User talk:Huntster/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

2007, May

Charmed / Halliwell vandal

You were too gentle with BauerFanatic87. They are a long-term vandal with a curious mono-mania. See Lakerfanantic87 for one previous manifestation. If you see any more, tag the articles for speedy and request a block at WP:AIV.

Looks like a user name ending 87 is a good clue: see User talk:Batmania1987 and User:Borat87. -- RHaworth 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey RHaworth, thanks for the heads up regarding BauerFanatic87 (talk · contribs). I've had no dealings with the sockpuppet side of things, and haven't cared enough to learn their habits, as I focus more on the articles/vandalpatrol than administrative bits, but I'll keep an eye out in the future. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fallen artwork

You asked for me to provide stronger evidence on this matter and I did. You have just simply ignored it. If you are seriously dedicated to maintaining the evanescence related pages then you will take the time to review the points I posted. If you simply don't care then could you please tell me of other people high up in this evanescence project who I could contact who may be willing to actually help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Never be good enough (talk • contribs) 04:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, after speaking to to person who originally made that edit, he says it does seem likely that it is just a promotional image. At that, I'm removing the promo and placing the "second pressing" cover in its place. Thanks for raising this issue. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Kimpton Hotels

I have tried adding some constructive additions to the kimpton hotels section of wikipedia and you reverted my changes twice without offering any constructive criticism. I understand that I am new to wikipedia and kindly ask that you help me change my posting so they are more appropiate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.166.48.98 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings, these edits were reverted because (as I noted in the edit summary) they read like an advertisement. Such detailed information is simply unnecessary in an article of this nature. If you can do some research and summarize each hotel in two or three sentences, that might be acceptable. Or, if you can find some news articles or other third party information about that particular hotel, you may be able to create an article for it alone (though, please do not create one without those third-party citations). If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message, and I'll try and help. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Colbert

I understand that "Not everything Colbert says is notable!" but why not include that the USS Rhode Island was selected due to the crews appreciation for Colbert? It is definitely worth a small note at the very least. -- Boatman666 06:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Ah, I see. The problem was that there were several anons trying to write exactly what you wrote with no explanation, which is why the article is temporarily semi-protected. Instead of just writing that the boat is the "official sub" of Colbert Report, write a brief explanation of why it is the official sub. Or, you can write a lengthy explanation and I'll do my copyedit thing and pare it down to an appropriate size ;) Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about?

On Tuesday, May 8, 2007, Stephen Colbert named the USS Rhode Island the official nuclear ballistic missile submarine of the Colbert Report after receiving numerous photos of a Colbert Nation poster taken by the crew in various locations aboard the ship

Link to the video -- Boatman666 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hey there, using your material (and the video link was fantastic), I've written the appropriate material into the article. Thanks for all of that. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you, it is nice to find someone who can listen and work resolve a conflict such as this withought a bull headed attitude -- Boatman666 19:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Being Phoebe

I can understand the removal of the books on the Charmed book page but the image used on the Importance of Being Phoebe page was specifically mentioned in the trivia section. Thus it is valid to be used. Artemisboy 23:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Greetings. I automatically remove any image that is speedied for deletion. If you can add an appropriate 1) source, 2)license, and 3)Fair use justification, then go ahead and re-add it. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response. I've added additional information and references to both the image page and the episode page. Please let me know if everything looks above board or if additional information is needed. Artemisboy 23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloodsource

Can you explain to me how I vandalize your stuff. I cant recall this. Also can you explain who or what Sweet t 666 music is. You know it could be just a name but i've tried to research them but ended with nothing. Later. User:Bloodsource -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.229.196.49 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Um, what are you talking about? I never claimed that you were vandalising anything, just that your messages on Talk:Evanescence were off-topic from the article. As for the "Sweet t 666", it is probably some one-man operation that the band (or one of the members) used to publish X number of songs. when you google exactly that term in quotes, it gives you a handful of links where the name is mentioned, but no 'official' website. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 18:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No you wrote a message saying something about vandalizeing your userpage and cleaning up after it. I dont remember. later. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Okay, I finally figured out what was going on. An anonymous user (I don't know if it was you or someone just using the same IP address as you) wrote a telephone number with no area code on my talk page saying something about me being single and for me to call that number. I then left a message on that anonymous user's talk page asking them to not vandalise talk pages like that again (and yes, such random material is considered vandalism) and thanked them for removing it themselves. Here's the diff showing where that user removed it: link. So, does that explain things better? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

thats pretty funny. Did you call that number? I think someone has a girlfriend. Yeah that helps. Where did that come from? Later! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) No, I couldn't call the number, as there was no area code (see the link I provided for a copy of the message). I know nothing about it, other than the person who wrote it used the same IP address as you do (same school, possibly? that would be a coincidence of the highest order...) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

well the area code around here is 662. I need help getting my background purple on my user page. I have no idea what to do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Seems that number, with the 662 area code, returns to someone named Tressa Johnson in Thaxton, MS. Interesting. Anyway, I couldn't figure out a way to make your userpage purple (neither "div" or "body" tags worked). Wikipedia tends to not play well with anything other than very basic HTML codes. In lieu of that, I just fixed up the coding of different parts of your userpage...basically made everything work with each other. Hope you don't mind. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No i really dont mind i am really haveing a hard time doing this stuff. How do i make my own images? Thanks a lot!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Your own images? It depends on what you want to make, I suppose, but first you'll have to have a graphics editing program like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro or similar. However, Wikipedia somewhat discourages editors from uploading images that are only meant for use on their userpages, though it is allowed within reason. What specifically are you wanting to make? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

One of my favorites. A heart with a sword going through it with dripping blood. I think it would go good on my page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bloodsource (talk • contribs) 12:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Ah, that shouldn't be too hard. Heck, if you didn't have anything else, you could probably just draw it in Microsoft Paint and save as a GIF file. Just remember, when you upload an image to the site, give it a very unique filename so that it won't overwrite anything else or be overwritten in the future. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

look dude

(X-Posted) Please do not revert the article Alicia Warrington again. Your initial edit was fine, except that we are only supposed to use the most specific category available. In this case, "American rock drummers" is a subcategory of all three of the ones it replaced. Please see WP:CAT for more information, or leave a message on my talk page. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Sigh...instead of simply reverting or changing back, why not contact me to get more information?? "Multimedia" simply provides some separation to distinguish between general information websites (like her personal site, etc) and sites with interviews, specific audio or video pieces, etc...aka, related multimedia. Just because you haven't seen it before doesn't mean it is acceptable practice. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

i really do not think multimedia should be in the article, I have NEVER seen it in ANY wikipedia articles so stop trying to put it there! so stop reverting my edits unless you provide vaild proof -- Migospia 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your defence of Wicca!

		The Special Barnstar
		For tireless defence of the beleaguered Wicca and associated pages Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing POV about this

The first two players suspended by Goodell were the Titans Pacman Jones and the Bengals Chris Henry. He has also met with Falcons QB Michael Vick and Bears DT Tank Johnson. It has been noted by many that all of the targets of Goodell's attention have been African American. Two of which have not been convicted of any crimes since entering the NFL.

Although Goodell promised to punish teams as well, when he unveiled his new conduct policy the Bengals have had 11 arrests between May 8th 2006 and May 8th 2007. [10] Many wonder if that flurry of activity hasn't warranted any punishment, what kind of activity would warrant action.

Quit editing my page or YOU WILL BE BANNED!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geber22 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) First, applying what appear to be appropriate warnings to your talk page is not a bannable offense, so please don't make threats to that affect. Second, the material you are writing reads as very POV, even if there is truth in it. Nothing is cited, and phrases like "many wonder" and "noted by many" simply don't belong on Wikipedia (aka, *who* said that?). Also, a lot of your material is inflammatory in its wording...you seem to be implying that Goodell has racial motivations in his actions. I reviewed link you originally provided, and it actually doesn't say anything that you wrote (for example, it simply states that the Jags and Bengals have a higher average arrest rate than other teams, and I don't remember reading anywhere that the teams were supposed to be punished along with the players (another news story only mentioned potential punishment, and didn't say they actually would be; please give me a link if I'm wrong here, because that would actually be good material to add).

You have to remember one of the basic tenants of Wikipedia: we should report not what is given to be true, but what can be verified by reliable sources. Read the first sentence of WP:VERIFY. That is official policy, and I am removing your edits based on that policy. I know as well as you that Pacman and Henry were suspended, but it shouldn't be included if a citation isn't made available. Now, if you can provide some source material for these two paragraphs, I'd be more than happy to write it up in encyclopedic and cited format. I am not for or against Goodell, and have no opinion about him, but I do like to see everything that goes into Wikipedia try to meet policy standards. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page. Cheers. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

From the OJ Page, no sources cited complete POV per your definition.

"There has been significant criticism of the prosecution and the police, and many contend that Simpson would have been found guilty had there not been so many mistakes and irregularities made by the prosecution and the police investigation of the case. Conversely, the jury has fallen under criticism for their ruling as well as the defense team for their courtroom tactics. Immediate reaction to the verdict was noted for its division along racial lines." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geber22 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I've never visited that page before, and know virtually nothing about the man, so I wouldn't begin to know what is true or false. But yes, that paragraph (and really, a tremendous amount of the whole article) is very poorly written, which is surprising considering how high-profile Simpson is. Here's another thing to consider while working with Wikipedia: just because one article does something, doesn't make it right. Doesn't matter if the highest-profile and most visited and edited page on the site does something one way, if it isn't following policy, it is wrong. Going back to the Goodell article, I have no problem with the information being included, none whatsoever, because I'm a semi-inclusionist...I believe that if it can be properly sourced and it's notable, then pump the article with as much information as you can. But you have to find a proper source for the information. That's all I'm asking. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Eddie Halliwell Bag It Up CSS Charleston Interstate 140 (Tennessee) CSS Columbia CSS Texas S8G reactor CSS Fredericksburg Greatest Hits (Creed) Jason Lewis CSS Savannah (ironclad) Listen to the Rain Ernest Halliwell CSS Baltic Simone Simons Whisper (song) Mi Chico Latino Blindside (album) Kara Zediker

Cleanup Incident Command System Downtown Memphis, Tennessee Bill Baxley Merge Gigaton McKenzie Arena Seraphin (Xena) Add Sources Holly Marie Combs Loverboy (Mariah Carey song) Stargate Command Wikify Decipher, Inc. Unwound Anton Ivanovich Denikin Expand Persecution of Hindus Jason Ritter The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

2007, June

Evanescence Picture Original 'Permanent' Members

Hey dude, look u undid the version of Evanescence that included a picture of the three remaining 'original' and in certain way 'permanent' members, cause Troy and Will Hunt will only be playing live until September of this year.. to finish the Family Values Tour, so what's the problem with the image?? Rocky and John are no longer members, so it is not right to show them in the image of the band, because they're PAST!. like it or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivanescence (talk • contribs) 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) I reverted this image because Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the usage of fair-use images (which the image you inserted was) when a free-use image is available, whether or not it reflects the current makeup of the band. Hey, I'd love to have perfect pictures reflecting how things are "right now", but my first responsibility is to uphold the policies of this website. If you have any further questions, please leave another note on my talk page (and remember to insert new comments at the bottom of talk pages, not at the top, and sign your comments with four tildes, ~~~~). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Rose McGowan image

(X-Posted) Hey there, this is a request to undelete Image:Rose_McGowan_07-22-06.jpg. This was not a video capture as was guessed. Image was taken at Comic-Con, where McGowan and others were taking part in a panel. The image shows a projector image, often used at such events that have a large audience, so that everyone can see the panel members. This is no different than if the panel itself was being photographed (just that the person who took the image was either a bit too far away or didn't have a clear shot of the panel members). If there are any questions, please leave a message on my Wikipedia page at en:User talk:Huntster. Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had deleted it because it showed up as blue in a list of images I'd deleted, and it's one of those ones that kept getting re-uploaded by different users; I hadn't realised there was a discussion about it/that it was a projection and not film or a television feed. As far as I know a direct projection onto a screen is not copyrighted... though I am not sure. If the issue comes up I will let you know. Thanks for pointing it out :) -- Editor at Large • talk 20:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for that undelete, much appreciated. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: It was eventually determined, after much discussion on Commons, that even though this was a photograph taken at a live event, because the photograph was taken of a projector image rather than the panel themselves, the projector image would be copyright Comic-Con.

Justification/Alignment

Where do I find the info on this here? I'm trying figure out the codes to use, similar to when putting words in bold or italics but I'm not having much luck. For that matter, where would I find info on changing text size too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) As long as you are referring to your own userpage, just use <div align="left"></div>, "right", "center", or "justify" around the text you want to align, and it should work. However, you should never, barring a very unusual circumstance, change the alignment of text in an article. You shouldn't change text size in articles either. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Now if could you tell me how to change the wording for 7th Heaven from "Multimedia" to "Syndication and DVDs" I'm all set. :o) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robinepowell (talk • contribs) 11:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox suggestion

I didn't look at what you tried with "Cite court", but I point out that there are several {{Template sandbox}} pages for template testing. There are several sandboxes so as to avoid collisions between several editors; just look at their History and choose one which hasn't been altered recently. (SEWilco 14:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

(X-Posted) Yes, I'm well aware of the existance of the sandbox, thanks. I thought I knew what the problem was, but it appears to be more complex than a minor quick fix. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: HermesBot

(X-Posted) On the same subject, I'm monitoring several articles that use this category, and on one article (Will Hunt) the tag was removed from main article but never added to the talk page, and on another (Troy McLawhorn) the tag was added to the talk page and never removed from the article. I was curious as to if this was just because of the significant number of articles using this category and that Hermes will eventually cycle through and clean those up, or if there was something else afoot. I can certainly fix the stuff myself, but would that confuse Hermes at all? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup. The Bot isn't done yet. I have over 8000 articles to edit, so it will take a while. You can go ahead and do it yourself if you want, as the Bot won't make changes if it already done. ~ Wikihermit _(HermesBot) 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

(X-Posted) Greetings Mr Reed, hope all is sailing smoothly at BA. I've noticed you are tagging the images you are uploading with conflicting licensing tags. For example, on the images Image:Sundancer in orbit.jpg & Image:GenesisI.jpeg, you are using the tag {{Attribution}} (which is a free-use tag) and {{WithPermission}} (which is a fair-use tag). These two tags cannot be mixed, so it must be decided whether the image will be released as free-use (Public Domain, GDFL, or similar) or will be released as fair-use (all rights reserved, etc). Of course, Wikipedia prefers freely released media, as it can be used virtually worldwide without restriction, but the choice, of course, remains with Bigelow Aerospace as the copyright holders.

Basically, you need to review the images that you have uploaded and correct the licensing information, or they risk being deleted at any time if an administrator discovers the discrepancy. If you need any assistance with this problem, for any reason, don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page and I'll do whatever I can to help. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Got the image tags under control... Thanks! Spitwater 23:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

7th Heaven Syndication

Since this Otto user is determined to haved DVDs on the main page, could you just restore the Syndication instead? Thanks!

(X-Posted) Considering the level this has escalated to, you need to take this issue to an administrator for further review if you want. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 02:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Before I take it to an Admin, I need some answers. How do I do that and how do I explain it in a way to make them understand what you and I trying to do with the main page of 7th Heaven?

Isha Sesay

Just a quick question regarding your recent edit to this article - is that citeweb template the way we're doing things these days? PC78 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Hi there; no, {{Cite web}} isn't a requirement, but I prefer it because citation templates provide a high degree of uniformity and professional look to the articles, and if something needs to be changed format-wise in the future, you only have to change the template to affect all the related articles. Just a neat, simple way of doing things. I highly recommend it! ;) You can check out WP:CITET to see some of the other citation templates available for different purposes.

Out of curiosity, why was the "Minister for Economic Development" bit removed? It is the specific title given in the Mano Vision citation, as opposed to just the generic "advisor" title. Also, images are normally best left at the top of the page, rather than somewhere midway (though, to be honest, I should have removed the image entirely as it constitutes a fair-use violation). -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that part of the text because I think you're reading the article wrong - that was her role in the government at the time the article was written (2000), not her original position (or, to the best of my knowledge, her current one). As for the image, yes it quite probably is a weak claim of fair use, but since fair use images cannot be used merely to show what a person looks like, they should therefore be used in reference to the article text, in this case her career. Regards. PC78 17:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Gotcha regarding "advisor"...good middle ground. Weak rationale for the image, perhaps, but I do suppose it skims by for now. Don't be surprised if it eventually is removed, as I doubt an admin would permit it to stay. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I knew I was pushing it with that image when I first uploaded it, so I won't put up a fight if someone wants it removed. At least I gave it a rationale though, which is more than most have! :) PC78 17:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Charmed Artifact

(X-Posted) Neil, I changed the header colours on {{Infobox Charmed Artifact}} because it was too dark. The dark purple colour you reverted back to makes the text nearly unreadable. At least find a colour that is a bit lighter. Also, why on earth is purple being used in the first place? It has no significance that I'm aware of. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 05:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I only reverted it to the purple colour so that it matched all the other templates being used for Charmed articles. As I was not the one who implemented the colour scheme, I have no idea why purple was picked. If you want to change the colour again to the lighter colour, feel free, but make sure you alter all the templates so they have the same colour scheme for all articles. Thanks.--NeilEvans 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible bot malfunction?

(X-Posted) Greetings; MetBot recently tagged Image:Roanhighbluffnorth1.jpg as possibly having an improper license for Commons and thus may not be deleted. Please take a look and see if you can figure out what is wrong with the material, as I cannot see any problems. Cheers! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 14:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good timing, I just created a help page for that task :-) See User:MetsBot/Comons tagging. —METS501 (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) You mean, User:MetsBot/Commons tagging? Sorry, I'm a spelling nazi ;) In any case, thanks for taking another look at that image. I was scratching my head as to what was wrong! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 16:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out! —METS501 (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Royal Gothic

You can go ahead and delete that template because it old anyway. --Bloodsource 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing and alphabetizing Meav

(X-Posted) Greetings. I noticed you made some changes at Talk:Méav Ní Mhaolchatha, but they seemed to be slightly inappropriate. I've restored the "Date of birth" category to the page, since it is not otherwise indicated there or on the main article. I've also fixed the name in the DEFAULTSORT tag, from "Meav" to "Ni Mhaolchatha, Meav", since that is the proper "last, first" arrangement. If I've unknowingly 'corrected' some new policy that's not yet made itself well-known, just let me know. Thanks! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you communicated with me regarding this edit—the best editors always feel that all our endeavors are dependent upon achieving Wikipedian consensus. As to Category:Date of birth missing, I lacked sufficient space in the edit summary to fully detail the deletion, writing only, "...deleting Category:Date of birth missing, which is already included within the "defining" article-page Category:Year of birth missing (living people)". That Category, which encompasses the absence of month, day and year of birth, has not yet been appended to the article page. I frequently wait 24 to 48 hours after editing the discussion page to enable the original editor(s), who have the page watchlisted, and who may prefer to edit the article page themselves, to do so. Category:Date of birth missing, which only identifies the absence of the month and day of birth, with the year already having been appended, would thus be unneeded.

The other matter, name alphabetization, deals with an artist's professional name, nickname or nom de plume. Typically, Wikipedia articles are titled with the name by which the artist is best known to the public. Méav uses only that single name in all her professional designations—concerts, album covers, etc. In fact, the only site to use her surname in the title is IMDb. Even the link to her entry in the Finnish Wikipedia illustrates the point—it is titled simply "Méav", with the surname indicated in the opening sentence. She would, therefore, be in the same Category as Cher who is not categorized as "Bono, Cher" or "Allman, Cher", but simply "Cher". You may decide to move the title of the article to "Méav", which creates an automatic redirect to her full name, in case anyone should decide to type its every letter. Even if one insisted upon leaving the entire name as the article title, there is plenty of precedent, especially with people in the musical profession, to forego name reversal in alphabetization. Scores of examples can be found in Category:Stub-Class biography (musicians) articles and Category:Unknown-priority biography (musicians) articles. Others are in Categories found in Category:Biography (musicians) articles by priority. I've spent over a year on these matters, thus we are only scratching the surface, however, it may already be more than many editors wish to know. In any event, I'm always here if more specific details are desired.—Roman Spinner (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(X-Posted) Thanks for providing that insightful explanation. To be honest, I don't keep track on the intricacies of that particular debate ("Date/Year of birth missing") as I seem to recall it vacillating often. Thus, I categorise based on what logically makes sense to me, and to me, "date" logically means the fully month, day, year formula, not just month and day. I made the erroneous assumption that "Year of birth missing" referred to those people that *had* only the month and day available (and some people will only release that info) or those situations in which only the year was likely to ever be known. Obviously, I've not delved deeply into this particular matter.

Also, while I do somewhat understand the idea behind titling an article by the most commonly known name, I rather strongly disagree with this practice. Because we have redirects available to us, it only makes logical sense to have the article title as the person's proper name, and set up redirects from names that people may search by or type in...in the above case, have the proper title as "Méav Ní Mhaolchatha" with redirects from "Meav Ni Mhaolchatha", "Méav" and "Meav". It just seems...inaccurate...to only title by a common name [though I'll admit that I've recently gone against this in keeping an article titled Amy Lee (maiden name) over Amy Hartzler (married name)]. Ah well, what do I know ;) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are, unfortunately, correct about the vacillating state of Category:Date of birth missing, with many editors assuming that it referred to month/day/year (Category:Year of birth missing seems to have been primarily understood). A number of editors even covered both possibilities by appending Category:Date of birth missing and Category:Year of birth missing to biographical entries which, as in the case of Meav, did not contain either one. However, since their creation, the Categories (all sixteen of which are listed in Category:Articles missing birth or death information) had specific introductory directives elucidating their use and purpose (there are no provisions, incidentally, for including the month and day of birth without the year). Discussions over the past year reached a recent consensus to repurpose the "Date/Place/missing/unknown" Categories to talk pages, while leaving the "Year" Categories, which have been designated as "defining", on article pages. Again, there are numerous additional details involved, but as you probably know, editors overly concerned with such matters have been designated as (or grouped with) wikignomes.

As to name alphabetization, putting aside whether the article should be titled Méav or Méav Ní Mhaolchatha [her own website refers to her only as "Méav", and the sole (minor) example/guidance to come from another Wikipedia is provided by no. 13 (in order of the number of entries), Finland, which also uses Méav—Wikipedias 2 through 12, including German, French, Polish, Dutch, Italian and Spanish---have not, so far, had editors willing to undertake the task], we should be more specific in the use of DEFAULTSORT (see my comment at the bottom of Talk:Charmion for an example). Redirects are not categorized [except as redirects] and therefore do not appear in Category listings. Only the main article name appears in Categories, so it should be logically the one known to the public. In most cases when fame is achieved early in life under a maiden name, such as in the case of performers—(Amy Lee is, indeed better known to the public than Amy Hartzler} or athletes (Zola Budd rather than Zola Pieterse and Mary Decker rather than Mary Slaney. I moved Sandra Reynolds Price to Sandra Reynolds, since the public only knew/knows her under her maiden name. She was also originally DEFAULSORTed as "Price, Sandra Reynolds" instead of "Reynolds Price, Sandra". In the case of television personalities (although not actresses) the standard seems to be that the married name becomes the only one used (e.g. Kathie Lee Gifford (Kathie Lee Johnson), E. D. Hill (E. D. Donahey) and Lucy Owen (Lucy Cohen)). To enable alphabetization, DEFAULTSORT needs only the first letter, thus John Adams needs only "DEFAULTSORT:A" to show up as "Adams, John" in Category:1735 births but, as a result, DEFAULTSORT will not be able to distinguish alphabetically between "Adams, John" and another common name, "Adams, Robert". Such an experiment would confirm that common names need a full "DEFAULTSORT:Surname, Given Name" combination, while for rare and unique names, one letter suffices (although most editors still prefer to spell out the name for consistency's sake). Only the "M" will suffice, for example, to place the entire name, Méav Ní Mhaolchatha (diacritical marks over the "e" and "i" still present in the Category listing) between Roly Meates and Brandon Mebane in Category:Living people.

Ultimately, however, the name alphabetization consensus decision will be made by you and the article's other editors. Méav's name is not a pseudonym, but none of the pseudonymous music personalities, such as Meat Loaf or 50 Cent reversed their names. Single-named musical personalities such as Cher, Jewel, Brandy, Aaliyah and Ireland's Enya, whose surnames were not generally known or used, might also serve as examples.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)