User talk:Clarityfiend

Deletion of MIT alumni founders article

Sorry I didn't participate in the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies founded by Harvard University alumni -- I did not receive any sort of notification, although I have contributed to both the MIT and the Harvard articles.

As for the claim that Stanford is uniquely noted as a creator of new companies, that isn't true. Look at:

• From the Basement to the Dome How MITs Unique Culture Created a Thriving Entrepreneurial Community, 2021 (see Foreword by Bob Metcalfe)

Blurb: "MIT is world-famous as a launching pad for entrepreneurs. MIT alumni have founded at least 30,000 active companies, employing an estimated 4.6 million people, with revenues of approximately $1.9 trillion. In the 2010s, twenty to thirty ventures were spun off each year to commercialize technologies developed in MIT labs (with intellectual property licensed by MIT to these companies); in the same decade, MIT graduates started an estimated 100 firms per year. How has MIT become such a hotbed of entrepreneurship?"

• "Building builders: entrepreneurship education from an ecosystem perspective at MIT" 2018
• "Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities: Evidence from MIT" 2007 (I'm not including the many other publications by E.B. Roberts on this topic)
• "Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience" [1]
• MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science 2002

So it seems to me that if the MIT article is to be deleted, so should the Stanford article. --Macrakis (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Well, there are two paths you could take: Either nominate the Stanford list for deletion or try getting a WP:REFUND based on your sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. For now, I think I'll accumulate additional citations at User:Macrakis/alumni-founders. --Macrakis (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Dulcie

Statistics about the usage of the name and its variants are relevant. I have restored the cited material you removed from this article. Please discuss on tge talk page before deleting it again. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

AfDs

Perhaps you wouldn't mind chiming into the other discussions listed at the articles alerts on WikiProject Anthroponymy? I am dealing with a particular user who seems to have a tough time understanding guidelines, who you have had an experience with as well. Thanks for any help. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Carlton

Based on your reversion happiness, I see you are on the path to wanting war. You are incorrect in your addition of "and fictional characters" and are alone on these changes you make little by little to section titles that have had a long-standing precedent of existing as they are and are featured in the Manual of Style. I suggest seeking venues of content dispute resolution or other means on gathering a consensus rather than you make these futile changes yourself merely because you think it is right. If we all had it that way, well, this enyclopedia would be different, to say the least. BurgeoningContracting 04:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just what part of the MOS are you claiming I am violating? The section title is correct. Fictional characters FYI are not people. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

mos:dab of course. I will continue reverting your attempts to disruptively change established precedent because I am that confident I am correct. Until we can get a discussion and consensus for this issue since it is obvious we are both willing to die on our respective hills. Reminder that it is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. BurgeoningContracting 04:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing in MOS:DAB that backs you up, nothing that says to be inaccurate. Be more specific. Which particular section or sentence? There are none. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's right there. That and the aforementioned long standing precedent. I'm signing off for the night, but as I said, I am in the hopes you are willing to further have productive discourse on this, as communication is vital instead of wanting things your way. Changing precedent because you believe you are right is disruptive if it causes a dispute like the one we are presently having. BurgeoningContracting 04:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You may also find it on wp:longdab BurgeoningContracting 04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It's ironic that you say "communication is vital" when you won't (or more likely, can't) answer my question. "It's right there" is not an answer. Be specific or go away. LONGDAB says "Use the same section names as similar dab pages, if practical. (bolding mine) Is that what you mean? Because it doesn't support your stance at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been communating the whole way here. I don't know what to tell you. It's right there. Says "People". I am confident you want me to "go away" because you're wrong, but that's only my opinion. Reminder to remain civil. Again, we need community consensus on this since neither of us seem to want to budge. I have already sent some three other reasons why that would be preferable. It seems to me you are suffering a case of disruptive behavior if you cannot agree to open a discussion since you have no real MOS policy backing you, only "I'm right." I am telling you for the last time, I hope you can begin a consensus-building discussion over the issue if you are so passionate and certain you are right and that others will agree with you, because otherwise, I also think I am right and will act on it. BurgeoningContracting 05:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

MOS:DABPEOPLE says "For people", including the italics to clue you in that non-people are excluded. Fictional characters are people in your mind? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

See what I did there? I pointed to a specific section and quoted exact words, unlike your vague handwaving. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Makes no sense, man. Other sections have the italics just to describe that the section for people is to be formatted that way. You're using the incorrect way and I will continue fixing these pagess until we can get a broader consensus because your behavior here is obviously intentionally disruptive. BurgeoningContracting 15:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I was wrong about the italics. BUT, that section still makes it perfectly clear it is for real, flesh-and-blood people since it asks for birth and death years. Again, why are you conflating human beings with fictional characters? The notion that an encyclopedia should be inaccurate and that I should refrain from correcting obvious mistakes is head scratching, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It isn't innacurate and I'm done with you since obviously, you're not here to build an encyclopedia with your disruptive editing you disguise as being constructive. I have linked enough policy and essay here for you to learn from if you're willing to start adhering by what makes this platform what it is. That template should contain everything you need to know should you have any more doubt. BurgeoningContracting 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You have not produced a single, solid instance of anything supporting your position. Just vaguely pointing at policies and saying it's in there is ridiculous. You are the one being disruptive and "innacurate" (hah!). For the umpteenth time, do you think fictional characters are people? That's what it all boils down to. How about you answer that question? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Bertram Fletcher Robinson

I just wanted to leave a message to thankyou for the time you invested in improving both the style and presentation of this article. Your interest and assistance is most appreciated. Bw. 82.38.214.91 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Can we discuss this please?

You changed the redirect Styx River from Styx to a section of that article. I disagree with this change so I reverted you. You then reinstated your change with no discussion. Although when another editor reverts your edit, the standard procedure, per WP:BRD, is to discuss the proposed changes, before making further edits. So can we please discuss your proposed change?

Here's my view. In Greek mythology Styx (just like Oceanus) is a single thing which happens to be both a deity and a river, rather than two different things with the same name. So in Greek mythology "Styx River" and "Styx" refer to exactly the same thing, and whether someone enters "Styx River" or just "Styx" they should arrive at exactly the same place. Just because our article Styx happens to have a section which focuses on Styx as a river doesn't mean that the rest of the article doesn't also apply to the Styx River (or the River Styx for that matter). I don't want to participate in an edit war by reverting your edit again (something your revert of my revert unfortunately started). So I think you should undo your edit, at least until we can arrive at a consensus possibly including other editors.

Thanks, and best regards Paul August ☎ 15:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: Styx RIVER refers to the river aspect of the goddess, so why shouldn't the redirect be to the river section? This is in full agreement with WP:SURPRISE. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, as I tried to explain above, "Styx River" does not just refer to the river aspect of the goddess. In this context "Styx River" = "Styx", they are synonyms, they both refer to the same thing, a river who is a goddess and a goddess who is a river. Conceivably the article could be named "Styx River" instead of "Styx". So just as "Styx" directs to the whole article and not just a subsection, so should "Styx River". They are identical things. The reader should not be misled as you seem to have been into thinking that "Styx River" only refers to that section of the article. Paul August ☎ 13:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Not to the average reader, nor even to a semi-knowledgeable reader such as myself. The goddess is named Styx, never Styx River. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The goddess is a river, and Styx River is another name for the goddess just like the River Styx is. Paul August ☎ 15:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Prove it. Show me a reliable source that says that "Styx River" or the more common "River Styx" is the name of the goddess, not the river. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The river and the goddess are the same thing. Paul August ☎ 23:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not the claim I am questioning. Show me a source that states one of the goddess's names is "River Styx" or "Styx River". Otherwise, you have no grounds. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Since you don't dispute that the river and god are the same thing, then you can't dispute that whatever is true of one is true of the other. The conclusion follows from the following logical syllogism:

A = B.

B is C.

Therefore, A is C.

Paul August ☎ 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

That logic does not apply here. We're talking about terminology. When I see River Styx or Styx River, I expect to find something about the way to Hades, Charon and the coin fare. I do not expect a goddess. So, unless you can show that River is part of the goddess's name, as I have stated before, SURPRISE applies here. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, now that I think about it, A doesn't even equal B. One aspect of an entity doesn't equal another. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

So now you do claim that the goddess and the river are two different things? Paul August ☎ 23:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I said two different aspects. For example, Joe Biden is a Democrat and President of the United States. Are Democrat and POTUS equal? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the aspects goddessness and riverness are the same thing, obviously not. I'm saying that goddessness and riverness are two different aspects of the same thing. And that thing is the thing which our article names as "Styx" but which is also named, for example, the River Styx, which therefore redirects to Styx. Paul August ☎ 23:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course you said they were the same thing. What else could A = B mean (also B is C)? 99.99% of readers do not expect a goddess when they click on River Styx, no SURPRISE. (Aside: In fact, I'm wondering if the article shouldn't be revamped and renamed River Styx, since it appears to me that the river, not the goddess, is the WP:primary topic.) Why can't you accept that? If you are unable to do so, I suggest you ask for a WP:third opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also note that Styx River (disambiguation) states that the Styx is a river only; no mention of the goddess, strongly implying that (1) River Styx is not her name (still waiting for sources saying otherwise), and (2) the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known, and hence the primary topic. I may very well propose moving the page. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like you, many readers will not know that the mythological River Styx (or the less common Styx River) was a goddess. All the more reason why the target for "River Styx" (or "Styx River") should be our article on the mythological river goddess (which is currently at "Styx", as it should be since "Styx" is by far the more common name for the river goddess, if you think otherwise you are welcome to propose a move, although I don't think that such a proposal stands much chance of succeeding, see below). Having "River Styx" (or "Styx River") direct to the section "Styx:Mythology:River" is misleading since the River Styx was more than just a river, and since a section redirect implies that only that section applies, which is simply not true in this case. For example, an important fact about the River Styx (as the previous section "Styx:Mythology:Oath of the gods" discusses at length) is that the river was the "oath of the gods". Redirecting to "Mythology:River" would cause the reader to infer that river had nothing to do with oath taking and didn't really apply to the river. And isn't it obvious that the section "The Arcadian Styx" also applies to the river (don't you agree?) In point of fact everything in this article applies to the river. So any redirect targets for the mythological river need to be the entire article not a subsection.

That Styx River (disambiguation) failed to mention that the river was also a goddess (I've now fixed that) does not imply anything other than the fact that Wikipedia articles are not always perfect. Since the goddess Styx was also a river she was often referred to as "the river Styx", and and since the river Styx became such a famous river, "River Styx" came to be used as a proper noun. So the "River Styx" is another name for the river goddess, more commonly called simply "Styx". As for sources which say that the goddess and the river are the same thing see any of the sources cited in the second note of Styx : "Grimal, s.v. Styx; Tripp, s.v. Styx; Parada, s.v. Styx; Smith, s.v. Styx." Or look at any general reference work. Your saying that "the river, not the goddess, is far, far better known" makes no sense since the river and the goddess are the same thing. What would make more sense, and perhaps this is what you meant, is that the name "River Styx" is the more common name for the river goddess than "Styx". But in that case I think you are wrong. And this is born out by the fact that, for example, the reference works cited just above all have entries for the river goddess under the heading "Styx" rather than "River Styx". And, for what it's worth, I can tell you that I've been doing research in this topic for a long time and every reference (as far as I can remember) I've ever looked at (and I've looked at many dozens over the years) all commonly refer to the river goddess simply as "Styx".

Let me point out a few more things. In all of what I've said above I've been treating the terms "River Styx" and "Styx River" identically, since, in a mythological context, both terms obviously refer to the same thing. And so I've been assuming that, in particular, wherever we redirect those terms, they should be the same place. Furthermore, since every argument you've given for redirecting "River Styx" to "Styx:Mythology:River", applies equally to "River Styx" (don't you agree?), I've also been assuming that you think the same thing. But notice that River Styx redirects to Styx. So was leaving "River Styx" as a redirect to Styx an oversight on you part? Or do you think we should be treating the terms somewhat differently? However, I'm now wondering if I was wrong. While "Styx River" certainly refers (in a mythological context) to the same thing as the term "River Styx", the latter is by far more common. So uncommon in fact that in a general context "River Styx" may, in fact, more commonly refer to one of the several geographical rivers listed at Styx River (disambiguation) than Styx itself. Thus I'm now wondering if the term should instead redirect there? Or rather that we should move Styx River (disambiguation) to Styx River. What do you think about this?

I've tried above to address all the concerns you've raised. I hope you find what I've said persuasive. In any case, I've carefully considered all that you've said and I still don't agree with your proposed change, and I can't think of anything particularly relevant left for me to say. So, since so far you are the only editor in favor of this change there is obviously no consensus in support of it. Therefore I'm going to revert your change, and copy this discussion to Talk:Styx, to see if other editors have any thoughts about all this.

Regards, Paul August ☎ 18:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paul August: That's a pretty ridiculous argument to make. There's no consensus because no other editors have chimed in, so you get to decide unilaterally? Whatever happened to WP:THIRDOPINION? You yourself have admitted the river is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC! Your job is not to override the expectations of the average reader in a misguided attempt to enlighten them. (I was aware of the other redirect, but preferred to reach a consensus first.) Clarityfiend (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

also why is this discussion still going on? Obviously this is a deadlock. (diff)

It's still going on because no uninvolved editor has come along to close the RfC. If you can find one who is willing, please do ask them to come along and close. Cheers — Jumbo T (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Alasdair Crotach MacLeod

Hello, could you clarify the rationale for this edit? As I explained in the edit history, MacLeod received the epithet of Crotach from an actual deformity he developed after an injury, how would he be any different from Konrad II ("Garbaty") or Alfonso Fróilaz ("el Jorobado") ? Orchastrattor (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The title List of people known as the Hunchback provides the answer. It includes people known as "the Hunchback. Is he known as Alasdair MacLeod the Hunchback? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Louis VIII, Duke of Bavaria doesn't seem to be referred to as such in English either, but more broadly I think if we have non-anglophones on the list then it would only be natural for readers to assume the list is for people known by an epithet referring to Kyphosis-like symptoms, including direct equivalents in languages other than English; it feels unencyclopedic to have to crawl through all available sources to determine whether or not the obvious, literal translation is commonly used enough in English to consider including. Many of the subjects are fairly obscure either way, even if their page uses the English "hunchback" it could very well just be one or two historians throwing out a quick translation of their epithet and not something actually reflective of how they would be discussed in the wider historical record. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

MacLeod's own article states the "Scottish Gaelic word crotach means 'humpbacked', not "the Hunchback" or even "hunchback". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Arts and entertainment dab entries

When you changed "Fictional characters" back to "Arts and entertainment" here, you forgot to move a couple of entries up from "See also". From WP:LONGDAB: "all entries that fall within that subject area must be there." Thanks, —swpb^{T • beyond • mutual} 15:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I can't support deletion of information

You have been making a lot of deletions such as this one but I can't really support them because you aren't giving any real justification for their deletion. Just because these people are not mentioned in each other's articles does not mean that they never worked together. You should be looking at the articles for the films themselves. There you will see that they did in fact work together. You are deleting a lot of hard work by some Wikipedians and you are not helping Wikipedia by doing so. The most should should be doing is adding a "citation needed" tag, if anything. Nicholas0 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Nicholas0: The mere fact that they worked together on multiple productions is not enough. Lots and lots of people do that. It has to be significant enough to get independent notice. Also, I looked for sources in most cases; others were obviously unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, did you read the hidden comment at the top of the list? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée)

On 18 August 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Abraham Lincoln felt obliged to propose to Mary Owens – a woman he did not want to marry – but was rejected several times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Mary Owens (Abraham Lincoln fiancée)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Wood Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Diamond (disambiguation)

I'm happy to accept your revert on Diamond (disambiguation) but how is Diamond Tree, Western Australia different from all the other entries there, like Diamond Hill, Diamond Island and Diamond Lake, just to name a few? Calistemon (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It is reasonable to think that they could be referred to as simply Diamond. For example, the Aleutian Islands are often shortened to the Aleutians. The same cannot be said of Diamond Tree. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying that Diamond Hill (Ireland), Diamond Island (Tasmania) and all entries under Diamond Lake (Ontario) are commonly referred to as just Diamond? Calistemon (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily have to be common, as long as it is used sometimes. Do I know that for sure? No, but it is certainly plausible, so I give them the benefit of the doubt. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I really don't think so! I think you are clutching at straws to defend your revert while letting the rest of the list stand. But lets leave it as that, there is zero point discussing a disambiguation page edit any further. Have a great day, happy editing! Calistemon (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

In any case, Diamond Tree does not qualify. Also, it seems dubious to me that mountains definitely belong (e.g. Mount Everest, Mount Kilimanjaro), but hills are somehow suspect? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

"Shamrock Airport" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Shamrock Airport has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 30 § Shamrock Airport until a consensus is reached. Carguychris (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Malawian aviators

A tag has been placed on Category:Malawian aviators indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirect listed at Redirects for discussion

A redirect or redirects you have created has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 16 § Gypsy until a consensus is reached. Bug Ghost🦗👻 12:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Clarityfiend! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Fix a random page lacking sources

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The Pale Horseman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Pale Horseman, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pale Horseman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)