User talk:Onel5969/Archive 48

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Onel5969. 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 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Archive 36: November 2017

I support your critics of the list.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for your disambiguation of the etymology of Walton, Ontario? If so, please add it in place of the "needs disambiguation" note in that entry.Dtilque (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dtilque - It's in the article for Walton, talking about its founders. Feel free to add it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, can't find it. The page for Walton, Ontario just says Buckinghamshire, and doesn't specify which of the two. For that matter, I don't know how they knew it's in that county and not one of 20 or so other Walton's in Great Britain; I don't see a cite for that. It might be in the "Ontario Place Names" they cite at the end of the paragraph, but that's not available online. I used a different book on Ontario place names but it didn't have Walton at all.

So tell me how you know it was the Walton in Aylesbury and not Milton Keynes, both of which are in Buckinghamshire. Dtilque (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

If you decide to list that article for deletion discussion, I'll support deletion. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted one of your edits accidentally. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, NinjaRobotPirate, we've all made our share of inadvertent clicks. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you do me a favor? Could you have a look at the edit history at Kingston, Pennsylvania. I think I may have deleted a good IP editor's edit [1] in support of a vandal's edit, but I'm not sure. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Magnolia677 - Here's the thing. You might have. But I would have deleted it myself. It's uncited. In fact, the citation for that section hasn't been updated in years. Lots of well-meaning edits are made, but without accurate citations they are, imho, virtually worthless. I think you're fine here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor "Bidog123" made the demographic changes, then an IP editor removed them all. They both make 12 edits to the exact same articles. Seems like the same editor goofing around. Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Onel5969, and thank you for fixing so many dab links! However, sometimes a little bit more care is needed: if an article says that Surab is the capital of some district in Pakistan, then this can be neither the city in Iran [2], nor the hideous redlink that someone had added to the dab page [3]. In fact, we do have the articles needed here: Surab, Pakistan, and it was simply not listed on the dab page. Almost 10% of dab pages have such missing entries, so situations like these happen more often that we'd like to imagine. – Uanfala 17:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Uanfala - Yeah, I find that a lot. And when I do I add it to the dab page. Missed this one. Thanks.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Why did u undid my recent editing on Nikita Dutta?? Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi YAP123456, because there was an afd discussion which resulted in the article's redirection. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikita Dutta. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

But Onel5969, now after dream girl she has worked as a lead in one tv show. Currently she is working as a female lead in a big budget TV show Haasil. Also she has worked in a Bollywood film Lekar Hum Deewana Dil. She has also signed a film named Gold with Akshay Kumar.

All these things have news paper citations as well. Also she was miss India finalist. so I guess she is notable as an actress. Please reply if u feel what I'm trying to say is correct. Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please can you contact me by return re enhancing Wikipedia article for Captain Cook Cruises, Sydney, Australia. I would like to co-operate with you to make this article even more relevant with greater factual detail. Robert Goldsack --Robert at Captain Cook (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert at Captain Cook - based on your username, I'm guessing you are affiliated with the enterprise, so please be aware of conflict of interest editing. You are doing the right thing in reaching out to other editors to help make changes. However, you should do it on the talk page of the article, as that will reach other editors, not simply a single one. If you want to bring the attention of a particular editor you simply "ping" them in the message, using this format: {{u|onel5969}}. Remember that Wikipedia is not for advertising, so keep any suggestions simply factual and not promotional. And have citable sources from reliable independent references. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The "bibliographic sources" in the AFI entry are almost all dated 1950. In particular, the December 27 Variety and December 23 "Box Office" entries are suggestive. I've also found a Temple University listing (citing 1950), an NNDB entry for December 26, a DVDBeaver listing for December 26 and an entry for Gig Young in The Encyclopedia of Film, listing Hunt the Man Down as a 1950 film. IMDb may not be totally reliable, but I trust it for basic info. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

AMC also gives 1950 as the year. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Clarityfiend - First, it's okay for you to trust imdb... however, it is not considered a reliable source in most instances, and this would be one of those (see WP:RS/IMDB and WP:CITINGIMDB. Second, the sources listed are all pre-release info. I do quite a bit of research on old film articles, (here's a great resource link, btw if you're interested: MHP). One of the key pieces is that it wasn't copyrighted until January 1951, indicating a 1951 release date. In general, AFI is pretty much the source most used to validate premiere/release dates for American films. Filmsite is NOT a reliable source, with absolutely no editorial oversight, run and created solely by a single individual. Thanks for engaging in conversation, and thanks for all the work you do on films in general. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

You've got the better sources, but I'm not 100% convinced yet. TCM says December 1950 too. I'd really like to see what the December 27 issue of Variety has to say. I'm going to ask at the film project to see if anybody has access to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a much better source, although TCM almost always mirrors AFI, since they simply are fed the info from AFI. If you click on the link in this new source to the detail page, it does show a February 1951 opening. Online sourcing of films from the late 1940s and 1950s is spotty at best. The RKO Story, while not giving specific dates, does list the film as a 1951 release (although nowhere in the book does it say whether or not that is the general release or premiere date). Adding to the confusion, was there was a practice during this time period (and dating back to the mid-1930s) of having a pre-premiere showing, which was not open to the general public but was more for industry folk who would buy the rights to show the film. You bring up excellent questions, and the TCM article does raise a legitimate question. I think that perhaps we should mention in the article that some sources have a premiere date in December 1940, but that the film was not copyrighted until 1941, and AFI lists the premiere as February. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

They're NOT circular links. They lead back to the disambiguation page which also leads off onto the other versions of the title. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Which lead back to the pages themselves. Hence a circular link. Dabs are supposed to lead to further information, these don't.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(1) They already did lead back to further imformation - users can use the disambig to navigate between different versions of the title - and to get to the right page if they have looked up the wrong version.

(2) In any case, I have now upgraded the disambiguation page to an actual article. So that definitely leads to further information. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. You did a large number of edits yesterday with the edit summary "Disambiguating links to Sectarianism (link changed to Sectarian conflict)". The link has now been changed back after a technical request. Is there any chance you might reverse those edits? Thanks in advance. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. Scolaire (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Scolaire - one of my tenets on this site is to try not to create work for other editors (unlike the editor who did that page move without thinking about dab links). Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So sir what should I do if I want to recreate the article on Wikipedia. There must be some procedure by which it can be recreated please can you tell me about that. Regards, YAP123456 (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi YAP123456 - while there may be a ton of seemingly useless articles on Wikipedia, it does have notability standards. This actress did not meet those when the AfD took place, but in looking at it again, I think her two new roles since the AfD now give her enough to pass WP:NACTOR. The award is a minor one, but it doesn't hurt. I've reverted my revert and re-established the article. Other editors may not agree, however. Nice job on the article creation.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

		The New Page Reviewer's Gold Award
		With over twelve thousand reviewed articles in the last year, you are part of the backbone of NPP. Thank you very much for your service! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, it looks as if we're both cleaning up the same list of links to dabs. I had difficulty with one in particular, so maybe I should point you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Links to Trans* in case it helps. Thanks for all the good work, Certes (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Certes - Yeah, I had a problem with that as well, so moved on. That being said, I didn't spend too much time on it. I figured someone with more knowledge in that area could figure it out. It's like mathematical terms, they are so nuanced, I rarely am able to figure out which term is applicable. But thanks for the heads up. And you keep up the good work as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear Onel5969. You have reviewed a page I created Zvezdara Teatar and you have removed its content on bases on doubts about notability. While it is true that this page is a stub, and I haven't had time to put in rich content, it is far from imaginable that the notion of Zvezdara Teatar's notability could be questioned. Zvezdara Teatar is one of the major theatres in Belgrade,Serbia. As far as I understand it is in the scope of Wikipedia to include information about major cultural venues, and theatres especially in capital cities of the World. I would like to ask you to put the page back.

In addition, you have created a redirection from Zvezdara Teatar to Belgrade. This redirection is misleading for readers. The purpose of redirections on Wikipedia is very well defined (please see: Wikipedia:Redirect#reasons. None of these reasons/purposes can explain your redirect of Zvezdara Teatar to Belgrade, so I would kindly ask you to remove this redirect.

In addition, you have tagged Zvezdara Teatar as unreferenced. This is nonsense. Please see references here: [4] Nikolastaverna (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Dear User:Onel5969, you have deleted the page Malo pozorište "Duško Radović" which is a major theatre in Belgrade, Serbia. I created this stub page, and it started getting linked by people writing pages about actors and directors in relation to the theatre. While I do respect your great contributions to Wikipedia, I cannot see how this deletion is justified. Could you please explain.

In addition, again, you created a redirect from this page to the page Belgrade. Please remove this redirect and see Wikipedia:Redirect#reasons prior to making any more redirections to the page Belgrade. Such redirects are misleading and interfere with the quality of links which are an essential part of Wikipedia.

You have done the same with Kult Teatar. Please correct.

Nikolastaverna (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nikolastaverna - you created two uncited stubs. Simply saying a theater is a "major theater" is not enough to show it is actually notable. You have to have references from independent reliable sources. See WP:GNG regarding notability and WP:CITE regarding citations. If you wish to develop an article, please do so in draft space until it meets notability requirements and is fully cited and properly formatted, then move it to mainspace. Please refrain from creating uncited stubs, which simply waste other editors' time. You might try to submit articles through the AfC process until you learn what is and is not acceptable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. However you have not at all answered my question about redirects to Belgrade. These are also not acceptable. Such links defy the purpose of Wikipedia. There are many computer science approaches that use wikipedia redirects to infer term equivalence. Creating such redirects just introduces confusion.Nikolastaverna (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

No, they are perfectly acceptable, as they are most logical target for a redirect. The alternative would be to simply delete the articles which causes even more work for other editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you find that logical, but such practice defies the purpose of redirects Wikipedia:Redirect#reasons. The fact that a certain practice saves work to editors (whose time is precious, I agree) does not mean that such practice is acceptable. Wikpedia is a serious body of knowledge and a reference to many people. This practice of redirecting to pages that are related to a term is without any doubt degrading for the content. It was mine to point it out. You will do as you want.Nikolastaverna (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

When you quote a policy/guideline, you should really understand it. The first line of Wikipedia:Redirect#reasons reads "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include". Include, but not limited to. Redirecting non-notable buildings/structures/other geo physical features to the their location is a standard practice. For example, non-notable schools would be directed to the town/city in which they were located. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

hi, I saw your note on my talk about deleting the litcamp article, which in fact, appears to have been deleted. I logged in today to add the following link to that page: a story about the conference from the SF Chronicle (written by the books editor): http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Lit-Camp-looking-for-new-home-after-wildfires-12284455.php. I don't really know what to do now that the page is gone. Can you advise? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MildredTheGrey (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Onel5969, thanks much and a good looking out. You're exactly right about IMDb but I would include AFI Feature Catalog as well on sometimes having discrepancies. Both great sources but not always 'cricket'. Since this is one of Hoot Gibson's lost westerns, we can't view the film to verify Nora's appearance in it. Alas she did appear in other 'Hoots' which sets her up as a sort of regular. But I digress. Maybe an ebay still or Mordaunt Hall review might yield cast members. Thanks again.Koplimek (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Koplimek. There's a great resource for films from the 1910s through the mid-1940s (it gets sparse after that): Media History Project. To me, their Hollywood Studio System Collection is the Bee's Knees. I just searched through the available magazines from 1928 (and late 1927, when production might have been mentioned). I looked through The Film Daily, Harrison's Reports, Motion Picture News, and Variety. Found lots of mentions of the film, but not a single cast list. Nor did I find any mention of Nora during that time period. I don't have access to NYT, but if you could find a review by Hall that would certainly give a detailed cast list. Thanks again for all your hard work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Onel5969, I found this cast list of A Trick of Hearts on GoogleBooks listing Nora in the cast. Its from a book by Larry Langman titled A GUIDE TO SILENT WESTERNS:

A Guide to Silent Westerns c.1992..also this book by George A. Katchmer A Biographical Dictionary of Silent Film Western Actors and Actresses c.2002

Koplimek (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's also a book listing the film probably with Nora in the credits but the page runs off on GoogleBooks. Apparently the film featured crossdressing theme. I wasn't going to mention this book but since it has a few stills showing imagery I changed my mind: LADIES Or GENTLEMAN: A PICTORIAL HISTORY OF MALE CROSS-DRESSING IN THE MOVIES by Jean-Louis Ginibre c.2005 Koplimek (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a question about this edit, where you disambiguated a link that seems to be intended for a species of moth to an article on a bicycle manufacturer. I'm trying to fix it - do you have any idea what species of moth was intended? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I figured it out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Red link: "It is useful in editing articles to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable" and "red links can be added to persons who could plausibly have articles". Since, per WP:ATHLETE, all Olympic athletes are presumed notable, Mohamed Mahmoud should be red linked until such a time that someone decides to create an article for him. I'm not seeing why that link should not be there. Canadian Paul 19:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed, Canadian Paul, but that's not what you did. You simply pointed the name at a dab page which didn't even have a red-linked entry for that boxer, which should not be done. Feel free to link that name as you did, if you intend to create the article in the near future. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I must be very confused now. I changed the lack of link to Mohamed Mahmoud instead. What were you expecting me to do instead? Canadian Paul 19:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No Canadian Paul, that's right. But what you did originally was simply link to the dab page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not. Canadian Paul 19:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I suppose technically you did, but it was in 2013, and the dab wasn't created until 2017. So... no harm no foul? Primefac (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Actually, I made the boo-boo. I read the edit summary, which stated that he was making a dab, rather than looking at what he actually did. My apologies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Just wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something obvious (it happens, sometimes my brain freezes on a weird wavelength). I'm going to restore the page now though. Cheers. Canadian Paul 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)