User talk:Stifle/Archive 1105

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 20th October 2005 and 30th November 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Welcome!

Hello, Stifle! Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) will produce your name and the current date. You should always sign talk pages, but not articles. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dendroica[edit]

Hi. I see that you think this page needs to be wikified. Please can you tell me what is wrong with it, and I will fix it. It seems to me to be similar to other bird articles. Of course these may need to be wikified as well. Smallweed 09:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To wikify a page is to remove all HTML markup tags that have a Wikipedia equivalent and replace them with Wikipedia tags. In the page that I tagged for wikifying, there were several <i> tags that should be replaced by '' either side of the text. See also [Wiki Markup]

Hope this clarifies things. Stifle 14:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Craic origins?[edit]

Dia duit, Stifle. I've been looking for a fluent Irish speaker (mine is so poor it's shameful) who can give me the origins of craic, especially as to simple things such as whether it derives from Irish or from the English "crack," etc. As I live in the States it's harder to find that kind of information, and especially people who speak Irish well enough to be able to answer such a thing. Anyway, do you know? Your opinion is most welcome on Talk:Craic, or on my talk page. Thanks so much for listening. Slán agat, --Blackcap | talk 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: some of the problem I'm having is whether or not "craic" is actually Irish, so just about any information you have will probably be helpful :). Blackcap | talk 17:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMarkup[edit]

Hello again, Stifle; I couldn't help but notice that in your post above you used an external link to link to a Wikipedia page (like this: [Wiki Markup]). Two things: one is that, when doing an external link, only one bracket on each side is needed to complete the link (i.e. Wiki Markup). The second is that to link to articles within Wikipedia (specifically the ones whose URLs begin with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [note that there're ways to link to some WikiMedia pages that don't have that, such as other language Wikipedias, but I won't get into that right now]) all you need to do is link the name of the page within two double square brackets (therefore, in our example, you would type [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup]], resulting in Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Wiki markup. Just thought you'd like to know; if you have any more questions, please ask. Yours, Blackcap | talk 07:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, something had given me the belief somehow that you couldn't do that for links with a # in them. Stifle 21:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, my pleasure. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia:Tutorial: it's a fairly thorough and helpful bit of text to help you get started around here. You'll pick the rest up on the way. Don't hesitate to ask me any questions you may have, I'm more than happy to help. Take care, Blackcap | talk 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Durmus Kumdereli[edit]

Hi. I've translated this article into English. I don't know whether you fully understood it in its original version - I see you speak some German - but regardless, as the article is now in English, transwiking to the German Wikipedia is inappropriate and I would appreciate your thoughts on its suitability now. It has nothing to do with Germany or Germans as far as I can tell. --Last Malthusian 13:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing those stubs[edit]

Thanks for making the stubs I created more specific - I looked through the list of stub categories and was amazed at how large it was that I couldn't find any sections the pages could go with - I have no idea how you do it. Cowman^Talk 00:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Professional Hockey League[edit]

Please explain what makes a nonexistant ice hockey league notable and relevant. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your vote. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Shyam Chalisa[edit]

You have requested that this page be translated. I wanted to let you know that it is a Hindu bhajan (a type of prayer) and as wikipedia is not a prayer book, it is totally out of order. Please reconsider your vote.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 10:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

astrogation[edit]

This article appears to be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedia article.

That's absurd!! Should all articles that are stubs in their early stages get labeled this way by kneejerk reflex? That's the only reason I can see why you would propose that there should be no encyclopedia article on astrogation. Obviously it's potentially the topic of a long factual article. Michael Hardy 20:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles that appear to be dictionary entries (one- or two-line articles) are not generally eligible to be on the site. If you are knowledgable about the subject of Astrogation, might I suggest that you add to it and remove the dicdef tag? Stifle 20:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, even in its currect stubby state, it contains more information than would be appropriate in a dictionary definition. Moreover, you are wrong to think that an article that is only a dictionary definition should be labeled as something to be moved to Wiktionary, when it blatantly obviously has the potential to become a long factual encyclopedia article, as in the present case. Michael Hardy 20:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that we disagree. I don't see it the way you do, but I do think that even two more sentences on the topic would settle the issue. Do you think you could add those two sentences? Stifle 20:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]