--Rogerb67 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but there is WP:IAR which may apply. The main info about the individual ship is to be found on the list of ships, not the article about the ship type. Mjroots (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the case for thousands of DAB links; just link a suitable portion of the description per the examples on MOS:DAB. --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've raised the issue on the talk page of the dab. I will notify WP:SHIPS of the discussion. If there is a consensus for it to stay as it is, I'll accept that. Mjroots (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You say you've moved the discussion, but the link you gave goes back to the same page. Mjroots (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed now; you just came in while I was still editing. --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've amended all redirects to the List of Empire Ships - F so that they link to the relevant section. I'll create future redirects to the sections rather than the list. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fab, thanks for letting me know. --Rogerb67 (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tommy

Hi, to avoid any confussion i'll mention it now that i'm the IP you reverted at Tommy. I dont understand your revert. It seems perfectly reasonable to use [[Tommy Solomon (3rd Rock from the Sun)|Tommy Solomon]] instead of just [[Tommy Solomon (3rd Rock from the Sun)]]. Could you please explain your reasoning? Cheers! John Sloan (view / chat) 18:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure no problem. What you did would be fine and perfectly normal on any typical article page; however the situation on disambiguation pages is different; here we are trying to help the reader choose one of many similarly-named articles. In this situation, the parenthetical disambiguator (the bit in brackets we usually hide) is actually helpful to the reader, so we leave it visible. In this case, because 3rd Rock from the Sun is a television series, it should be italicised, so we pipe only to put it in italics. This is standard style on disambiguation pages and is covered on the page MOS:DAB; the most relevant section is MOS:DAB#Piping and redirects "... piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which article is being suggested, so that the reader remains in control of the choice of article. ... In many cases, what would be hidden by a pipe is exactly what the user would need to be able to find the intended article." There are some exceptions to this rule, but when the link is at the start of an entry, the parenthetical disambiguator should always be visible to the reader. I hope that helps. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, thats great thanks! Keep up the good work :-) John Sloan (view / chat) 22:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ave Maria

The problem with having an entry for the Faryl album is that hers isn't anything special compared to anyone else's. The piece has been recorded 100s of times, and we're not supposed to give undue weight to anything, especially some singer who's probably just the proverbial flavor of the month anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, however, disambiguation pages aren't like normal articles; they're there only to assist people to find articles, so any article that might be searched for using the name should be listed. Disambiguation pages aren't there to decide what is or is not undue weight; an article for the album exists, the album has a track named "Ave Maria". As far as the DAB page is concerned, that is all that is required to list it; people may very well search for the album or singer by that name, particularly as it is apparently her best-known work. If you think the article shouldn't exist due to WP:recentism or other concerns, WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD or WP:AfD it. If you think listing the tracks in the article is giving undue weight, discuss it on the page of that article. If the DAB page gets too long (and I don't doubt there are hundreds of potential entries), the songs could be split out as List of recordings of songs named Ave Maria or something (that point hasn't been reached yet). --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What I'm concerned about here is that there should be a way to get from "Ave Maria" to this singer and album (or any other recording or person associated with it). Currently, without this entry, there is no way. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Having thought about it for a while, I have a suggestion. Why don't we separate these into a subsection perhaps under the song itself or at the bottom of the music section, named "recordings of Ave Maria". When this gets too big, we can split it into a separate dab page/set index article named Ave Maria (recording). The only question then is what to do with people associated with the song, but with no recording to hang the association on. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're completely misunderstanding the problem here. The aria has been recorded, by many many singers. Arkivmusic.com lists 278 different discs that it's on, and that's just in print or their own reissue (granted, many may be the same recording). Just because it happens to be on that album is somewhat irrelevant -- there's no link to Kathleen Battle, Cecilia Bartoli, Jose Careress, Victoria de Los Angeles, or Placido Demingo in the aritcle either, to name a few famous singers, going down the list. We don't have a list for every random conductor of Beethoven's 5th, or every jazz interpretation of Body and Soul either. And further more, the other Ave Marias get recorded too, so having Ave Maria (recording) is just about the silliest thing ever. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In principle, there is no reason why Wikipedia might not need to distinguish between 278 or more uses of the same term; in and of itself, the sheer volume of possible entries is not a reason to refuse to disambiguate; the challenge is to disambiguate in the most helpful way to the general reader. The editors of pages such as Smith and St Peter (disambiguation) for example found a way without simply throwing perfectly valid entries away. However your point that it may not be a good idea to add individual performances and recordings to DAB pages is a good one, although I'm not entirely convinced. I'm happy to let the matter rest as it is for now, although I may want to re-raise it later after some reflection. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you even listening? It's not "278 or more uses of the same term", it's ONE use that's used on various different discs. What you're asking is akin to to having an article at Main titles and putting an entry for every single soundtrack that uses that as a track name (hint: it's a lot), or perhaps to use something that might be a bit more familiar, imagine if every person who recorded Amazing Grace has their own entry under "Amazing Grace can mean:", or even more so Yesterday (song) (with its 3000+ recordings)̲ to have an entry at Yesterday (disambiguation). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I've already stated your arguments have merit. And I've already stated the entries don't all need to be on the main DAB page. Clearly I am listening to your arguments. Just because I haven't yet decided they are necessarily correct you don't need to assume I'm ignoring them. In fact, I freely admit that I don't currently have a convincing answer to them, and I'm not going to make further changes to this DAB page based on any alternative view until I have thought further (and that further thought may mean I come round to your view anyway), and am confident my thoughts reflect consensus. That isn't going to happen today, and almost certainly not tomorrow. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Helmuth James Graf von Moltke

Dear Rogerb67: Thank you for your assistance on this topic. You said, "I have created Helmuth James von Moltkethe as a redirect to this page." Unfortunately, in doing so, you have misspelled his name. It is Helmuth James von Moltke. Is there something that you can do to correct this? Also, since his name was not "Graf" what happens if I migrate the page? Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Did I misspell it? Apologies. Well if it's a common misspelling, it can be left and marked as a misspelling, otherwise it can be speedily deleted (it looks like the latter applies). Any user with an account that is a few days old with a few edits can create a redirect, so you can just go ahead and make it (if I don't beat you). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• To answer your other question, since it is the subject of a requested move the safest thing to do is wait until it is finished then abide by the outcome. In any case, what do you mean by "his name was not Graf"? He certainly appears to be commonly referred to by that name [4]. When choosing an article title, Wikipedia doesn't care what his "official" or "legal" name was, but what he is usually referred to as. Usage found by Google books and Google Scholar look fairly even to me, so a move seems unlikely. If you have reliable sources stating he shouldn't be called "Graf", this information can be added to the article.--Rogerb67 (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that last insight, it's true that in instances where he's casually mentioned, people used a title, which didn't legally pertain nor did he apply to himself. It's also true that his widow and principal biographer (who worked closely with his widow) elected not to use the title. So, then it becomes a question of propagating a deprecated practice (in terms of German law and family preference), or going with the flow. Your Google books search suggests that the latter is the preferred outcome in Wikipedia, although I haven't found pertinent guidance on non-British nobility that helps in this matter. User:HopsonRoad 15:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hun (disambiguation)

No problem. I can see that you work on dab pages somewhat the way I do--not just a hit-and-run, but trying to do a thorough job, making sure all the angles are covered--and with juggling so many bits and pieces, it's easy to lose track of a bit here or there. Cheers!--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FSOL

Fair enough I suppose, I am not too knowledgeable about wikipolicy regarding such things, but as long as it is not destructive and similair to what you did with the Wtchfinder and Divinity single/promo I am fine with it and in fact its not a bad idea at all. Thank you for letting me know what you are doing. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One question though, which ones were you planning on changing? So I can see about doing something about those ones first, I have another editor who helps out with FSOL stuff so I can let him know aswell, thanks. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry disregard the above question, I'm tired and never read your message correctly...studying all night. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference from Jones in the Fast Lane (scan)

The scanned page can be found here: http://filesmelt.com/Imagehosting/pics/b2e23eef50392f958a16534321272e2f.png (sorry for low quality of screenshots, it has been saved in DjVu format). However, it's all in Polish, so should I provide a translation? Korodzik (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's fab, thanks. It looks like this one is the best reference the article has currently. I'm afraid it looks like my AfD has produced too much bad feeling for me to comfortably work on the article. Can I suggest you post at the talk page and see what others would like? --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to Railways of Germany forum

Saw your deletion of the RoG forum links. I thought this was a useful link to place on German railway articles, but English Wikipedia doesn't seem to approve (why?). If an article on the RoG website were generated could that link to the forum? And could the existing links be converted to point to the article? Or is there another way?

My aim is to link those with an interest in this subject with a forum that shares the same interest. I already do the same in reverse by keeping the forum updated about Wikipedia in this area. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Rail transport in Germany task force - conventions

I take your point about the deletion of comments and will be more careful in future. In fact the comments made me realise that the conventions needed to be on a separate page, not on a talk page, hence the move. The comments I also recognised the need to 'back up' the guidelines with clear references to Wiki practice in order to provide some credibility. However, my impression was that a lot of the comments came across as a tirade simply because folks disagreed with the naming of one article. When I looked at the claimed 'contradictions' with Wiki practice, I didn't see a lot of evidence - rather there seemed to be a lot of misquoting i.e. purporting that Wiki guidance says "x" when in fact it doesn't. It came across almost as vandalism of the conventions section (which I fully accept needs to evolve). However, I am content that the comments are now where they are, so others can take a view as well. Let's not have a war - we both want Wikipedia to get better! --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry if you felt the comments came across like that. Perhaps mine could have been described as a "tirade", but it was against the guidelines and not particularly in reference to our requested move discussion. Disagreement on the naming of articles such as that one is nothing to be surprised at, and while I disagreed with your position, and argued hard against it, I don't think there was much wrong with the discussion. When following up your reference to "conventions" however, I was really quite surprised both at their content, and that you felt you could refer to them to back your position up when there was no evidence that anyone except yourself had even seen them, and my comments no doubt reflected that. I really do think that the draft conventions do not reflect consensus on English Wikipedia. However, I can understand if you don't want to take my word for it. Since the Rail transport in Germany task force has interests in common with WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Trains, can I suggest that a good start towards validating the conventions would be to leave informal messages requesting comments on them at the talk pages of those two projects. This would give a broader view of where they lie in regard to the consensus, without any question of the commenters being biased by current or previous interactions with you, and entirely independent of my opinion. Can I also suggest that you familiarise yourself with the way the term vandalism is used on Wikipedia. I'm sure once you have you will agree with me that it is not an appropriate term to use with regard to my edits on those pages, or in fact any edit of mine on Wikipedia. Since you appear to believe that I have acted in good faith, and bad faith is a prerequisite for vandalism, I hope that you will retract the accusation. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a measured response. Ok, vandalism was the wrong word, but an entire page of sweeping criticism was quite dispiriting when I am only trying to extend and improve Wikipedia for the benefit, hopefully, of others. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)