Misplaced Pages

PurePanties.com — Add to this discussion

Advertisement. Joyous 01:31, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete SkArcher 01:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I do not believe this is an advertisement, because I don't believe the original user who wrote it is affiliated with them. However, it's not a well-known website, so not encyclopedic. Derrick Coetzee 02:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need an article for every porn site on the web. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:35, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Delete - Delete - and again I say Delete Kevin Rector 02:40, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yup. Krupo 02:45, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an ad. - Aaron Hill 07:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - For all of you who think its an ad, I have been writing for two years here, I dont go for that. I only write about what I like, to keep this site fun for me to come back. Read the Profanity word bit, does that sound like an ad to you??? Ive seen less encyclopedic articles here, like Sarah Marple-Cantrell (and I think that one is worth of being here). - Antonio Kiss my ... Martin
  • Just because the firm itself didn't write it doesn't mean it's not an ad. DJ Clayworth 17:22, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence it's a particularly notable site. Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. Andrewa 13:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not present any notability. --Zigger 14:12, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Not really an ad, but this is a non-notable soft-porn website. As stated, this isn't a web directory nor should it become one. Big guns like eBay, Drudge Report, MoveOn, Google, MSN, Yahoo! and the like are notable, to name a very few. Dis don't ring da bell. - Lucky 6.9 16:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Alexa ranking well below 100,000 + non-notable = delete. -Sean Curtin 17:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Ad for porn. Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Oh my... Delete. Fire Star 20:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

DELETE!

New page — Add to this discussion

An article on a nonexistant word 'hyebeh' (neither dict.org nor google knows it). Besides, the article has nothing to do with what it's entitled. -Frazzydee 01:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• My entry was somehow changed to an article I had already listed as a Speedy deletion candidate. It's discussion can be seen here (the two articles contained the same contents). Yes, it should be a speedy delete candidate, but I've already listed it here :( -Frazzydee 15:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I think you may have inadvertently just cut-and-pasted the template without filling in the name of the article for deletion in place of "New page." - Lucky 6.9 16:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think so...I looked at the old version, and it points to the correct article. Oh well, both articles have already been deleted anyways :) thanks -Frazzydee 23:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alan Mycroft — Discussion

Fellow academic (apparently in the UK a "reader" is akin to an assistant professor) with Arthur Norman, whose biggest claim to fame is apparently co-leading a project to create an obscure CPU (jcn processor -journal -"corporate news network" -"JCN newswire" gets less than 500 hits, and many are about other topics)--this is the main creation the article mentions--and university compiler (norcroft -minnesota -guest -equestrian -summit, -palmerston gets only 2500 hits, many of which are still about other topics) "Alan Mycroft" only gets about 2000 hits, half of which are about somebody else. (If the article is deleted, the links to it should be removed to reduce the chance of it reappearing.) Niteowlneils 02:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• It's not the quantity of hits that matters, it's the quality. Some of the weblinks are news articles naming him as one of the signatories to the petition to the EU parliament protesting the patenting of algorithms. In terms of research publications, he doesn't appear to be in the top 1% in his field judged by the ISI highly cited threshold (79 papers over 10 years in computer science) as his research papers list only has about 30 in that period judging by a quick scan. He does appear to do a fair chunk of teaching, judging from the google hits. Not sure that lecturing, even at a top university, is encyclopaedic though. I'm currently leaning towards delete.
• Delete, unless explained why he is notable. I checked Citeseer, a search engine that indexes online papers in computer science and it returned 197 citations . This means that he does not make Citeseer's list of 10,000 most cited computer scientists. So, based on article and citation statistics, he would not be notable. If there is some other reason why he is notable, please, tell me. Unimportant remark: UK "reader" corresponds to US associate professor. US assistant professor would be UK "lecturer". Andris 20:56, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Arthur Norman — Discussion

Fellow academic (apparently in the UK a "lecturer" is below a "reader", which is below a professor) with Alan Mycroft, whose biggest claim to fame is apparently co-leading a project to create an obscure CPU (jcn processor -journal -"corporate news network" -"JCN newswire" gets less than 500 hits, and many are about other topics)--this is the main creation the article mentions--and university compiler (norcroft -minnesota -guest -equestrian -summit, -palmerston gets only 2500 hits, many of which are still about other topics) "arthur norman" -prior -remodeling -baldwinson only gets about 3000 hits, only about 500 of which seem to be about this person. (If the article is deleted, the links to it should be removed to reduce the chance of it reappearing.) Niteowlneils 02:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • But readers are generally described as lecturers. Not a vote btw. Secretlondon 22:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reasoning as above. Citeseer returns 57 citations of which only 10-15 belong to this Norman. Andris 21:02, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Debbie Dewart — Add to this discussion

• Seems to be pretty non-notable person. The fact that this person is a Christian fundamentalist and disagrees with someone doesn't seem to warrant an article. But I could be wrong. Kevin Rector 03:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Search for Debbie Dewart Christian gets 325 results on Google, for anyone who's curious. Unless anyone can provide some evidence that she's significantly more notable than the millions upon millions of "Christian fundamentalists" in the world, I vote delete. blankfaze | •• | •• 03:51, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. At first I thought she'd done nothing except post a rant on the internet, but it seems that she has actually had a book () published by a Christian publisher. Even so, not nearly notable enough for an encyclopedia article. —Stormie 04:04, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • One book by a niche publisher? Not that notable. Delete. Average Earthman 12:24, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I used to be a guest columnist in the local paper which, in a sense, makes me a published writer. I don't have my own article nor do I want one. There. Now that I've said that, we've been innundated with vanity press authors and the like far too much as of late. Delete this one as well. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. Also remove parenthetical mention in M. Scott Peck. For purposes of the Peck article, just put (from the Dewart article) on the list of external links. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:58, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ian Renton — Add to this discussion

Non-notable uni student whose only claim to fame appears to be a contribution to the unreleased SECOS operating system, which has also been listed on VFD. —Stormie 04:47, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• As I've said, college students are the most notorious vanity posters here. Add to that a questionable claim of creating an operating system whose existence is also questionable is worthy of a big ol' delete. - Lucky 6.9 06:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Any information related to secos should be merged with SECOS. Gazwim 10:09, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The "Mad marmablue web portal" (sic) refrenced in the article contains references to Thomas Ashworth (under his nick name tash), but after the time he supposedly died. I think this is a delte for Thomas Ashworth as well.
    • I just checked, that is not Thomas Ashworths words. Krik 12:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:06, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Yath 08:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Michael F. Cammarata, Dennis O'Berg, Francis Henry Brennan, Melissa Harrington-Hughes, Neil D. Levin — Add to this discussion

More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Levin - notable state public figure before 9/11. Delete rest. Davodd 09:05, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. -Sean Curtin 17:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Levin - Delete allothers and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial ALL. According to 'what links here' on the Port Authority article, we don't have any other articles on people just because they were directors of it, so if we keep Levin, it seems to be more for 9/11 events than previous achievements. Niteowlneils 17:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tara Creamer, Patrick Currivan, Edmund Glazer, Charles Edward Jones, Barbara Keating — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Charles Jones. More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Chuck Jones was a close call for me, but I think the current content belongs at Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'd say to keep the Jones article. Few people so strangely linked with both the Challenger disaster and the Sept. 11 attacks.--Samuel J. Howard 08:29, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Jones - notable astronaut before 9/11. Delete rest. Davodd 09:10, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm sure Jones has been through before. Note that he didn't actually fly, his scheduled mission was cancelled due to the Challenger accident. Even so, I vote that his getting on the Astronaut list for NASA and being scheduled to fly is noteworthy enough. The rest of the articles are wikimemorial material, as they make no particular claim of sufficiently encyclopaedic levels of note. keep Jones, Wikimemorial and delete the rest. Average Earthman 12:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: Barbara Keating: I've copied the text of this article, which I worked on earlier to correct some errors, to the September 11 Memorial Wiki, and I fully agree it should be deleted from the main Misplaced Pages. Opus33 14:05, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Jones, transwiki rest. -Sean Curtin 17:14, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Jones - Delete others and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Jones. Memorial rest. Niteowlneils 18:10, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sonia Morales Puopolo, Pendyala Vamsikrishna, Garnet Bailey, Mark Bavis, Graham Berkeley — Add to this discussion

More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Bailey - notable athlete before 9/11; delete rest. Davodd 09:13, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Seconded. -Sean Curtin 17:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and Bavis - delete the others. DJ Clayworth 17:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and Bavis - Delete others and move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Bailey and memorial the rest. RE Bavis: I'll change my vote if someone can point out any other person who has an article just for being a pro scout--any sport. Niteowlneils 17:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Touri Bolourchi, Robert LeBlanc, Kathleen Shearer, Timothy Ward — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Touri Balourchi. More 9/11 victims whose articles are better served in Wikimemorial. Robert LeBlanc is a judgement call, but the current article does not appear to present evidence that passes the "more than average professor" test. Rossami 06:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete all. Davodd 09:15, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Insuficient claims to notability. Wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 12:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. DJ Clayworth 17:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Transwiki all. -Sean Curtin 17:16, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete all. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial all. Niteowlneils 18:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• memorial and delete. --Jiang 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Joseph Murray — Add to this discussion

This article was previously voted on (I believe in 2002) but the decision predates the current thinking about Wikimemorial. Rossami 06:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Transwiki and delete. -Sean Curtin 17:23, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Talk page says December 2003. I think 7 months is long enough to wait for reevaluation. Memorial and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:25, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• memorial and delete--Jiang 03:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Madeline Amy Sweeney, Peter Burton Hanson, Sue Kim Hanson — Add to this discussion

Also the redirect Madeline Sweeney. I believe these were previously discussed and that the concensus was to move to Wikimemorial but I can not find a record of the discussion. And, obviously, the articles are still out there. Rossami 06:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Finally found the discussion of Madeline Sweeney's article - cleverly hidden in plain sight on the article's Talk page. Concensus was keep. Rossami 07:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Minor businessman and scientist/technician. Not of sufficient note prior to 9/11, wikimemorial and delete. Average Earthman 12:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Move and delete the latter two. Support the consensus to keep Sweeney. -Sean Curtin 17:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Memorial and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:21, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - move to memorial - Tεxτurε 21:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Borderline keep Sweeney & redir. Memorial the Hansons. Niteowlneils 17:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Crab Quesadillas with Mango Salsa — Add to this discussion

This is a recipe, and has been moved to the Wikibooks Cookbook here. Gentgeen 07:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Davodd 09:21, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Quesadillas are significant and encyclopedic, but this recipe is just a recipe. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Daniel E.Cerquitella — Add to this discussion

This is another article from CML about a non-notable high school teacher. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Jeffrey T. Nomura for related information. By the way, after Nomura was deleted, CML recreated the Nomura article, which was speedily deleted. Chris N. 09:43, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. See also the entry for Daniel Edward Cerquitella, an article that apparently got speedy-deleted already. Lupo 10:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• CML doesn't appear to be getting the hint. I notice messages have been left for them since 22 Jun on this matter and they're still doing it: I would call that vandalism and would support blocking this user if they continue to upload this rubbish. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:12, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "11:07, 29 Jun 2004 Theresa knott deleted "Daniel E.Cerquitella" (This is a recreation of Daniel Edward Cerquitella, which has been deleted twice as a nonsense article)" -- Cyrius|✎ 19:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Daniel Edward Cerquitella has also recently been speedy deleted once before (see above).Woggly 10:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Daniel Edward Cerquitella has also recently been speedy deleted once before (see above).Woggly 10:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Galatico — Add to this discussion

Stublet on non-notable auxlang, documented only in Italian according to the article. Google finds lots of hits for the word but most are unrelated since apparently "galatico" is "galactic" in Italian, (Brazilian) Portuguese, and possibly Spanish. -- pne 11:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. We havve many articles on obscure languages. Some even have Wikipedias. Krik 11:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • We have exactly two Wikipedias for constructed languages. Documenting obscure natural languages is fine by me, but everybody and his dog can and does produce conlangs, some with delusions of auxlang grandeur. I don't think that every one-man conlang should have an entry here. -- pne 11:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible vanity by anon, and unencyclopedic in any case. The article gives no evidence that the Italian-language "novel" in which this artificial language is described exists in printed form rather than just as a file downloadable from the website link given, or that it has any form of fame or recognition. Andrewa 12:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Obscure natural languages are still of notable cultural and anthropological importance. Modern invented languages are only of any significance if you get enough people joining in, even if it just large numbers of rather obsessive fans dressed as sci-fi aliens or hobbits. But with no multi-generational science fiction series or massively successful novel/film trilogy backing it up, this language is of no importance whatsoever. Average Earthman 13:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, a language needs a present or past community of speakers to be worthy of inclusion. Everyking 15:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 18:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with the reasoning above. Andris 23:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Asot Corporation — Add to this discussion

Quote: "The Asot Corporation is a largely fictitious organization founded by two Pennsylvania kids in search of a label to apply to their activities." Quite endearing, but utterly non-noteable. Maybe a suitable topic for the family chronicles of the families Seaman and Troutman in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, but not for Misplaced Pages. Delete. Lupo 14:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: also not verifiable, and it's breeding categories now... Lupo 14:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't the way to get your name in lights. Geogre 16:01, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, along with any associated trivial categories. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 16:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Tried to get that speedy deleted as nonsense. Delete all and consider blocking user. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Loaded up the now-deleted page. It's vanity, bordering on nonsense. What is with 20-year olds making stupid vanity pages? -- Cyrius|✎ 19:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• This is what was e-mailed to me... - user:zanimum
  • "I have thoroughly read the "What Misplaced Pages Is Not" guide a few times, and I have found no guideline which would exclude the rather neutral entry that I wrote covering this topic. In fact, the entry does fit into the “Not a Paper Encyclopedia” category. The entry is objective and non-promotional. I understand that the appeal of such a discussion may be limited, but of course, Misplaced Pages is not paper and is a source for all types of obscure information. Misplaced Pages has been a great educational tool for me, and I generally pick up all kinds of “useless” information. Why the harsh anti-Asot rhetoric?"
• This is what I responded... - user:zanimum
  • "I've posted this on vfd. Only you and your family have interest in such a company, whereas other so called "useless information" is of interest to hundreds, thousands, millions of people. More than just you family of five, or whatever. Give me an example. - Nick"

Mercedes Divide — Add to this discussion

• Delete due to utter triviality. This is an "article" "about" a one-line quip made by the FCC chairman, Michael Powell, as a play on "digital divide". That's all. No showing that this phrase has had any additional cultural currency aside from Powell's one-time use of it in a press conference. At most, keep as a redirect to either Powell's article or digital divide. Postdlf 18:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, delink, and possibly purge completely (haven't looked at what the text of the stuff linking there is). We do not need a page about every phrase that comes out of a bureaucrat's mouth. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:59, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• 517 google hits, for what it's worth. Might merit a mention in digital divide, might as well redirect. ] 19:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's still a neologism, even if it came from someone famous. Geogre 01:10, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Greater Oporto — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Greater Oporto

NJAMD — Add to this discussion

Blank. Neutrality 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Not a vote. Content has been restored. --Michael Snow 20:30, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - advert - Tεxτurε 21:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Andris 23:22, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paid off — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Neutrality 19:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - could easily have been speedy delete - Tεxτurε 21:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Breeding season — Add to this discussion

The entire content is "During the breeding season Newts live in ponds, the breeding season for the newts is between February and June." I can't imagine that anyone wanting newt information would type in just "breeding season." There's already an article on Newts, and I put the "seasonal" information in it. Joyous 20:06, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking content. Badly. Even the name doesn't make sense. If the info is already under "newt," that's where it should stay. This is just kiddie-wiki. - Lucky 6.9 21:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• But let's keep it. I'd very much like an article on comparitive breeding seasons noting that humans don't have a breeding season. orthogonal 21:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - no reason to keep a non-article. Later anyone can start the article or, if you wish, you could improve it now to a state that warrants keeping. - Tεxτurε 21:52, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Redirected to Reproduction, until such time as we have a proper artcile on this resonable subject. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: As it is, it's an obvious delete, but the lemma is important. An article on the periodic fertility of fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and only some mammals, and the way this may or may not link to resources for rearing young and presence of predation, would be good, but that would amount to blanking all the contents of this article & sending an empty placeholder to Cleanup. Geogre 00:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect until someone is inspired to write a proper article. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Methinks the redirect should have been to Mating season. Its a stub but its more appropriate. Jay 16:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The grade three teacher says "Let's write an article for Misplaced Pages." (Astute him/her, but fails to realize Misplaced Pages is NJAWS.) Eager students comply. Nine-year-old writing results. Misplaced Pages is not a pride board. Denni☯ 00:11, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)
• Mating season now redirects to estrus, hence redirect to there. Jay 20:30, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sean Danielsen — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Sean Danielsen

List of future nations — Add to this discussion

This is silly. The intended content already exists at List of unrecognized countries, list of disputed or occupied areas, and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. --Jiang 19:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This information should be merged to the appropriate articles given by Jiang —siroχo 20:12, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• This could just have been merged with those and a redirect made. Morwen - Talk 20:19, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Is the author of this article an attested psychic? I for one don't believe Misplaced Pages has forseeing the future as one of its functions. Fire Star 20:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• If there is any information not contained in List of unrecognized countries, merge. Otherwise, just delete. Andris 20:41, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• A merge is not appropriate. The information is already duplicated. A redirect will be misleading - these are in some cases already "nations" or de facto sovereign states. It is not wikipedia's business to make predictions as the word "future" does. --Jiang 21:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Tεxτurε 21:50, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: pure supposition, no fact. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:03, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: I hope it's just a case of someone accidentally creating a new article without knowing that its contents were already present under a more logically named entry. List of future lottery numbers is the article I'm holding out for. Geogre 00:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The muse is coming over me now... OooooOOOoooOOOoohh... 2... 5... 16... 33... 42... 48... If you win you owe me a million bucks -- Graham ☺ | Talk 10:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Cool! Drop me a line on my user page when that happens. In the meantime, delete this one as speculation. - Lucky 6.9 05:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - There is no reason for speculation Gangulf 06:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- pne 07:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation, not fact, and therefore inherently POV. Average Earthman 12:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Shayetet 13 — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Talk:Shayetet 13

BDv TrekMUSH — Add to this discussion

It's an advert for a new MUD. Secretlondon 21:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. It is the only running and active MUD of its kind. Several other muds also have listing here, with links at the bottom of the MUD page.64.136.27.227 22:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If this warrants an article then so do I. Delete. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Custom code bases are not that unusual. Should every entry in MUDconnector get an article - no! Secretlondon 22:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. Andris 23:19, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: A completely unambiguous ad ("Take a look!"), and who is going to search Misplaced Pages for it? Other than pagerank, it's not even useful as an ad! Geogre 03:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• "Take a look?!?" Ooh...adspeak! Delete. - Lucky 6.9 05:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Being different isn't significant if it doesn't work. Too new to be considered noteworthy, and hence the article is merely an advert. Average Earthman 12:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Early_National_Socialism/draft — Add to this discussion

• This proposed article has no factual or historical merit and should be deleted. The creator and returning contributor of this article has not answered pointed questions at Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and instead dodges the issue with irrelevant replies. The POV of the article itself, ie that "National Socialism" emerged from Socialism is merely a ridiculous sentiment popular among uninformed right-wing circles and without credibility. -- Simonides 23:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything is referenced and taken from many sources. There is information there not covered anywhere else unless Andy l has stolen it. It is an Ideology just like Marxism is. Hitler nor Mussolini defined it, named it, or created any of the concepts there in.WHEELER 23:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands, 1) Wheeler is the article creator mentioned above; 2) "National Socialism" is not an objectively confirmed ideology known or accepted by any serious person, apart from the German version, on which there already is an article (there were extreme right-wing parties before Nazism and Fascism but they have only tenuous connections with Nazism itself); 3) Wheeler's "information" consists of random quotes and unsubstantiated conjecture. Please see article. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. If the article is wrong, correct it. The topic is important and interesting; I mean, National Socialism did not spring fully-formed from Hitler's brow, it had origins running back in some cases to the Middle Ages. Let's document those origins. orthogonal 23:11, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, talking about the origins of an ideology is quite different from saying the ideology existed previously. There is no consistent, documented and widely known ideology known as National Socialism with the exception of 20th century Nazism. The article is not just wrong; it is baseless. -- Simonides 23:18, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Then re-write it by examining the Freikorps after WWI and Viennese anti-Semitism from the 1890s on (that mayor of Vienna, whose name escapes me) and the German pogroms of the Middle Ages and the Church's ban on usury and the formation of Jewish ghettos. -- orthogonal 23:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Orthogonal, you are talking about the origins of Nazism, only one of which is anti-Semitism, which has its own article (there's also History of anti-Semitism.) This article purports to be about previous manifestations of Nazism, which do not exist, and is based on the claim that Socialism gave rise to National Socialism, because the word occurs in the latter - a farcical suggestion without an iota of scholarly merit. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote 'the suspicion was whispered in German Nationalist circles that we also were merely another variety of Marxism, perhaps even Marxists suitably disguised, or better still, Socialists... We used to roar with laughter at these silly faint-hearted bourgeoisie and their efforts to puzzle out our origin, our intentions and our aims.' -- Simonides 23:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Everyking 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I agree that there should be an article on the origins of Nazism. However this article isn't it, and I don't think it can become the article that we want. So delete this draft and wait until somebody writes a keepable version. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:49, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Recover if possible, else delete. As enthusiastic as I am about coverage of Nazi topics (sunlight does wonders for clearing up infestations of the stuff), there is an article to write about this, but this isn't it. Someone would have to do the hideous heavy lifting of reading Mein Kampf (it's a bloody awful book). I see no loss from deleting and someone starting over again. OTOH, if there's anything to recover from this mess, it may be worth doing so, because just deleting it will encourage its continued recreation - David Gerard 00:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • The Nazism article and the Fascism article are already too large. Do not be stealing my material either. Hitler did say, "We are the full counterpart of the French Revolution".WHEELER 00:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not 'stealing' it when you released it under GFDL the moment you hit 'submit'. You may have greatly misunderstood the purpose of Misplaced Pages. - David Gerard 00:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with you. I think you have greatly misunderstood the GFDL. WHEELER is still the Copyright holder of the text he posted, and does have the legal right to be identified as the original author of his work. This is why maintaining page histories is so important. The GFDL is a copyright license - without an attributable copyright holder, the text cannot be shown to have been released under the GFDL. The relevant wording from Misplaced Pages:Copyrights is "if you incorporate external GFDL materials, as a requirement of the GFDL, you need to acknowledge the authorship". SkArcher 05:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not from an external source - it's an article posted here. The entire purpose is to make stuff usable across the project - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • If (what SkArcher writes) were true than others would not have the right to alter one contributor's "property" or move parts of it to other, more suitable articles. WHEELER accuses me of "stealing" for taking a paragraph from the /draft and putting it in the main article (ie the part on Austrian National Socialism) and he presumably would think it stealing if someone were to take a passage from this article and put it in the main Nazism article. If individuals remain "copyright holders" under GFDL it would open so many problems as to make wikipedia unworkable. If WHEELER wishes to "own" what he writes and have control over it then he should get his own website, post his own material and copyright it rather than post it to an open source project such as Misplaced Pages. AndyL 05:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • No, he still owns his work - but that's different from the complete control he's claiming - David Gerard 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • He cannot stop you from adding the material as you see fit; but you must cite WHEELER as the original author of anything you take to add to any other article with a back link to the original and attribution to his User: page, at the very least. Individuals do remain copyright holders for their entries - otherwise the GFDL has no legal force whatsoever. External Source means any source external to the document you are working on - Misplaced Pages being made up of a large number of documents. So if you do use any material originally authored by WHEELER, you have to link back. A simple entry in the Edit Summary will be sufficient to comply with copyright law. GFDL is not equal to public domain - and even public domain material has to be correctly attributed, hence why Misplaced Pages includes all those pages with attribution to the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brit. SkArcher 15:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • Come on, this is ridiculous. Can you cite any instances where material has been moved from one location on Misplaced Pages to another location on Misplaced Pages, in which this has been done? Or can you cite any basis for your claim that "external source" "means any source external to the you are working on "? john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
              • From Misplaced Pages:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License Section 4D: Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document. Section 4I: Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page. Section 4J: Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. - That is directly from the license text. You have to do it or the work violates the GFDL. Sorry, but it's true. SkArcher 13:40, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                • If this were the case, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and Lawrence Lessig would have drummed up a lynch mob and razed the Bomis offices to the ground by now. I believe your theory is what judges call "novel" - David Gerard 15:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
                  • It would be what is called "correct". You have to maintain notification that WHEELER is the author of the pieces of work in question. This isn't a debate however, so I suggest we end this. Just make sure you maintain the author and version history. There are reasons other than the authors rights for this as well. If an article was plagiarised, and then you moved info from that article to another article, the real owner of the copyrighted material would think that you had directly plagiarised his work, without being able to see the intermediary source. This is particually important when we are discussing deleteing articles, which would erase that trail of attribution. Always cite your sources. SkArcher 17:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, absolutely. The idea that Nazism had anything to do with socialism, other than semantics, is an absurdity propagated by the naive right. The origins of fascism may go to D'Anunzio and the Italian Futurists, and they might have been socialists, later, but that's like saying that the Cultural Revolution was a development of Buddhism. It's extremely annoying when these propaganda points get written as fact. Geogre 00:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Distorts arguments from sources, or cites extreme right-wing sources (including one that advocates the return of monarchy.) This doesn't reflect any mainstream view, only those of the author and a few far right commentators. The author presents arguments as facts by citing the opinions of these right wing writers as references, not presenting them as the viewpoint of said individuals. This is a personal essay, not an objective article. Completely rewrite or delete. --J.S. Nelson 01:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, or at least as "original research" (I use the term research lightly). If the author does wish to work on a draft, he can certainly move it to his user page, and see what it amounts to. —siroχo 01:57, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep if accurate. I think perhaps a change of title might be in order, and if it is proven to be overwhelmingly innacurate (I havn't the time/resources to verify this) WHEELER should at least be given a copy in his user name space. If the problem is one of POV or sourcing (which I doubt, I've only known WHEELER to be meticulous w his sourcing in the past) than provide alternate interpretations or sources. If someone can prove it is a fraud, I'd likely change my vote, but I don't see any proof of that. Sam 02:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it would help to look at the article and the relevant discussion, which has ample proof, before you vote on it. -- Simonides 03:11, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• • If you have no better response than the pomposity and ad hominem you present here, and the foolish manner in which you present your opinions as fact (with no other citations and verifiability than sites designed sheerly to present your POV) in the talk, than I'm not sure how useful it is to talk to you. The way your haranguing WHEELER about his page is simply awful. Next time, try civility. Sam 03:29, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Sam, I see why I touched a raw nerve - you have just posted a link on the article's Talk page linking to a right-wing wacko who doesn't known the first thing about Socialism and claims Hitler was Socialist on the basis of a single instance where he claimed to be so. Guess what - reading for comprehension and citing context helps, which your author clearly doesn't understand. That opening line of the speech was made at a May Day celebration and was a deliberate parody of Lenin. Maybe you should look up the relevant pages in the book quoted. Secondly, the difference between my POV links and Wheeler's random quotes, lack of context and leaps of logic, is that my links offer explanation, historical facts and substantial quotations that confirm each other - not one-off remarks. Thirdly, it's a tad ironic when you demand civility, humility, and research when you attempt none. -- Simonides 07:08, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly defined topic, no useful material. IMO the author is trying to broaden the term from the established and generally understood use, and while the content includes some good encyclopedic observations, there are also some insights that belong somewhere that encourages original research but not here, and some very questionable stuff too. They are all mixed together and it would be easier to start again than to try to sort them out. Andrewa 04:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:16, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Article isn't ready for main article status yet, but is a worthy topic for an article. Don't confuse the labelling of a phenomena or philosophy with it's invention - NS existed as an opinion before it was called that. I also question the correctness of putting draft articles on VfD. This is also not the place to talk about the content, only the topic itself. SkArcher 05:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. WHEELER is conflating pre-existing parties or movements called "national socialists" (such as :"French National Socialism") with Nazism and fascism when, in fact, all that is in common among these groups is the name "national socialist". Prior to the Nazis most people or groups who used the term "national socialist" or described themselves as "national socialists" were referring to concepts completely different from Hitlerism. This may be an argument for a "national socialist" disambiguation page but the article itself is quite useless and I was in error in moving WHEELER's material from National Socialism where he originally put it to "Early National Socialism" - it seemed to me at the time that was what he was trying to write about and it was simpler to rename the article than try to merge it with the Nazism article but it's clear now that an article on "Early National Socialism" is not what WHEELER is trying to write - rather he's attempting his own particular thesis on what natioanl socialism is. WHEELER's article is in parts redundant of material in other articles and in other parts completely POV and idiosyncratic. The part on Italian fascism is an attempt to convey opinions WHEELER couldn't get into the fascism article and the parts on German National Socialism that are not POV belong in the article on the Nazi Party. There is an Austrian National Socialism article (whose creation WHEELER both suggested and attacked) which makes that part of the article unnecessary Putting the material on "French National Socialism" in this article incorrectly suggests that it has a relationship to or was a precursor to the German Nazi Party which it was not. This isn't really a "does Nazism have anything to do with socialism" debate but a "does this thing here called national socialism have anything to do with that thing there also called national socialism"? AndyL 08:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What WHEELER is doing is akin to having an article on Republicanism that deals with the US Republican Party and the Irish Republican Army as if they were related to each other and part of the same movement. AndyL 09:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good simile. 172 10:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I second AndyL's comments above. 172 08:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You are judging the National Socialism through American Eyes and perceptions of socialism. National Socialism is a *phenomena* of Europe of those who rejected international socialism. What you also fail to take into account is that Proudhon, a socialist and founder of "anarchism", stated that he wanted to KEEP PRIVATE PROPERTY. He was against speculation of property, He was also against financiers. He wanted to keep business competition alive. This is the thought of Proudhon and of National Socialism. National Socialism absorbed the thought of Proudhon. Americans are judging European National Socialism of the 1930's with modern American prejudices and concepts. You have to look at it through THEIR eyes not yours.WHEELER 13:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look, Misplaced Pages is about highschoolers learning concepts and of foreigners reading articles. National Socialism now is directed to Nazism. Hitler did not invent the idea nor the concept. "What is National Socialism?" is not answered by the Nazism article.WHEELER 14:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. AndyL puts it relatively clearly and fairly, I think. I have encouraged WHEELER many times to find a site that will allow him to post essays, which is really what he wants to do. The conclusions he draws are so original and unexpected that they have to be considered original historical research. Even if valid (and in my experience I rarely find his conclusions valid), they are not part of what Misplaced Pages seeks to do. He should be commended for his desire to investigate and explore ideas, but his application of that energy here too often results in the production of controversial essays. This article is one such essay, and does not belong here. Jwrosenzweig 16:07, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prof Sternhell and Prof Schapiro, and Prof von Kuehnelt is original research? I think not. Prof Sternhell wrote of this material in 1976. New?WHEELER 14:29, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it funny that American Academia will throw this stuff away. while Prof Schapiro quotes SEVERAL NAZI writers as calling Louis Napoleon and Proudhon has the basis of Fascism. But I should know better American Academia know better than the Nazis and the Fascists themselves. What Arogance!WHEELER 14:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Though I wish more contributors...myself included...would cite their sources as well as this author did, it still comes across as an essay and is therefore non-encyclopedic, original research or both. - Lucky 6.9 16:44, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This page says little else than that national socialism existed before hitler, grew out of socialism, and lists obscure facts. firstly, it's a bunch of bull. Secondly, national socialism is a term so closely related to nazism, that your page will most likely confuse anyone who reads it. wikipedia is meant to be a place where people can come and find information in an easy manner. and last of all, note that topics on national socialism and nazism already exist, making a revised page from this pov superfluous. --naryathegreat

There seems to be a consensus to delete the article. Can any admin delete it now or should we ask someone who hasn't participated in the vote to do it?AndyL 20:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is typical Andy, you never want to follow the rules. You want to break the rules to suit yourself, yet demand that I follow them but you don't have to. This is a good example of your mindset.WHEELER 14:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy says that the lag time is 5 days for VfD - it was submitted less than 24 hours ago. Secretlondon 20:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks very much to me like crankism masquerading as pseudo-scholarship.Hayford Peirce 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well put. 172 06:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. What Andy said. john k 06:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am glad to hear that Zeev Sternhell and Prof Schapiro are cranks. I also find it very hypocritical and unprofessional that some will call for deletion of this article and then take what I have written and use it. WHEELER 14:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I won't repeat since so many have made thecase so well. BCorr|Брайен 18:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just misrepresentation cherry picking. jallan 03:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hitler did not create the concept, party name, nor ideology of National Socialism. To direct all enquiries of National Socialism to the Nazism page is an Academic Crime. Because this is not the truth. The people here want to obfuscate, obscure and delibrately mislead and keep the misleading going. We are not interested in the truth. We are interested in keeping up appearances and protecting a "false interpretation" and the "Current idea" of American Academia. This article undermines their false conclusions.WHEELER 14:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER, it is not acceptable for you to try to cirumvent the deletion of the Early National Socialism/draft page by moving the info to National Socialism. AndyL 19:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You may argue with my definition of it. But you can not argue with the facts. I am moving the facts over. Let the page then be a list of facts.WHEELER 15:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seeking truth from fact — Add to this discussion

Seeking truth from fact is hard, so is trying to fathom the reason for this article. Rmhermen 23:42, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: This is from Celebrity Farm Film Philosophy? Wow. It's not nonsense, nor original research, I guess: it's an obvious statement uttered in complete sincerity and obliquity. Geogre 00:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Lethe 03:49, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
• Reads like pop psychology and is totally unencyclopedic. I, as a duly designated human being, hereby vote to delete. - Lucky 6.9 04:57, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Sophomoric philosophy. Delete. DJ Clayworth 15:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (or redirect to Epistemology?). Original research. Misplaced Pages does not concern itself with truth, but with facts. Fact, fact, fact! Misplaced Pages is a work of realities, a work of facts and calculations. Misplaced Pages proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Misplaced Pages, with a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in its pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic. You might hope to get some other nonsensical belief into the text of the Britannica, or Grolier, or Encarta, but into the text of Misplaced Pages—no, sir! Ironic joking aside, delete. Dpbsmith 23:45, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Precising definition — Add to this discussion

Confusing and short, it's been sitting in cleanup for three months. If you understand it, expand it. :-) If not, let's get rid of it. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Delete or move. Precise is not a verb in English. It is so used only by French-speaking people whose English is in that regard deficient, and perhaps some others who do not speak English natively. Michael Hardy 00:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I've encountered "precising definition" used in a course on logic in this sense: Types of Definition; it does belong with the other types of definitions listed in the definition article. I've made a stubby attempt to rewrite it to match the term as I've seen it used: I am not familiar with it in some of the contexts the previous author had in mind, or at least, I don't think I am, but can't tell from the way it was written. Mindspillage 02:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Come to think of it, would this and all the other types of definitions be better merged with the main definition entry? Most linked from it don't even have articles yet, though one (operational definition) is fairly lengthy. Mindspillage 03:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mount Buffalo Chalet — Add to this discussion

Advertisment. Is it a notable chalet? Rmhermen 23:49, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It is notable, but the mention in the article on Mount Buffalo National Park is quite adequate. This is pure advertising copy from an anon and possibly a copyvio. Andrewa 03:59, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It is a copyvio from . - Lucky 6.9 16:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pure psychic automatism — Add to this discussion

While valid and encyclopedic, it seems too small to merit its own article. Suggest a merge into surrealism or André Breton —siroχo 02:49, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Redirect to surrealism. Postdlf 14:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If it is not to be kept I think it should be merged with surrealist automatism instead. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:08, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Agree with that merge —siroχo 05:27, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Clan LMBR — Add to this discussion

Internet gaming group that only recently regrouped. Very vanity-ish. - Lucky 6.9 04:52, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. The article makes no sufficient claim to notability for the clan, indeed it even admits it has already disbanded once due to lack of interest. Average Earthman 12:15, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maximus Rex 05:10, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

June 30

The Solo family, Organa family, The Skywalker family, The Lars family, The Naberrie family — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/The Solo family

• Merge with entries for Han Solo, Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, etc. Family trees can be and important part of a character's background Thesteve 15:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Student Assembly and Academic Assembly — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Student Assembly

Lisa Feldstein — Add to this discussion

She seems like a good lady but this is an advertisement for her election campaign. ping 08:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Does not appear to be more than the average local politician even if she is elected. I may be underestimating the importance of district supervisors in San Francisco, but I'd say she'd have to win the election and then do something notable with the position to warrant inclusion. Average Earthman 12:19, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep (if it's not a copyvio, as I suspect it is--will look after typing this). I'd say it's the equivalent of a City Council, and local govt. officials from cities the size of San Francisco are, I believe, encyclopedic--probably more encyclopedic than some town in Idaho with 87 inhabitants. ] 14:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • copyvio. This discussion belongs to another day. ] 15:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Either — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Either

The Great Explosion at Faversham — Add to this discussion

Article The Great Explosion at Faversham listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED...Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Above comment by Faedra copied and pasted from vfd mainspace Graham ☺ | Talk 00:15, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC))

Faedra listed this for VfD, but didn't leave a reason. Looks like it was manually copied from a book. I can't get any Google matches on the text. - Lucky 6.9 19:34, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Addendum: This was originally on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Old, but lacked consensus and thus has been moved back to VfD. Johnleemk | Talk 09:17, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• (not a vote) Discussion on Talk:The Great Explosion at Faversham suggests Faedra believes it's a copyvio, but it was Faedra who uploaded it. We can't proceed - Faedra either needs to decide it's a copyvio, and list it on the appropriate page, or needs to come up with grounds why it should be deleted by the VfD process (where non-copyvio deletions are covered). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:40, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• It gets weird, now. Check out Faversham munitions disaster/temp. Same user. There's a copyright notice at the top of the page. No Google hits, though. For that matter, no wikis and lots of misspellings. - Lucky 6.9 23:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• There's some sort of copyright message on User:Faedra page that I don't quite get. Is he posting copyrighted material, and then working on de-violating it once its up? Maybe he's putting up the copyright notice to let people know he's not finished??? Joyous 00:47, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• All no google hits means is that google's spiders have not found it, which should not be a surprise if it has never appeared on the web, which can be said to be true of practically all non-notable twentieth century works. I'm betting this is the work of a professional writer, and the material constitutes a copyvio, but because it was never electronically transliterated, who knows for sure? I'd like to say keep, because it's interesting and well-written, but my instinct says it's too clean to be true. I vote delete, and let's follow the debate. Denni☯ 06:55, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)

The location of a website containing the source for the main body my wiki pages (at this time) resides temp. at my user page. Initially I had wished to remove some of my contributions as I saw them as superficial to an encyclopaedia, I have chosen to rework them because of positive feed back on this page, my copyright notices are self explanatory. I am a careless speller, and I am not a professional author, having not made a shilling on my work, which is why I was initially concerned for my copyright, hence the need to rework everything I have submitted before I continue with new material.

NB THIS PAGE: (VfD) URGENT: I find this page unwieldy, and hope someone can sub divide it into a page for each week or set up a frameset with shortcuts. This contrib. does not help in that regard, but I hope clarifies my desire to present the community with unproblematic content at the same time preserving my original content, still under construction, and with copyright problems unresolved. phew! Faedra 17:58, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's a little less unwieldy if you put your comments on the Template page instead of using the section edit feature. Rossami

End discussion

CONSENSUS REQUIRED 7 DAYS EXPIRED...Faedra 23:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ladder-up reaction — Add to this discussion

Article Ladder-up reaction listed on WP:VFD July 1 to July 7 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

• I think this is a coined term. -Litefantastic 10:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment Orhtogonal's comment on this discussion has been omitted because a) you voted keep under one heading and delete under the other, and b) the article hadn't even been listed for you to look at. It's not an act of malice, just one of the fact that I needed to merge the votes together and I could hardly put in both delete and keep votes together -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:06, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero relevant hits--top hit is the VFD listing. Niteowlneils 03:35, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Although the concept is fine, and maybe there ought to be a word for it, it's simply not used that anyone can determine. Geogre 16:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep: It's useful information. Just because it's not obvious what the correct phrase should be, it might still be useful to reference it elsewhere (or consider incorporating the content in another article later, or find a better title...) Rls 00:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Superlevure — Add to this discussion

Text of this page is:

this is a model of yeast. It is good. 8-9 tablets per day. Vitamins B and proteins. energy. by gayelord Hauser. B1/B2/B3/B5/B6/B9. Riche en proteines.

Needs to be deleted-- has no useful information. Would do it myself, but I don't know how. -Berrik

I happen to agree with Berrik —siroχo 11:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete Incomprehensible, badly translated from French, and judging by a google search on the term possibly an advert (my French is as bad as the poster's English). Average Earthman 12:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Concur with deletion. Anything mentioning Gayelord Hauser is likely an ad for quackery. Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • And this would be a vote for 'keep' because?... -Litefantastic 10:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Because it is a model of yeast, that's why. Kidding aside, keep this deleted. - Lucky 6.9 17:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tomorrow — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Octamer — Add to this discussion

Merge with molecule and delete. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Either you mean merge and redirect, or you mean delete outright. If you merge you need to redirect to conserve the edit history. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in its present form. (1) It is useful to have keywords point to the general purpose article, so don't delete it. (2) It is also useful to have a short defn so that someone who comes looking for the keyword doesn't have to search a long article to find its defn, so don't replace it with a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I have tidied it up a bit. Keep ping 08:17, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Will be expanded very soon - already useful. No need to merge with polymer. --] 16:38, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Naked DNA — Add to this discussion

Merger proposal

This article is unnecessary and any worthwhile information should be merged with DNA. -- September 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.254 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Article was listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 30th to July 6th 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Merge with DNA and delete. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• No such request. Please specify whether you men merge and redirect or delete outright. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:42, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in its present form. (1) It is useful to have keywords point to the general purpose article, so don't delete it. (2) It is also useful to have a short defn so that someone who comes looking for the keyword doesn't have to search a long article to find its defn, so don't replace it with a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:46, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Wile E. makes the cogent point that was nagging me but I couldn't elucidate. -- orthogonal 02:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

confirmed, (Homer voice: "Stupid this section links!") -- orthogonal 22:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Seperate entity to DNA. It will be expanded soon enough. --] 16:41, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Second Paragraph Needs Work

SECOND PARAGRAPH:

"In the field of DNA vaccines or genetic immunization, the term "naked DNA" was coined by Vical to mean DNA delivered free from agents which promote transfection. Vical is an important vaccination produced recently working on the H1N1 virus vaccine. It needs lots of contributions so it can finish its studies on humans. The companies studies have shown 100% results in animals and is ready for humans but it needs to be completed to save people from the future pandemic. Research on the use of naked DNA for DNA vaccinations and gene therapy has shown some initial success, but have not yet resulted in any generally available therapy."

CONCERNS:

"coined by Vical"

   Who is Vical?

"Vical is an important vaccination"

   a] important = unsubstantiated opinion
   b] how does a vaccination coin a term?

"needs lots of contributions"

   solicitation????

"have shown 100% results" and "shown some initial success"

   a] contradictory
   b] no citation

Rodtheman (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)rodtheman

DnaC — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/DnaC

DESOTO patrol — Add to this discussion

Merge with Vietnam War and delete. Neutrality 14:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• No such decision, either you mean merge and redirect or delete outright -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in its present form. (1) It is useful to have keywords point to the general purpose article, so don't delete it. (2) It is also useful to have a short defn so that someone who comes looking for the keyword doesn't have to search a long article to find its defn, so don't replace it with a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Banks that work with alternative browsers — Add to this discussion

Article Banks that work with alternative browsers listed on WP:VFD Jun 30 to Jul 6 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

It may be interesting to have such a list, but (a) the title is wrong, (b) the information is likely to change too repidly to be of use, (c) if it stays then will end up linking to every bank worldwide and become little more than an advertisement. --VampWillow 15:37, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Agree with the above. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, and it's horribly provincial, too (all the banks everywhere?). Geogre 17:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Please delete. This does not belong in an encyclopedia Ronaldo. 17:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I perceive this page as having a promotional purpose—namely, that of promoting banks whose sites adhere to Web standards and encouraging people to patronize these banks, rather than those who elect to support only IE users. That's how it looks to me; your mileage may vary. As a Safari user, I personally applaud this effort, but it is not appropriate for Misplaced Pages. Dpbsmith 18:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I created this page, but now that I read these comments and think about it a bit more, I agree. It was a horribly quick-and-dirty effort anyway, and would probably be better somewhere else. Joeljkp 19:31, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons given above. -- pne 12:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Move to correct title and expand --] 16:46, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Psyche_(disambiguation) — Add to this discussion

Untitled

Article Psyche (disambiguation) listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 30 to July 7 2004, consensus was not reached; one disambig page redirected to the other at sysop's discretion. Discussion:

• There are two disambiguation pages, this one and Psyche, which has more material in it. Lurker 16:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I suggest that we keep+update the Psyche_(disambiguation) page, and use the Psyche for the Greek Goddess with a disamb tag. ZeroFuzion 21:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I suggest that we keep and update the Psyche_(disambiguation) page, and use Psyche for an article on psyche/mind, as that particular usage is much more common (though I also think we should have an article on the Greek goddess, perhaps under Psyche_(Greek goddess). -Seth Mahoney 23:07, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and keep Psyche as a disambiguation page. Both the godess and the pyschological senses are common and I see no basis to give preference to one over the other. older≠wiser 18:18, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Psyche ≠ Soul

I searched for psyche hoping to find a page that would talk about the differences between the Greek word (psyche) and the common translation (soul). Unfortunately the disambiguation page just links to the article for soul, which doesn't really explain either. --Aceizace 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC) banana popsicles with vegimite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.68.76 (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

A missing usage of this term

So...

Where is the link/article for the slang usage of this term, mostly popularised during the 1980s in the U.S.A?

Yeah I was thinking the same. Should be a Psyche (slang) page, or something like that. --81.183.144.167 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What about the journal that C. K. Ogden edited?

From 1920 to about 1950, a journal called Psyche appeared. It was edited by C. K. Ogden. Famous people like Bertrand Russell published in it. It is definitely important enough to be included in the list.--217.232.216.90 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole magazine was reprinted in 1995 as ISBN 0415127793. It is not identical with any of the two journals already listed in the disambiguation.--217.232.216.90 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Darnhill Scientists — Add to this discussion

Article Darnhill Scientists listed on WP:VFD Jun 30 to Jul 6 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

Bulletin board-like entry about an informal weekly group meeting at a library in Manchester. - Lucky 6.9 17:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Nice try. But delete. DJ Clayworth 17:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Look at that, self-described elite. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:05, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• an elite that doesn't know about proper usage of capital letters at that. Delete. Ianb 06:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Not large enough or significant enough. Delete. Average Earthman 11:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Factually accurate, inoffensive and non-cluttering. --] 16:50, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • And how exactly do you know that it's factually accurate? -- Cyrius|✎ 20:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Paul Willmore Sr. — Add to this discussion

• Nominate Paul Willmore Sr. (see also Winds of Change).

The two articles mentioned are near orphans: they are linked by each other, but otherwise only by one list in one case and two lists in the other. Willmore appears unknown on Google, except in the article his page links to, and that page has two different spellings of his surname.

Both articles use the word "Christian" in the ambiguous way, frequent among Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, that

could imply that doctrines, thought by denominations like Episcopalians, Catholics, Anabaptists, and Quakers to be crucial differences among denominations, are overrated trivialities, but

for many of them seem to express that if you don't claim to be "born again" you aren't a real Christian.

Cleaning up that PoV is not the point: it is mentioned here because it is so consistent with the possibility that the creator of these two articles determined notability solely by being impressed in a personal contact with the band and person.

Non-fame is also suggested by the designation on the linked Web page (based in the UK, where Willmore met his wife) of the band as "grassroots", often a euphemism for "non-famous".

The web site takes submissions - so anyone can have a page there. Secretlondon 21:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Though the two articles require separate votes, my nomination reasons are identical, and copied on both discussion pages.

--Jerzy(t) 18:16, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

• Keep. Willmore Sr. and Winds of Change are a hit in England, having released two CDs in one year for the Christian music airwaves. Antonio Christian but not Holy Martin

The Christian music market is pretty small in the secular UK. Secretlondon 21:48, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Very informative. User:Marine 69-71
  • The above vote is, at least technically, a forgery, having arisen in the edit

20:09, 2004 Jun 30 User:AntonioMartin

It likely was made with the consent of User:Marine 69-71, but IMO is not a valid vote until placed using that account. IMO, even merely technical forgery must not be tolerated because it is confusing at the best of times and it impedes the recognition of ill-intentioned forgery; IMO this act requires an explicit promise never to repeat this practice. --Jerzy(t) 00:49, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

• • User:Marine 69-71's user page IDs him as User:AntonioMartin's father. With some 400 edits (and no obvious evidence of excessive failure to preview) since May 24, he is far from a being an typical sock-puppet, and IMO considering him any kind of sock-puppet would be paranoid. On the other hand, those judging the degree of consensus may (assuming, as i do, that he will cast an equivalent non-forged vote) want to take note of the close connection.--Jerzy(t) 00:49, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

• Allmusic hasn't heard of him or his band. Delete unless notability verified by people other than AntonioMartin. Mr. Martin is excluded because he wrote the page. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:02, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Google hasn't heard of the second CD - I imagine that whatever born again Christian music market exists in the Uk would have some sort of web presence if these people were big. Secretlondon 21:53, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • I've checked a few Christian music web shops and they don't sell it. Secretlondon 02:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Music notability is really tough to determine, because technology now allows anyone at all (seriously) to produce 500-5000 CD's and sell them from the trunk ("boot"). Releasing a CD is not as notable as releasing an album was. Misplaced Pages doesn't have to duplicate Allmusic, TrouserPress, or any of the other all-music sites' listings and ought to be able to wait for more notability before inclusion. (However, the Christian music scene is very real in the UK, and I'd wager there's a chart for it, too.) Geogre 00:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. There's a presumption that if a musician is listed on allMusic.com or has more than N Google hits, he deserves a Misplaced Pages page. I think the standard should be, will this person/topic be of interest in 10, 50, 100, 200 years? Elvis? Certainly. Bob Dylan? Unquestionably. Arlo Guthrie? Of course. Paul Whitmore Sr.? At my most generous, the jury is still out, and so should be the article. -- orthogonal 01:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable SkArcher 16:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Factually accurate, inoffensive and non-cluttering. --] 16:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Winds of Change — Add to this discussion

• Nominate Winds of Change (see also Paul Willmore Sr.).

The two articles mentioned are near orphans: they are linked by each other, but otherwise only by one list in one case and two lists in the other. Willmore appears unknown on Google, except in the article his page links to, and that page has two different spellings of his surname.

Both articles use the word "Christian" in the ambiguous way, frequent among Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals, that

could imply that doctrines, thought by denominations like Episcopalians, Catholics, Anabaptists, and Quakers to be crucial differences among denominations, are overrated trivialities, but

for many of them seem to express that if you don't claim to be "born again" you aren't a real Christian.

Cleaning up that PoV is not the point: it is mentioned here because it is so consistent with the possibility that the creator of these two articles determined notability solely by being impressed in a personal contact with the band and person.

Non-fame is also suggested by the designation on the linked Web page (based in the UK, where Willmore met his wife) of the band as "grassroots", often a euphemism for "non-famous".

Though the two articles require separate votes, my nomination reasons are identical, and copied on both discussion pages.

--Jerzy(t) 18:21, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

• Keep. Band big among Christian listeners in England. Antonio John (is a) Major Pain Martin
  • If it was then they would have some web presence. A web site that takes submissions doesn't count. And the Christian music market in the UK is pretty small as far as I know. We are a pretty secular country. Secretlondon 22:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Allmusic hasn't heard of them or Ghost Ryders. Delete unless notability verified by people other than AntonioMartin. Mr. Martin is excluded because he wrote the page. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:28, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• A search for '"Winds of Change" band music christian' on google.co.uk gets precisely 2 working verifiable hits and maybe 3 others that used to be links but are now dead - and the working links are on a dedicated christian music site, hardly indicitive of notability outside the field. I'm in the UK, and I've never heard of them, and Christian music is not an influencial force in the artistic community, nor is this group notable for anything else. I suspect Vanity or agenda pushing. Delete SkArcher 16:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Delete: I agree that this is probably promotion. I agree that there is no proof of the band's notability. However, the fact that it's from a music genre that isn't mainstream isn't relevant for notability, if club DJ's, rave organizers (Mutoid Waste Company), and the bootleg folks aren't critiqued the same way. The same would be true of OS's. To me, these are all notable scenes that aren't mainstream. I.e. it's a significant scene, though not mainstream, so it's about the same as any other notable scene. Not my thing, but it only needs a lot of participants, and the Christian music scene has a lot of participants. Geogre 16:30, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Factually accurate, inoffensive and non-cluttering. --] 16:54, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

LPM — Add to this discussion

Article LPM listed on WP:VFD Jun 30 to Jul 6 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

I think this article is a joke. Thue | talk 18:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Vanity if it isn't. Delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:47, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • It looks like an in-joke for Clan LMBR which is also on VfD. Secretlondon 22:00, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Of no significance. Delete. Average Earthman 11:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Therefore, this needs to go away as well. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 16:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Talk:Tybalt — Add to this discussion

• Delete orphaned talk page without a parent article. Sole content is someone's "translation" of a passage of Romeo and Juliet into modern, colloquial language. Postdlf 18:55, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I took the liberty of making the article a redirect to Romeo and Juliet. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Tybalt as redirect is useful. Talk page may be pointless, but it is a talk page. -Rholton 20:05, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: orphaned talk page not useful. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:12, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pasta marinata — Add to this discussion

Recipe, transwiki. -Sean Curtin 20:23, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Just a recipe, no cultural or other context. Transwiki and delete. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hatve — Add to this discussion

Article Hatve listed on WP:VFD Jun 30 to Jul 6 2004, consensus was to delete by default of no votes being made. Discussion:

This is a turkish-only term. This should be in the turkish wikitionary. Would recommend it for speedy deletion but doesnt resemble to any Speedy deletion candidate case ZeroFuzion 23:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I'm not a mechanical engineer, but shouldn't there be an English equivalent? I find it odd that this equation would just be Turkish. - Lucky 6.9 02:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Twink — Add to this discussion

Votes for deletion (30 June to 7 July 2004)

Article listed on Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion June 30 to July 7 2004. Page was redirected to Twinkie to allow for later disambiguation. Discussion:

Dictionary definition that's not entirely accurate -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:31, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• In that case, delete. If it's inaccurate, it shouldn't go into the Wiktionary. - Lucky 6.9 00:05, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Twink is a slang word, meaning it is not a real word! But we give numerous slang words their own articles! Why not twink?
• Delete: "Twink," from "Twinkie." Why it's from that, I won't say. However, the word isn't stable, has many different apparent uses in different in-groups. It's not gay slang, anymore, either. The term is unstable yet, as well as extremely narrow in its population. Geogre 01:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • No need to be mysterious about why...they're both full of cream, and turn out to be about twelve years old when you get them home... - The Definer 01:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• And we now have the funniest BJAODN one-liner in the history of Misplaced Pages! Good one! - Lucky 6.9 04:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Are you talking about the article or that "why" statement? Delete, it's just a dicdef, and I don't see it going anywhere. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Just the "why" statement. The article is useless. - Lucky 6.9 05:02, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Now dicdef, originally posted as porno website advert.Andrewa 19:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gay slang. Kevyn 22:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Redirecting to a page that provides only a definition of the term in question seems to violate at least the spirit of the policy on dicdefs, as IMO does a disambig that links only to definitions. No change of vote. (Sorry to butt in but the non-standard formatting below makes it difficult to add this point where it belongs.) Andrewa 00:48, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Take a look at Geogre's comment above - it isn't just a gay slang term. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:15, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • In that case, make it into a disambig page. Link Gay def (which is the only one I am familiar with) to gay slang. Link other defs as appropriate.

Incidentally, "Twink" has been around as gay slang for many, many years... at least as far back as the 1980s, possibly earlier Kevyn 23:23, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely that it has been in use as gay slang for that long or longer. I believe, though, that it has been shifting rapidly, especially lately. The term has been used by heterosexual women as a reference for a 'cute boy,' by heterosexual male discourse as 'soft boy,' and it's making into sitcoms with varying meanings. I don't disagree with its being in Wiktionary, but after it has settled down some. Right now, it would be virtually impossible to describe the way it's used. An historical definition is possible, although wouldn't the heading be "Twinkie?" I recommend adding a section to Twinkie indicating its usage. Geogre 16:27, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, Geogre. Recommend redirect of 'Twink' to Twinkie, and add a section to Twinkie about slang usage. Kevyn 17:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Have only ever heard it used in gay slang. Redirect to gay slang. Exploding Boy 01:29, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
• I've also seen the term used in reference to power gamers, semi-synonymously with the term "munchkin". -Sean Curtin 02:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Factually accurate, inoffensive and non-cluttering. It is not simply a gay slang term - cultural significance etc should be added. --] 16:57, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I came here looking for the definition because I didn't know it. Now thanks to the article I do. If it wasn't here, I wouldn't be using Misplaced Pages to find the information. Isn't this what Misplaced Pages is all about??

End discussion

Disambiguation (7 to 13 August 2005)

I would like to disambiguate this page. Based on discussions with my Irish friends, they would naturally associate 'Twink' with the Irish celebrity Adele King (just as one might associate 'Sting' with the pop singer Gordon Sumner). How about moving the gay slang to 'Twink (gay slang)', the internet (gamining) community usage to 'Twink (internet slang)', and having also a link on the disambiguation page to Adele King? Fibula 12:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Guidelines used to be that the most common usage of a term should be at that term. If a disambiguation page is needed it is at "Term (disambigutation)". Hyacinth 20:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation#Page naming suggests this is the case if 'Term' has a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning of the term. In the case of 'Twink' all the meanings listed to date are fairly obscure - 'Twink' is no 'Rome' or 'Bach' - although no doubt they are common currency in the particular communities that use them: an adopted name for an entertainer who is a household name in Ireland; a slang word in the (North American?) gay community; and a slang word for some Internet gamers. Unfortunately, the Internet cannot be used as an arbiter, due to its systematic bias towards pages of a sexual nature ... but if you search on http://www.google.ie for 'Twink' with Safesearch on and pages from Ireland, all the first pages listed relate to the entertainer. (Of course, the 'Irish' Internet may not be usable as an arbiter either, due to a systematic bias against homosexuality...) Fibula 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd say it's appropriate to disambiguate, since outside a given community, there is no dominant definition. Before your mention here, I'd never heard of Adele King, nor the name Twink in reference to an entertainer, but have heard the gay slang usage dating from at least c.1990. The oldest independent evidence I can present is from 1993 via the Google Usenet Archive. Autiger 06:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have disambiguated the page and I am (slowly, sorry) working my way though the 'What links here' to fix the links to it. Fibula 17:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Another reason for disambiguation: many of the links to 'Twink' actually relate to John Alder (British musician), better known as 'Twink'. Fibula 18:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

All current 'What links here' now fixed. Fibula 19:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

little nutritional substance?

oh my but I must diagree with that!

-- Mccommas

Homosexual?

"Twink (gay slang), a young or young-looking male homosexual"

My understanding of the word is that although it is used primarily by homosexual people it does not necessarily refer to homosexual men. Therefore I think the word 'homosexual' should be removed.

If you go to BorderCity.com you will see I have choosen the name twinky or twink. Not only are the members there extremely vulgar and disrespectful they are using my name in some very slanderous ways that could hurt my children.205.206.10.115 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Attractive reference

Why does it state that they are attractive? Isn't that an opinion that would be impossible to logically back up? Billions of Christians and Muslims would find the idea of a "gay" person to be disgusting, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.18.148 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

July 1

Phone numbers of faculties of osmania university — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Phone numbers of faculties of osmania university

United States Constitution/Transcript — Add to this discussion

This is already provided on wikisource, which I believe is the proper place. —siroχo 00:51, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:55, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a classic case of material that should be in Wikisource and not here. Andrewa 19:31, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - as you say, it's on Wikisource (more nicely formatted there, too), and the United States Constitution article links to it. —Stormie 02:57, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Planet Fire — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Planet Fire

Elvis Presley trivia — Add to this discussion

Should be merged back into Elvis Presley. -Sean Curtin 01:09, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• It already has been, it's a direct copy and paste of the Enduring Legacy section. I vote to just delete. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, this looks like User:Marcus2 trying to stir up trouble since his article Elvis Presley's influence was voted for deletion (see ). —Stormie 01:51, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Marcus2 is just misguided on how article sections should be treated and not an active troublemaker. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• delete. splitting things off is a bad idea--Jiang 05:34, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Anyone wanting trivia on Elvis Presley is just going to look at the Elvis Presley page. Delete. Average Earthman 16:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:Elvis Presley — Add to this discussion

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

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

Lockergnome forums — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

Gail Edwards — Add to this discussion

Untitled

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

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

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

Gail Edwards on Happy Days

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

Russell D. Smith — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Russell D. Smith

International Committee to Free Russell Smith — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

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

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

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

Steamboy — Add to this discussion

Ray's home

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

Future of Steamboy

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

I just merged it.--Kross 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thx. --Kizor 10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Reformatted and mostly rewritten. --MacSpon 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

How can we really tell that is Scarlett? What would she be doing flying planes, and for that matter, would she still look as young as she does, years later? And why would she dye her hair red? I was under the impression that this character was either the daughter of Scarlett or Ray (or both), considering these questions that have yet to be answered. Please cite the source of your information. --TwilightxPrince 02:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not intended to be that much later. The hair color change is common in anime to represent a character aging. Also, she's not blond, she's actually a light redhead, and her name is intended to reflect that. Look at the sequence. Notice the dog beside her. Note the name of the plane. These scenes were intended to depict possible future adventures of Steamboy. Note that they were in a chronological order. Ray returns home, Scarlett returns home, Lloyd dies, etc. What did Scarlett do with the O'Hara foundation after she returned home? Would they not have continued research into aviation? Did she perhaps want to prove herself as an adventurer as well, using the vast resources of the Foundation to acheive this goal? Those are the types of things we are to wonder about, but I do not believe they are intended to extend far enough into the future to allow for a child between the two characters. In the DVD special features Otomo himself talks about how the scenes during the credits were intended as sort of a playground for the mind, and could be used as inspiration for the team to continue the story with, after he had left.--Walkeraj 19:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

UK DVD release date wrong

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

Afd, July 2004

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

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

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on here or in a deletion review. No further edits should be made to this debate.

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

Nods vs. references

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

Scarlett O'Hara

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

Come and read my suggestion

steamboy3....

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

In that time the technology has gone too far.

There will be new characters are:

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

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

Steamboy4....ideas comming soon.

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

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

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

Anna Paquin voicing Ray in the US dub

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

Plot

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Steamboy.jpg

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 04:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot synopsis

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

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125153659/http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/steamboy/title-navigation-3.html to http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/steamboy/title-navigation-3.html

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

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

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

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

Steamboy U.S. poster

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

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

Studios

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

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

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

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

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

1994 OVA

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

List of defunct shopping malls — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/List of defunct shopping malls

Zafar Iqbal — Add to this discussion

Zafar Iqbal just gives a date and place of birth. Who is this person? A google search finds several people with that name. More information needed, otherwise delete. Gdr 12:19, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Concur, delete unless significantly expanded util its time here is up. As it is, it's unverifiable, and "Zafar Iqbal" seems to be a very common name. It doesn't appear to be about the Cricket player, for whom I found a birthdate of May 6, 1969. Lupo 12:57, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• In which case, this article is useless. Speedy if possible, but just delete this. - Lucky 6.9 23:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vampire lifestyle — Add to this discussion

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

Vampire lifestyle

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

• Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with vampire
• Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

Plankowner — Add to this discussion

Old discussions

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

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

• Isn't in my dictionary. Neologism? or just an Americanism? Delete either way. Google search on the term seems to indicate it means something more along the lines of owner-captain or even owner-crewman that as written. SkArcher 17:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/plnkownr.html -- This seems to be a maritime practice with some history to it. That being the case, there's no reason we shouldn't keep it as a stub, since it can certainly grow to more than a dicdef. Oh, and here's the OED's definition: "plank-owner Navy slang (chiefly U.S.), (a) a member of the original crew of a ship; a marine with long service with his ship or unit; (b) a marine with a light task; " amusingly, the creator linked to plankowner from Bruno Grobal, an article on a fictional universe, but there was another link to the term from USS Franklin that seems more, ah, encyclopedic. Okay, now I'll actually shut up. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• It's a darned good dictdef and really interesting. The problem is that no one has added to it to broaden it out. If it gets widened, it should stay. Otherwise, it should go, very valuably, to Wiktionary. Geogre 19:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Would anyone like to see my plankowner certificate? It is a very real tradition in the U.S. Navy. And I not sure where the truth lies, but by this article at this time, the claim is that plankowners do not receive deck plate at the time of decommissioning. If that's true, then a lot of us have been lied to. BTW, I've claimed a piece from 03-189-0-Q of the USS Princeton (CG-59) because I had to scrape and paint it three times in February, 1989! (I couldn't keep my shipmates from walking on it before it cured.) --Woolhiser 03:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Woolhiser, it looks like according to http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/questions/plnkownr.html -- you don't get a piece of the deck plating. 68.248.229.244 11:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

End discussion

Removal of certificate text

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

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

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

Testsuko Kuroyanagi — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

Bludgeon — Add to this discussion

Dicdef. KeithTyler 17:29, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef, by relative newbie (2 months). Welcome left on their their talk page. Andrewa 18:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I created it because I saw it on the requested articles page, and thought it would be an easy first article. Since then, I've learned that it probably doesn't quite cross the line between a dictionary entry and a good wikipedia entry. I'm all for removing it if others find it to be in need of such removal. CB Droege 20:32, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Not sure.. Could a decent article be written about bludgeoning instead? Seems like it's common enough that it could be a good link, but haven't a clue as to how to write the article... (no vote) Rhymeless 21:16, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Merge with Club (weapon) and redirect. An article is indeed waiting to be written about blunt instruments and the sorts of trauma they inflict. Smerdis of Tlön 00:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redir, agree (change of vote). Andrewa 01:21, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • FWIW, baton is quite good, and blackjack (weapon) acceptable. I'm thinking that all of these might merge. "Colonel Mustard, in the library, with the wrench!" Smerdis of Tlön 03:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I have merged blackjack (weapon) and the relevant portions of baton at club (weapon), leaving baton as a disambiguation page; and added bludgeoning and several other things to that article. I will make this a redirect. Smerdis of Tlön 14:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teen Empowerment — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Teen Empowerment

Ladle ball — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

Rome II — Add to this discussion

Untitled

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

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

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

End discussion

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

Rome II Conference — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

Achilles,_Kansas — Add to this discussion

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Achilles, Kansas

Sengoku, War of the Daimyos — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

End discussion

Vahram Ter-Matevosyan — Add to this discussion

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

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

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

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

End discussion

July 2

Eep

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

Its not nonsense; it has valid content. Hone up on your policies and guidelines and RESPECT OTHER CONTRIBUTORS. -Eep²

• Nonsense. Not significant enough to be called trivia. Delete. SWAdair | Talk 06:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Significance is relative, SWAdair. What's significant to you may not be significant to another. Not your call. This is a public encyclopedia. The page has trivia; hence, it IS significant and not nonsense. Get over it and start CREATING content, not DESTROYING it. -Eep²

Adam Richter

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

List of military topics — Add to this discussion

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

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

End discussion

Hardcore Dancing

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

VfD Footer section

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

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

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

• To nominate multiple related pages for deletion, follow the multi-page deletion nomination procedure.
• To nominate a single page for deletion, you can use Twinkle, or follow these three steps:

] ]