User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2

Lady Bridget Wingfield

Hello, I was told by another editor that the Bridget Wingfield article requires better sources than the one I used. Seeing as you own the Ives book could you please add some refs from that book? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paulo Jorge

Hi, I've tagged this for speedy deletion as I assume you created it in the mainspace by accident while creating an AfD. I've also taken the liberty of completing the AfD in question, as it was sitting around unlisted for a while. I hope you don't mind! AnturiaethwrTalk 09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Knowles

See talk page of this redirect you created last year. PamD (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about this, I've changed it to a dab and made it clear on the dab why it's a valid entry. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to disambiguation pages

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Vandalism to disambiguation pages" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Vandalism to disambiguation pages" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 11:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Vand against Jim Walsh" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 07:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Vand against Jim Walsh" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 11:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Vand against Jim Walsh" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 07:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Walsh disambiguation

Hello, Boleyn. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Jim Walsh disambiguation" section of my talk page.
You can remove this notice, generated w/ User:Jerzy/tbcore, at any time by removing the markup that begins and ends "" and "".
--Jerzy•t 20:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MOSDABRL link

Hi I nominated this for deletion because it's a cross-namespace redirect that just clogs up the article namespace, for the sake of one less character than the accepted link MOS:DABRL, which uses a "pseudo-namespace", an accepted convention for Manual of Style redirects. It appears contributors to the discussion agreed and it was deleted. Can I suggest you use the "MOS:" links, as these are highly likely to remain. --Rogerb67 (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomson and Rob Donn

Regarding this edit, second half, surely we suppose the clergyman concerned to have been Presbyterian, in which case "minister" is a much more appropriate word than "priest"? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I changed it so it met MOSDABRL; the link in Donn's article already read priest so I matched this on the dab. I have no objections to them both being changed to minister. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done so. Thanks. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Josh Brown (pirate)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Josh Brown (pirate), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

hoax copy of Blackbeard

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig pages

Hi, thanks for these disambig pages you've been creating, great work. But could I just suggest you add something like "Page name could refer to:" at the beginning (see this)? Thanks again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been tagging for clean-up some pages where the basics are done, but there's still a bit of work to do, including the intro. I know that means they're not fully complete, but if I'm in a rush, I'll create the basic framework and then go back to them later in the day. I'm surprised so many have been corrected by many editors so quickly, it's good to see so many people involved with dabs at the moment. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your help at Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation! Those dab pages may Wikipedia more useful and accessible for everyone, and your work is appreciated. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that kind of message is what keeps me going! I hadn't heard of your bot until I saw PamD's edit summary, but I'll definitely be working hard on them until they're all added to the relevant pages. It was a great idea to create the bot, well done! Boleyn2 (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! Glad to hear that my edit summary plugging the project is useful! PamD (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was, I put it in my edit summary for some of them, to spread the word. I was pleased to discover it, but my husband wouldn't thank you for it, as I was hogging the computer until the last one was done! Boleyn3 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Elliott (Australian rules footballer)

I'm sorry about the confusion regarding the disambiguation. After you moved his article to a new title, I saw this on my watchlist and realised that ever since I created the page almost two years ago, his surname had the wrong spelling. Had I discovered this earlier, Robert Elliot (disambiguation) wouldn't have been required as only one person aside from the 'soccer' player would have shared that name. I apologise for the complication. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's easily done with surnames like this. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny/Daniel Wilson

This is hardly worth squabbling over, but my thought in combining the two pages was that one is very likely, as I did, to end up on one page when what was needed was the other. Since the whole idea of a disambiguation page is to avoid that kind of thing, it made sense to combine the two. That there are a number of Danny Wilsons seems neither here nor there. If there were so many that the resultant page could not be easily displayed on one screen, that might argue for separation. But there are only six of one and no more than a dozen of the other. If you still feel differently, we'll leave it as it was. I am confident, however, that my powerful and closely-reasoned argument has now caused you to confront your disambiguous folly and change your mind. Roregan (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My 'disambiguous folly' remains in place, I'm afraid; not all the Dannys can be accurately described as short for Daniel. As the link for the Daniel dab is on the page, it should not cause users much effort or confusion to find the right entry. Boleyn (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll meet again, Boleyn, and vengeance will be mine! Roregan (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Carr (government adviser)

Thanks for putting the link in there, I'm interested in seeing an article on him too. For now I noticed you redirected it back to this page though. Do you have plans to make an article? If not then we shouldn't have a self-directing URL there, that's why I bolded it. The redirect is a great idea (although I think we should also redirect it spelled 'advisor' because with an 'e' I think may have been a typo in on the reference article, or maybe it's how they spell it in the UK, not sure, but adviser redirects to advisor so that's probably how it should be despite the article. Tyciol (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thomas

I've edited and slightly tweaked the disambiguation page. Scott Thomas is a likely query for the given material, which makes it only logical to list it in Scott Thomas. Were the disambig page to be left given-name-only then exclusion would be fitting, but disambiguation pages are not required to cover only one possible category of topics. That is why I have altered the tag from a name-specific disambig page to a general one. If you do not like the formatting of the page that is one thing, but "Scott Thomas" is a notable, relevant and likely term for the controversy and inclusion in this manner is fitting with standard Wikipedia policies. Thanks. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gangbusters

Boleyn, you are a one-woman disambiguating machine! Thanks for your continuing remarkable effort. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archuleta

Hey Boleyn, thanks for the message, but I didn't put the tag into the Archuleta page, thanks for checking though. Signed, kotak kasut 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abreu and Abreu (surname)

Thanks for the message, Boleyn. I'd split Abreu (surname) out from Abreu, and tidied them up, but added the clean-up messages to both (in place of the split-out message on Abreu) as I was unsure as to whether or not I had completed the clean-up to a reasonable standard. I'm still fairly new to WikiProject Disambiguation, so until I feel I've learnt the ropes, I'm treading with respect to the idea that it's better to leave a tidied page listed for clean-up than unlist a still-messy page. Thanks again for dropping me a line. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just wanted to check I was doing the right thing. I think it's always a good idea to tag if you're unsure. You'd done a good job on the page, Boleyn2 (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki Shin'ichi (photographer)

This puzzles me. How is it an improvement? -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, I've now explained in detail on its Discussion page. Regards, Boleyn2 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moroder

Sorry, I don't understand why taking away: Dioonitocarpidium moroderi a fossil from the Ladinian stage Microhoria moroderi (Pic, 1930) a ant-like flower beetles cleans the article Moroder --Moroderen (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To the best of my recollection, they didn't meet MOS:DABRL. If you think I've made a mistake and they are in articles but not red-linked, please add the links into other articles. Also, if this is an area you're knowledgeable about, you could create an article. As they stood, I couldn't see them leeading to articles or to articles which mentioned them Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We did it!

We did it!

Thanks so much for your help finishing off the missing disambiguation links. You made it happen! – Quadell ^(talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since you did so much on the suggestions for name disambiguation, I thought I'd give you first peek at a new project I'm working on. A rough draft is at Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair/A1. Do you have any ideas for how this could be improved, before I run this script for all dab pages? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and it looks good. I don't have any suggestions to add. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Barnett‎

With respect to the disambiguation at Charlie Barnett‎. Such pages include a description with the following instruction: "If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article."

This creates a problem, in that someone coming across the current TV composers name as a link to the disambiguation, might "correct" it by updating the link to point to the older composer not realizing they are not the same person. Such a mistake is quite unlikely to be discovered since to a cursory examination it would seem correct. The same problem could occur with the actors. While I do not think that either of the names you removed are notable enough for separate wiki articles, they are notable enough to be mentioned in other articles (say a TV show infobox)

I think this is a clear case of "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hart (surname)

Hello Boleyn - the Hart (surname) page is on my watchlist and I noticed you cleaned it up substantially today (thank you!). I have a question regarding the Stanley R. Hart line of the article; I'm not sure why you removed the blue link for the Steinhart-Hart equation on his entry? My understanding from MOS:DAB is that a relevant blue link should be included for any valid red-linked entries in order to point the reader in the right direction for additional information. Since the Steinhart-Hart equation article explicitly addresses Stanley R. Hart's involvement in the creation of the equation and seems to confirm his notability, shouldn't the blue link be kept? ponyo (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ponyo. Sorry about that, I thought Stanley was a blue link; I've re-added the Steinhart-Hart link now. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I've been online daily, I somehow missed your reply until now. Thanks for double checking for me and hopefully I'll see you around the BLP and DAB pages. You do great work here, happy editing! Cheers, ponyo (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kramer

Hi, I was in the middle of writing a {{prod2}} for this article when I thought "Why the heck is it tagged as a NZ stub and for WikiProject NZ when it doesn't mention any New Zealanders?" Sure enough, it had been hijacked over a year ago. I've restored the proper version and added an IMDB !reference. I'm still not sure if the proper subject meets notabilityu, but let it be judged anew. (And I'm now watching the page)dramatic (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I've checked it out and he seems to be vaguely notable. Thanks for letting me know, Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AlXX Jones

Good Afternoon, I noticed you changed the edits that I made to Alan Jones to a page that redirected too the one that I pointed too. I replaced that but I have a question regarding this article in general. There are several different variations of Al Jones, for example there is Al Jones, Allan, Alan, Alunn, Allen and probably others. I was thinking that for the sake of sanity and ease of use I would combine all these variations into the Al Jones article and then redirect the others to that page. There are also several other AlXXX Jones that are not currently linked to any of these pages that I will be adding as well as a link to the Jones surname article. That way if someone was looking for any AlXXX Jones article they would all be there in a central spot. Do you see any problems with that?--Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've restored my version per WP:INTDABLINK. This is an unusual page, so I've tagged it for the clean-up crew to look at, though I think it's now probably OK. Al can be short for Alvin, Albert and more, so is a difficult one. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dab repair

Hi,Boleyn3: I see that you're also working selectively on Quadell's new files! Just out of curiosity, what's your system? I'm going for the ones which have actual missing entries, though doing the rest of the suggested cleanup on those pages, and picking up the occasional other interesting one. I think that missing entries, where Foo (whatnot) is not listed on the Foo or Foo (disambiguation) page at all, are much higher priority than tidying up piped links or redirects - they stop people finding stuff, while the rest is more cosmetic. I just wondered which entries you're picking out to work on. Cheers, PamD (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have a similar system, although I am only targetting hndis pages, and the odd other one that grabs my attention. I'm not too bothered about the redirects, but have edited all the name pages on the list for piping and adding entries. I do edit disambig pages occasionally, but tend to concentrate on hndis. Boleyn3 (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Wilson

Mind telling me why you deleted the disambiguation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It doesn't meet MOS:DABRL, as I put in my edit summary; additionally external links aren't permitted on dabs, see MOS:DAB. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So then create a page for that Hugh Wilson. He comes up first on any google search. The disambiguation needs to be there for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melchiord (talk • contribs) 07:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found your message there quite rude. It is not for me to create a page on someone I've never heard of - if you think he's notable and feel strongly about it, then you can create an article. At the moment, he doesn't have an article on WP and so shouldn't be included on what is essentially an index of WP articles. If you feel this policy should be changed, please discuss it on the MOS:DAB Talk page Boleyn2 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't have the time nor inclination to make an article, but it definitely needs a disambiguation. Wiki looks out of touch when the #1 searched name doesn't even appear. --Melchiord (talk) 07:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, please read the rules you are quoting:

""Break rules

Application of these guidelines will generally produce useful disambiguation pages which are consistent with each other and therefore easily usable by most readers. Usefulness to the reader is their principal goal. However, for every style recommendation above, there may be pages in which a good reason exists to use another way; so ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them.""

It is more helpful to readers to find the #1 google result entry as a redline link, than with no link at all. It's confusing. Leave the red link intact please.--Melchiord (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melchiord, in the time it's taken for you to complain so much, you could have easily created the article and made the whole issue moot. Boleyn is editing according to our guidelines, which we follow unless there's a reason not to, not just unless someone feels like complaining. She should be thanked for her work, not nitpicked. There is absolutely no point in disambiguating to articles that no one cares enough to create. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Quadell, a stub could indeed have been created very quickly. As I said, Melchilord, if you wish a policy to change, discuss it on the policy Talk page, not here. You have broken further rules by reverting more than 3 times, as well. Please do not leave any further messages on my page. Boleyn3 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Wilson

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hugh Wilson. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Melchiord (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert more than 3 times. I have previously requested that you do not write on my Talk page, as I feel harassed by you - please do not do so again. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Boleyn. You saved me the trouble of having to write up a long 3RR report. Nice work with cleaning up disambig pages, by the way. Best, Cunard (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSDAB

You are incorrecting citing WP:MOSDAB when you removed entries from Ivan Lazarev. WP:MOSDAB#Red links prohibits you from removing articles that are linked to by multiple Wikipedia articles. Please do not do this in the future. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I counted Lazarev as links for those articles. Please disregard the above comment. Cunard (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as that was the only one and it's essentially another dab, I disregarded it. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Smirnov

I don't mind it being nominated, as I don't have time to start all those articles myself. I, however, find it extremely sad that mindless technicalities make our editors delete pages which are, even in their sorry states, still of use to our readers. I understand it was nominated because it does not comply with MOSDAB... which only points out the problems with MOSDAB itself. The day when we start caring more about vigorously enforcing our pettiest rules than we do about our readers has, as it seems, arrived. Whatajoy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:48, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

Dabs are essentially an index to WP articles. There is absolutely no point in listing people who do not have articles. If you disagree with the policies, post on the MOS:DAB Talk page where people are always happy to discuss the guidelines. Boleyn3 (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, I know what to do when I disagree with policies (I've been around for a while). Unfortunately, I don't have time to fight every new little idiocy that pops up around here, and prefer to spend that little time that I have on something more productive (although the said idiocies cut into that more often than I'd care to ignore).

This isn't personal, by the way; just a silly rant to vent some steam. Feel free to proceed as you see fit (I won't even bother to vote to keep, as "technically" the nomination is 100% valid). Regarding the page in question, if it's gone, it's not going to be that big of a deal on its own; it's the pattern that matters.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:36, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of the nomination, I believe you missed one step. The nomination page isn't currently transcluded in the main AfD listing. Alternatively, you can withdraw the nomination altogether (well, was worth a try, eh? :)) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:04, May 8, 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect changes

I saw you reverted some edits to Wives of Henry VIII, claiming that they were incorrect. You'll have to prove something like that before you can remove sourced information. I reverted you. Obviously, as soon as you can show sources, or a talk page consensus, I withdraw any objection. Debresser (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the date of birth, there has been extensive discussion of this on the Talk page of Anne Boleyn's article; as we are unsure of the date, putting the two main dates historians argue for seems the best solution and has been in place a long time. Henry's marriage to Katherine was annulled by Cranmer in 1533; this is clearly stated in Cranmer's article and it is common knowledge, see any book on Henry VIII that is half-decent. I've replaced the reference with one from a respected historian. I appreciate you taking the time to add references to the article - it needs more of this - but I am dubious about the information put forward. Thanks for contacting me, Boleyn (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gray

Per WP:DABRL "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term."

please add a blue link for each of the entries of the red links you returned to the DAB page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An OK but not perfect page it is, but that is no reason to delete entries. One you deleted even had a blue link to Paul Oakenfold. It isn't really appropriate for you to assume that I have a responsibility to further improve the entries just because I reverted your, wrong, efforts to delete them. Nevertheless, I will look at this later and see what it may benefit from. Boleyn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Popincourt

Boleyn, seeing as you have a book on Henry VIII's mistresses, why not create an article on Jane Popincourt, his French mistress? I'd do it myself, but I've no info on her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, she's mentioned in depth in Hart's book. Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She sounds like an interesting subject.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't she also associated with the Duke of Longueville?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you're interested in her, now's a good time, with a chapter in Hart's book, another book due out on his mistresses and Kate Emerson's fictional portrayal. I've made a good start on the article. Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at it. Very nice work, Boleyn. Is it possible she was the mother of Henry's rumoured illegitimate son, John Perrot?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, she left England about eleven years before Perrot was born. It's interesting that several of the rumoured bastards - Ethelreda Malte, Thomas Stucley and John Perrot were conceived around the start of Henry's relationship with Anne Boleyn. However, there's little to link their mothers to Henry. Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Catherine Carey who was born in April 1524, was Henry's child? Perrot does in fact resemble Henry--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible Perrot's mother was provided by Anne or her father to gratify Henry so Anne could continue to hold him at bay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a strong resemblance but at least one person commented on it at the time, so he must have looked quite like him. I think Perrott was the kind of person who would be happy to let people believe he was the King's illegitimate son! There's nothing else to link him to Henry. As for Catherine Carey, I'd love it if it was true and I think there's a possibility. Hart argues that she probably was, and that that makes Elizabeth II the descendant of Henry VIII (as she's a descendant of Catherine). Hart examines the rumours about seven or eight alleged bastards, but I think Catherine is the most convincing. It's an interesting theory about Perrot's mother, but I think a woman getting pregnant by him would have been too dangerous to their cause. He wrote about setting aside all other lovers in his letters to Anne of 1527, indicating he wasn't then being faithful. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about Catherine which would have made Lettice Knollys Queen Elizabeth's niece as well as cousin. A pity Anne Boleyn does not have direct descendants. If only Elizabeth had married Dudley.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen railway station (disambiguation)

Sorry about remove the template tag, however a spelling mistake on the previous version meant is was a redlink. My current feeling is that Aberdeen railway station (disambiguation) and Aberdeen station should have their names swapped and the current Aberdeen railway station (disambiguation) should no longer be considered a disambg page. --Stewart^{(talk | edits)} 22:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see. Thanks for letting me know, Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Cartwright (disambiguation)

Hello! I should explain this page's background. It was created by the now indef-blocked UC Bill because of

this dispute. When you removed an invalid entry, this led me to realize that Bill intentionally included flimsy items purely to justify the page's existence.

You suggested that I prod the page. Note that JHunterJ already did, and an anonymous editor disputed the proposed deletion. The IP address belongs to UC Berkley (Bill's employer), so this probably was Bill himself (circumventing his indefinite block, as he has been known to do via sock puppetry).

For these reasons, I was tempted to delete the page as a bad-faith creation, but I felt that simply redirecting it to the article supplying the same navigational aid (minus one step for users seeking the actress) would be less contentious.

Also note that it is not unheard-of to redirect "Subject (disambiguation)" to "Subject" when no disambiguation page is needed. This can be either because a disambiguation page is eliminated or because it has never existed (as in the case of DVD). —David Levy 10:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow vandal fighter!

Just a random question, but have you ever heard of Twinkle? --Abce2|AccessDenied 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've seen it mentioned, but can't say I've any real idea what it is or how to use it. I'll look into it further now though, thanks for the tip. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Freeman article

I will see what I can do to provide additional material / secondary sources. I ask the abeyance of a deletion decision while I see what all I can round up... Mark Sublette (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just remove the prod and then see what can be done. Boleyn2 (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Dymoke aka Coffin

Congratulations on discovering the identity of Lady Coffin. So she was of the Dymoke family. Nice work, Boleyn!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I posted a question at http://tudorhistory.org/queryblog/ which is great for that kind of thing. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted

Regarding this edit to the dab page Addicted: The rule to avoid piping refers primarily to links involving the ambiguous term; the guidelines treat secondary links differently. Please re-read WP:MOSDAB, particularly the section on Exceptions, "Where piping may be appropriate": "When the link is in the description, rather than at the start of the entry, piping can be used more freely. However, the text of the link should still be close to the title of the target article, to avoid confusing the reader."--ShelfSkewed Talk 02:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tend to see the vast majority of piping as unnecessary, but I realise some that I see as wrong are acceptable when I look further into it. We have a load of similar issues identified at WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair and I've avoided tackling most of them as it's a bit out of my comfort zone. Please do revert if you notice me making similar mistakes, I'm not at all offended by that. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Export Lines (disambiguation)

Hello, just to let you know that this dab you created has been prodded. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have deleted the second entry, it has been reverted, but with the prodding left in place for now. CJLippert (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error! I see that I (and not you) have deleted the second entry. Sorry about that. Either way, the original dab before the deletion was restored but with the prodding left in place for now. CJLippert (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publius Cornelius Scipio (disambiguation)

You may not have looked at the entries carefully enough to realize you were leaving some of the text in an unintelligible state. For example, the entry for Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum now states that he was his own son. Would you mind (A) fixing the references to "no. 4," "no. 5," etc., previously correct but meaningless after your cleanup, (B) reinserting at least commented-out entries for all persons you removed. At some point, editors with knowledge of the subject matter will have to reintroduce those names which are notable enough to require mention in developing Roman history articles and therefore disambiguation on this page. (Really, it would be most considerate to leave redlinks in those cases where your expertise falls short of certainty about whether the article is likely to be written at some point.) Wareh (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in improving similar dabs, there are a number at MOS:D clean-up that have been tagged for a while, presumably because no one knows what to do with them. The Publius Cornelius Scipio did not meet the guidelines for a dab, and after tagging it and similar articles, and nothing being done, I decided to be bold. If you notice a couple of mistakes, the best advice would be to correct them, not to leave rude messages on people's Talk pages. Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No rudeness was intended; please WP:AGF. If your intention is to leave the information incoherent, I will revert to restore some sense; I wanted to give you the opportunity to correct the new problems first. Wareh (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Wareh (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Talbot

Hello Boleyn, I have discovered another Tudor woman who just might possibly merit an article. I'm thinking of Mary Talbot, Countess of Northumberland, the wife of Henry Percy, Anne's lost love. Yesterday I completed an article on Mary's grandmother, Katherine Neville, Baroness Hastings, and it was then that I discovered the connection. Mary was one of the 11 children of Anne Hastings and George Talbot, 4th Earl of Shrewsbury. Anne was the eldest child of Katherine Neville's second marriage to the ill-fated William Hastings who betrayed Richard III. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, she sounds like an interesting candidate for a historical fiction book! There should be enough to create an article on her. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded her article somewhat. How does it look? Oh, have you got any references on her?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better, thanks. I should have some refs, I'll work on it tonight. Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer notability discussion

Your comments here [1] seem very sensible and your input in the ongoing discussion here [2] Clarification section, might be helpful to ward off an attempt to delete many peers from Wikipedia. Hope you will think about contributing. I have not got in the mix yet but one of my articles has: Richard Trench, 4th Earl of Clancarty. Daytrivia (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll definitely contribute to the discussion. Boleyn3 (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit to ASMD

Hi, just thought I'd let you know that I reverted your edit to ASMD, a dab page, where you de-piped a link. The thing is the link you de-piped was piped as a specific exception at MOS:DAB#Exceptions. The piped link in question corresponds almost exactly to two of the piped link exceptions given. If you disagree with this, I'd be glad to discuss it more. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tend to see the vast majority of piping as unnecessary, but I realise some that I see as wrong are acceptable when I look further into it. We have a load of similar issues identified at WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair and I've avoided tackling most of them as it's a bit out of my comfort zone. Please do revert if you notice me making similar mistakes, I'm not at all offended by that. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B redirects

I see you're already on the Bs! :) In this run I didn't list any dabs unless (A) they were missing possible terms, or (B) they had a single blue link. Is this list more useful to you? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think this list means we can get through the Bs in a reasonable amount of time and so it won't look so offputting. Both lists have certainly thrown up some awful dab pages! I've still mainly concentrated on the hndis pages, but have found it quite simple to complete the rest. Well done! Boleyn2 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab deletion

FYI, dab pages of the form Foo (disambiguation) with only one link (and no links per MOS:DABRL) like Barry Richards (disambiguation) can be speedy tagged with {{db-disambig}}. Hope that's useful. Tassedethe (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I've started using that Boleyn2 (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bellaire, Kansas

There are two different counties listed, are these the same or different? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that they are different, however neither meets MOS:DABRL. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Smith (disambiguation)

Sorry about the confusion at Dick Smith (disambiguation), I didn't realize that linking to the redirect was preferred in that situation. Cheers, Gnome de plume (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no need to apologise. I only found out about INTDABLINK when I made similar changes, and they were reverted. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Snyder

What are you talking about? There is nothing in the policy to justify this. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC) You clearly haven't even looked. I've covered this in my edit summary and wasted a lot of time on this already - I'm not going into it again. Boleyn2 (talk) 05:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Bells

Jimmy Brown redirects to James Brown (disambiguation), so it is a valid entry for that dab page. And the song is known as both "Jimmy Brown" and "Little Jimmy Brown" - I've clarified this now. — sjorford ++ 19:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. If you think it should be reverted, just do so and put the reason in the edit summary. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of Slurry

Yours is the first edit I have ever undone in quite some years on WP. What was the point, where did the main page go and why the ridiculously narrow definition of slurry after the change? Dhatfield (talk) 18:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I'll respond as if your message was polite. Most entries on here were indeed definitions - which belong on Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. You may be interested to read WP:MOSDAB. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RM

Hi, can you tell me why you removed the Requireùent Management section of this page ? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micktaiwan (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've just checked my edit summaries, and this was because it didn't meet MOS:DABRL. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Stuart/Stewart disambig

Hi! You undid the disambig edit I placed on the Anne_Stuart_(disambiguation) page. I've left an explanation on the Talk:Anne_Stuart_(disambiguation) page. As I explain there, I suspect the disambig link isn't needed any longer. I'm a newbie on this particular procedure, however, and am simply trying to clean up a confusion someone else seems to have created a while back. But take a look and please advise. Thanks! Dunnettreader (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've looked into it and found references to her as Amelia Anne and as Anne so I've added her to the dab, using the redirect 'Anne Stewart' to avoid confusion and because it fits MOS:D best. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to make a fuss, but I don't think this solves it, even after looking closely at MOS:D. This sort of issue must arise occasionally when someone goofs and moves a page to a bad title and the error isn't caught for a year or so until the page is moved again to a correct title.

Here's the problem. There is no such person as "Anne Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry, member of Regency London high society". Any Google references I've found are ones that were created by referring to the original error of someone mistitling the "Lady Castlereagh" (Amelia Anne Stewart) page as "Anne Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry".

In all the reading I've done in the period, both about Regency society and her husband the Foreign Secretary, she is referred to as "Amelia" and even more frequently "Emily" but never simply "Anne". If there are any such references in contemporary sources from the 19th C, it would be a copyeditor mistake which we would routinely ignore under MOS:D.

So as long as we keep that disambig link as written, we're adding to web-rot by appearing to "validate" that there was someone who was known as "Anne Stewart" who was a leader of the ton. An error by a Wikipedia contributor shouldn't occasion the creation of a wrong "fact" that continues to be propagated by further linking to Wikipedia.

To avoid spreading further misconceptions, if we keep a disambig link, I think it should be labelled "Amelia Anne Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry". That's correct, even though not a common way she was referred to. And any one searching on bad cites elsewhere on the web under the name "Anne Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry" will find in the search results both the correctly-titled page, which contains "Amelia Anne Stewart" at the top of the text, as well as on the disambig page.

Or can we simply get rid of the disambig link because "Anne Stewart" is in the text of the correctly titled page and would appear in any search of "Anne Stewart". We do still have the redirect, so anyone who clicks on a link to the old Wikipedia link "Anne Stewart, Marchioness of Londonderry" will be redirected to the correctly titled article.

But I'm afraid the current disambig isn't the answer. Dunnettreader (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the 'Amelia Anne' version seems best. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for making the change. And thanks for your patience. Dunnettreader (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mooney

Hi, Boleyn. I noticed you added Jackie Mooney to disambiguation page John Mooney. Jackie and John is a different name. Can you let me know why you added him? Is he also called John? It doesn't mention it in the article. I don't know this person, so I can't tell whether or not this addition is appropriate. If it is, I think you need to explain why. Thanks. --Sumori (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is John. Jack or Jackie were unheard of as names in their own right in Ireland at the time (Jackie still is, for a male); the name was John, although they would usually be known as Jack or Jackie. This would be the case in 99.9% of men called 'Jackie' wh owere Irish (high enough that I would accept the addition without further checking whether I knew the person or not - in this case I know who Jackie Mooney is and that he is also sometimes referred to as John. Boleyn3 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Mann (comedian)

Hi Boleyn,

I feel that their are enough references on this page to establish notability and all of the references are freely available. I'm sorry if I've done this this wrong way but I do not know how to do it. Any help would be greatly accepted. Thanks, Cheery24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheery24 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I couldn't find any references in this article, just information. It may help you to look at an article on another British comedian, such as Peter Kay, to help re layout and referencing, as well as WP:Reference. If you have a source, e.g. a website, newspaper article or book, and aren't sure how to put it in as a reference, just put it next to the information you got from this source, and I'll adjust it and tidy it up. I don't know if your subject meets WP:Notability criteria or not, but we have many, many articles created on here about people who, although in the entertainment industry, are not of a level to be included in an encyclopedia, so we need to back up the information in articles with references.

I'm glad you've decided to create an article here, but what you have done wrong is to repeatedly bulldoze your additions and deletions through, without reading my edit summaries, which explained why they weren't valid and each time I backed it up with a link to the WP guidelines. It is also not a good idea to use several names on WP, as it makes people think you are trying to do something underhand. This has taken up a lot of my time simply because you didn't discuss things, but I appreciate that you are new to WP, and we all make mistakes at first (and continue to make them even when we've been on here a while!) Best of luck with adding the references, and please check the blue links I've included in my response here. Thanks, Boleyn2 (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I will try to do what you have suggested. Sorry to have wasted your time and thanks again for your clear reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.71.44 (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Eliza Morgan (disambiguation)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Eliza Morgan (disambiguation), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Broken redirect.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. OpinionPerson (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this seems to have been a mistake, and I would second deletion. Boleyn3 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lee

I note your reversion at Peter Lee. However, WP:MOSDABRL says "There is no need to create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." If there is good reason to suppose that the four entries I dropped really are notable, then there should be enough information in the dab page to make that clear. Otherwise they are just clutter. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motyka disambig

Please see my comment in my last edit summary as well as here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Surplus

Hello. I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion on the pg above. Thanks, Boleyn3 (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look at it. ENeville (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sections and pipes on disambiguation pages

Hi, I did some more cleanup on a few disambiguation pages you worked on. A few examples: My reading of WP:MOSDAB is that section links shouldn't be shown explicitly. On A7, I changed your "Aggregate series#A7,, a German rocket design in World War II" to "A7, a model of German Aggregate Series Rocket from World War II". Also, you had "A7 roads (disambiguation)", which isn't a disambiguation, but rather a redirect. I changed it to "A7, a road designation". UncleDouggie (talk) 11:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been doing a lot of these recently as I've been working through WP:Suggestions for disambiguation repair and for the As, it is mainly piping that's left to be looked at. If you feel you have a good handle on these issues, you'd be a great asset on this project. Regards, Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated WP:MOSDAB#Section_and_anchor_point_linking in response to the discussion on the topic. UncleDouggie (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback... See Talk:Remy

Hello, Boleyn. You have new messages at Talk:Remy.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Pucci

Now IMHO this is nonsense. When a primary target exists, it should have the simple title without addendum in brackets. When there is need for disambiguation, the simple title should never be a redirect, but either be the primary target or the disambiguation page. Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a humble opinion, when you're rudely describing someone else's edits as 'nonsense.' Neither is it nonsense, it's merely a half-measure; I was having trouble requesting the page move so had left it till later, but as it was, though messier, the redirect was sorting the problem. Boleyn (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the word "nonsense". I didn't mean to offend you. I mistook you to be an admin, in which case you might have easily fixed the redirect by yourself. My fault. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, it's appreciated, and I'm flattered by the mistake! Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I worked somewhat more on the matter and created the articles Antonio Pucci (cardinal) and Antonio Maria Pucci. I think there is no longer a clear primary target (e.g. Antonio Pucci (cardinal) has more internal links than Antonio Pucci). I would like to restore the previous state with Antonio Pucci being the title of the DAB page, but I would like to do it amicably and consensually. What do you think? Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds the best option now there are other articles. Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, requested the move and fixed the other links. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Peck

Hi! I replaced your speedy deletion tag on the Dave Peck article with a proposed deletion tag, because the page doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion is for pretty special cases only, and if a page doesn't fit any of the criteria listed on the page, proposed deletion or AfD should be used instead. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig Q

Freely reformatted thruout by Jerzy•t 01:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

About personal names, we can't list cases of middle names, like David James Ford under David James? They might be referred to like that. I listed it secondarily so it doesn't get mixed in since the last name certainly takes precidence but wouldn't it be good to list it? Tyciol (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tyciol, I was just about to contact you. I felt bad to change your edits, as I know how good an editor you are. No, we don't list those where they just have the given name and middle name, unless they are commonly referred to as David James, and this is something many people may well think of as their personal name, which I think is unlikely. You addressed one of the main issues of this by seaparating them, but it still isn't encyclopedic unless they were commonly known as this. However, you're not the first person to raise this issue with me, and other users raised the issue with me when I was adding those with the middle name and surname, or given name and middle name. I've copied below my response to the last person who asked me about this:

== Sam Houston (disambiguation) ==

Why are you removing the Sam Houston X names from Sam Houston (disambiguation)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The reason is because according to WP:MOSDAB it should only be those with this personal name, not with Houston as a middle name. Regards, Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I intepret "Links to indexes of article titles beginning with Title" at WP:MOSDAB#.22See_also.22_section. An article with a list of articles of people with first and middle names Sam Houston would be acceptable. I am not sure why the three listed directly where no such single article exists is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied and pasted below a previous conversation I had with Slackermom, where I had added given names to hndis:

In general, I would suggest that people don't belong on dab pages unless they are actually known by the name of the page. I've deleted a lot of names which were on dab pages because their middle name matched the page. A made-up example being "John Fred Mixup" appearing on the dab page titled "John Fred". Unless he is commonly known simply as "John Fred", he really shouldn't be listed. I'm sure you already know this, though. Thanks for all your good work. SlackerMom (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it is something I know, but I sometimes forget parts of the rules, so I need the odd reminder. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When Jerzy deletes them, the reason in the edit summary is usually that keeping people on a page because of their first name and middle name, unless that is what they are known by, is unencyclopedic. Here is Jerzy's message to me, again because I had added those with the same first and middle name:

Listing people on a dab so they can be found by first and middle name is an elaboration of the misguided notion of treating lists of people with the same given name as Dabs; my understanding is that {given name} is the means of channeling that impulse into something that doesn't interfere with the functioning of Dabs.

I would agree with both, who are far more experienced than me. However, if you're concerned, please raise it at the disambiguation project's talk page. Boleyn (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I won't challenge Jerzy on dab issues. I am sure he represents consensus.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn wrote to me, in User:Jerzy#Clarification on dabs:

Hello. I recently got an enquiry from an editor because I prodded a page which listed people who just had the same given name and middle name. They pointed out that they couldn't find anything on MOS:DAB to back up my point that this was unencylopedic and shouldn't be there. You can see my most recent correspondance on this topic if you go to User talk:Boleyn/Archive 2 and the section 'Disambig Q' where I've quoted responses from you and Slackermom on this issue in the past. I don't know if MOS:DAB has changed or if it was never clear on there. What do you think.? Should MOS:DAB be changed? (Personally, I think it should, be I'd never edit that page myself) Boleyn2 (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, Boleyn, i'm glad you stick to simple questions![wink]
(But as a preliminary, i want to mention the potential for confusion when one goes back to an archived discussion, and picks up the thread again on the archived page. I urge against the practice, and i want to be clear -- lest silence be deemed consent -- that if this were just a two-person discussion, i'd insist on our doing otherwise. That said, it's surely a good-faith act, and i can easily see both why you would want to do it this way and how you could expect it to be harmless; but/and i'll ask your indulgence for my doing a cleanup job when this discussion is complete.)
It sounds like you ProDed Sam Houston (disambiguation) bcz at a time when the only legitimate contender for the title "Sam Houston" was the Texan (even tho other articles, more Dab-worthy than "Sam Houston Jones", "Sam Houston Smith", etc. later turned up).
In the case of David James Ford one could argue at RfD that it is a harmful Rdr bcz it might lead someone to rely on its existence as evidence that David James Ford is known as "David James" about as widely as Cher, Madonna, Sting, Prince, Bono (whoever that hell that is), and Elvis are understood, but i'd consider that de minimis. And i gather your counsel prevailed in that case, but you'd like to consult either out of an excess of caution re that case, or for the sake of confidence or precision in future cases.
Within the body text of Dab (don't let tunnel vision for the larger, more useful, and more exciting MoSDab distract you from this other important page), the first 'graph's second and final sentence says

... disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title.

Further, Tony is IMO seriously mistaken in his willingness to reinterpret, not interpret, the IMO clear intent of the carefully worded

Links to indexes of article titles beginning with Title

That wording reflects the fundamental purpose just mentioned -- which implies that anything useful, but not serving that purpose, must be minimized to the full extent practical. Info like such links is exiled (i choose that word carefully) to the "See also" secn, where its interference with Dab'n is minimized, bcz it does not facilitate Dab'n. MoSDab specifies (no interpretation needed) a lk to a list, rather than the multiple entries that would go on the list, presumably bcz the more lks added the greater the probability of interference, and no clutter need apply. In fact, if there should turn out to be a form of non-Dab'g info that is arguably useful on a particular Dab for some non-Dab'g purpose, but (for reasons i find hard to picture) can't be reduced to contributing insignificant clutter, i for one would be prepared to argue it should be discarded rather than downgrading the centrality, on Dab pages, of what i may just start calling the Prime Directive of Disambiguation.
As to Tony's assertion that

An article with a list of articles of people with first and middle names Sam Houston would be acceptable.

that is true in theory, but i recall citing numbers (and not being alone) when deletion of a list of double-given-name (or first-/middle- name pair) people was debated. (I would say "and carried out", but i have no recollection of what the title or time period -- other than after the enunciation of the SIA concept -- would have been, so i may as well be speculating.) I argued to the effect that it takes so many one-word given names to account for of the given names of 90% of the female population of the US, that creating an article for each pair in use should be expected to multiply the number of :en: WP pages several-fold. IMO even special cases like "Francis Xavier" and "Sam Houston" should be disallowed. And notability is also lacking for such pages: what can Sam Houston (given name) add to what Samuel (given name), Houston (surname) (or, workably, Sam Houston), and a WP or Google search already provide, or could?
I note that surname SIA pages are universally endorsed, even tho they are not Dab pgs. The status they are accorded reflects the role as navigational pages that they share with Rdrs and Dabs: they differ conceptually from {{Hndis}} pgs only by the fact that virtually no surname pg bears a title that we would accept as the title of one of the pgs it lks to: e.g., Immanuel Kant is the article, tho Kant is a Rdr to it. (And BTW Kant (disambiguation) exists.)
In the next breath, finally and just for the record, i note that altho single-given-name SIA pages are at least tacitly tolerated, their role is entirely different from surname SIA pages. That is largely bcz it is very common to repeat (or sometimes even mention) only the surname in discussing someone, and exceedingly rare to mention only a given name (except among intimates); also, in the cultures that English-speakers most deal with (Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese are the most important exceptions), surnames are more diverse than given names (and people from no-surname cultures tend to state what look like surnames when dealing with Westerners), and thus do a better job of telling people apart than given names alone could. IMO the toleration of given-name SIAs, which are primarily useful as lousy baby name book pages and for vanity purposes, does not reflect any usefulness comparable to that of surname SIAs -- but only (on one hand) the relative harmlessness of supplementing the discussion of the history of a given name with the list, and on the other what i assume is an impressive level of motivation on the part of editors who want given names lists with their and/or their loved ones names to exist on WP. So i do not admit that there are any precedents on given-name SIAs' acceptability.
--Jerzy•t 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Ponsonby

Hi, just to inform to you: I have reinserted "of Great Britain" [3] into the article above, to expose the difference to the entry of William Ponsonby, 1st Baron Ponsonby in the line below. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your version makes it clearer. I was just trying to get it to 1 line so it looked tidier; I've done it now another way. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlov

Hi, Boleyn! Got a favor to ask. When doing cleanup such as this, could you, please, either move the red links to the talk page or just comment them out (instead of removing altogether)? I understand that you are removing them because of DABRL, but it is important to remember that DABRL is merely a technical guideline, and while the entries you are removing are not presently meeting it, they are nevertheless mostly valid. For those interested in content organization and in bridging the systemic bias divide, it would be a lot more helpful to be able to find those entries on the talk page rather than to have to search for them again. Additionally, most of the non-compliant names are listed only because the pages like Pavlov are really a combination of dab and surname pages. Once these pages are properly split, these red links no longer present a problem.

Your help and understanding with this matter would be most appreciated. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:26, July 27, 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'll certainly bear this in mind. I see no real reason, however, to keep a red link if it is not linked anywhere on WP. If it looks like it might be notable - especially if it is not a contemporary person, and so is less likely to have been added by the person themselves! - then I often blank it out, but if it gives me nothing to really suggest notability and doesn't meet MOS:DABRL, I go for deletion rather than blanking out. I figure it takes no time to re-add at a later date, but if all dabs had the many rejected entries blanked out, it would take up a lot of space and make editing confusing. Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified that I only mean Russia-related entries. The reason for my asking is because with Russia, these links were added in the past by several users based on the presence of corresponding articles about those people in Russian-language encyclopedias (and that's what I meant when I mentioned systemic bias). This was done way before DABRL was implemented, but I see no reason to have all that work go to naught just because an obscure technical guideline was implemented in the interim. I can't vouch for all red entries, of course; I just happen to know that with Russia most of them are valid. Mind you, I'm not asking you to do this for every single red link that does not qualify under DABRL; just the Russia-related ones :) Hope this clarifies my request. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:08, July 27, 2009 (UTC)