User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2005 April

Previous · Index · Next

British/United Kingdom

Thanks for your correction in Yandabu Accord. I have changed the term British to United Kingdom.

Prabhakar 04:21, 21 February 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

I propose you take a look at Germanic peoples ones again. The context is clearly historical. Piping to the United Kingdom seems strange to me, and there already exists one such pipe, that maybe is a tad more appropriate. /Tuomas 14:28, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

Charter88

Rich, why didn't you incorporate the text on the Talk page into the article, or was it in the article and you removed it? I thought that a substantial part of the text was very helpful. Did you write it, or what is the history of it? MPLX/MH 20:09, 2 April 2005 (UTC)

Justin Canha and the Google Test

Hello, Rich. I just saw your justification to not speedy delete the Justin canha article, in the article's history page. Responding to my speedy deletion reason: "This is an article about someone with less than 500 hits on Google" , you said (sic): "Google hits do not a speedy deletion make".

Are we abolishing the Google Test?

Among other reasons to do a Google Test there is: ...to decide whether a person is famous enough to have an article or is just making the page because of vanity

--Abu Badali 17:15, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an imperfect tool used to produce a general gauge of notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive.

Secondly notability or lack thereof is not a reason for speedy deletion neither is vanity. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

I agree that Justin Canha almost certainly “should” be speedied, but under the current policy it needs to go to VfD. Rich Farmbrough 19:24, 12 April 2005 (UTC)

VFD

Just one more thing, Google Test was really voted for deletion. But the result was keep. --Abu Badali 17:23, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

.

Hello--Crestville 18:17, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Hello.

Hello--Crestville 18:17, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
Hello yourself :) Rich Farmbrough 15:26, 14 April 2005 (UTC)
Hey, cheers!  :)--Crestville 22:17, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

Persia

I notice you've been disambiguating links to Persia into Iran. Thanks, but please be aware that that article deals only with the country that's occupied that area since 1935, when the international community first began referring to it as Iran. Instances of Persia in more historical contexts--for instance, in ancient Roman, ancient Greek or Muslim history articles--should really be disambiguated to Persian Empire. Binabik80 03:23, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

I was also going to comment that this is probably a bad idea. Most of the the changes I checked should really be disambigged to Persian Empire. It is similar to linking to [[Ancient Egypt|Egypt]] rather than [[Egypt]]. -- Solipsist 06:34, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

I see you were reacting to the list at Wikipedia:Offline_reports/This_is_one_of_the_most_linked_to_disambiguation_pages. The fact that there are nearly 1500 Persia links, suggests that there could be an alternative solution, such as moving the current Persia to Persia (disambiguation) and making Persia a redirect to Persian Empire. However, there is already extensive discussion at Talk:Persia, which shows it is not a trivial issue. -- Solipsist 07:06, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Persia is that the discussion, and the page itself, indicate that Iran is the correct disambig. There is a seperate page for Persian Empire, and I have changed a number of links from [[Persia]]n empire to [[Persian Empire]]. Iran includes a link to History of Iran which is also redirected from History of Persia. I'll leave it alone for now, and see what the discssion on talk:Persia brings forth. Rich Farmbrough 16:41, 16 April 2005 (UTC)

A number of the links you've made to Iran are clearly more appropriately made to Persian Empire, especially considering they are talking about events of 1,500-2,500 years ago. I've fixed some of them. As for History of Iran, the majority of it is on the 20th century, and the section on the older history notes that the main article is Persian Empire. I've fixed that re-direct to point to the article that actually has the information in it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 17 April 2005 (UTC)

Shoot, I got involved today with the project and have had the same problems, including someone who was miffed with my edits following behinf me and reverting everything I did. I think maybe we need to have a more general topis Persia, which could cover (and link to) the ancient empire, the modern Iran, and the cultural articles.General Leppy

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

bbx 01:20, 23 April 2005 (UTC)

David Farmbrough

Not sure that the second link to [[Winchmore Hill] is needed as it's linked in an earlier instance. User:DavidFarmbrough 11 Apr 2005 17:22 (BST)

I guess you're right. Rich Farmbrough 16:37, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And if you use <nowiki></nowiki> you can express wiki construct unwikily.Rich Farmbrough circa 16:37, 11 April 2005 (UTC)

Trouble at Wiktionary

There is a user on Wiktionary that is outta control and he must be stopped. Will you ban Bobtail since you are an adminstrator and on Wiktionary, protect "Template:Hellenicindex" and "Template:Englishindex" to avoid vandalisms. Pumpie, 21:12, 23 April 2005 (UTC)