User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 41

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42


The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family for deletion

Ambox warning pn.svg

A discussion has begun about whether the article Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldwin, Hoar and Sherman family until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Orlady (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Texas (disambiguation)

Why do you keep re-adding a link that was redirected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you keep leaving an entry on the disambiguation page without any blue link? Per WP:MOSDAB and WP:NOTBROKEN it perfectly acceptable to use appropriate redirects on disambiguation pages. olderwiser 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I reformatted it meanwhile. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
In any case, it is perfectly acceptable to use redirects such as that on disambiguation pages. It'd be nice if you could fix twinkle or whatever it is you use to treat disambiguation pages differently when you are having one of your mass-removal of links episodes. This isn't the first time you've been asked. olderwiser 22:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Fine. You should also be more careful; in your reversion of me you removed an entry. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry, I was busy making false assumptions. olderwiser 22:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Rajput

Hi, can you please create a disambiguation page for Rajput, in similar manner we have for yadav. I would appreciate your help. Ikon No-Blast 19:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

400 Most Active Wikipedians

I quite understand your feelings! — Robert Greer (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A consideration for cross project consolidation of talk page templates

I have started a conversation here about the possibility of combining some of the United States related WikiProject Banners into {{WikiProject United States}}. It appears that you have been a regular editor at WikiProject U.S. counties and I thought that project might be interested in doing this. I am going to contact some of the other members of the project as well. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions please take a moment and let me know. ---Kumioko (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

surnames, partial titles and primary topics

Hi. I obviously agree with you at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move, and would like to see this reasoning more clearly explained at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but am having trouble coming up with persuasive arguments for those who seem to think that surnames in particular, and "partial titles" in general, don't count in determining primary topic, unless the topic in question is particularly known by the surname or partial title (as in Einstein). For the general discussion, please see Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Primary_topics_with_other_titles. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Rfc: Nyttend

A proposed closing statement has been posted here. Please could you confirm whether you support or oppose this summary. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Curious

I'm having trouble understanding how you distinguish between Freston and Cliburn. First, the two places both get about the same (very low) number of page views. But about Freston you say, "The term is ambiguous and there is a reasonable probability that people entering Freston in the search box will be looking for either Kathy or Tom", but apparently don't think "cliburn" is ambiguous or "there is a reasonable probability that people entering Cliburn in the search box will be looking for Van". This is hard to understand since Van gets about 10x more page views than Tom or Kathy, and, in terms of ghits:

I just don't see sufficient distinction that warrants having the place Freston disambiguated but not the place Cliburn. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to look at when Van Cliburn and Cliburn were created, as Van Cliburn was created in March 2004 1 while Cliburn was created in December 2009 2, so it seams as if Van Cliburn is not commomly just called Cliburn as there doesn't seem to have been a problem with people getting to Van Cliburn. But for the few people who did have a problem we have Cliburn (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The deciding factor in my mind is that there is apparently, given the current state of the articles, virtually nothing to say about Freston, Suffolk, apart than that it exists and is the location for a minor tourist attraction. In the case of Cliburn, as I indicated, if over time we see a significant proportion of people going to the disambiguation page, that would be an indication that the village/parish is not the primary topic. Until then, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the place name over the relatively weak partial title match with the pianist who is pretty well-known as "Van Cliburn". With Freston, the situation is less clear, Tom and Kathy are pretty generic names. I don't think there is any clear evidence that the term "Freston" at this point has any obvious primary topic. olderwiser 13:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I think you're saying that since "Bob" and "Kathy" are "pretty generic", that those persons are likely to be searched with just surname, but since the pianist is so well known as "Van Cliburn" that's how he is likely to be searched, not with just his surname. Okay, can't say that I agree, but at least your reasoning makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Harsen's Island revisions

Dear Sir,

My name is Donald D. Harsen, III. I can assure you that my great-grandfather was not a "Dutchman" as he was referred in this article. His family had been in the U.S. since 1624, so I would say that hardly makes him a "Dutchman". He was a Dutch-American, but he was also of Huguenot descent. I have extensive records to prove all of this. He comes from a family of Calvinists, like the Puritans, whose roots in this country probably go back further than any of yours.Please change this.


Sincerely,

Donald D. Harsen, III

donaldharsen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.238.61 (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal knowledge is not acceptable as a reliable source. Are there reliable published sources to support your claims. That is the main criteria for adding information. olderwiser 01:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

dab to dab through redirect

Hi "Older Wiser". It is possible you are reading too much into some guideline, though I don't see how [1]. What possible reason could there be for linking through redirects with "disambiguation" added unnecessarily, Spalding links to and from Spaulding. You haven't given a reason, and it seems simple, revert yourself and get a second opinion please. cygnis insignis 21:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read WP:INTDABLINK? Under How to link to a disambiguation page? olderwiser 21:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Second opinion here... A reason was given (a link to WP:INTDABLINK in the edit summary). Reverting would be a guideline violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read it, I have created and fixed a number of redirects to content I am adding. It now has an instruction to do it, but no rationale has been ventured; the discussion and stability of these 'guidelines', not rules, has become so confused as to be unusable. I spent some time sorting out the content linked from these dabs, there was some particularly confusing aspects of encyclopædic content which I resolved; having a redirect only hindered my sorting it out. The only possible reason I can see for linking from one dab to another through a redirect—with "(disambiguation)" added—is to justify its own existence, I'm changing it and getting back to the purpose of the site.

I am uncertain as to whether you are operating under a misapprehension, or if there is some other explanation for your insistence on this, can I PLEASE ask that you turn attention to something other than these pages, and accept that I'm certain I have improved their arrangement, made a significant investment in the pages, and have a clue about redirects and disambiguation. cygnis insignis 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being curt. The rationale is explained in that section of the guidelines, I thought relatively clearly. First principle, is that in general, links to disambiguation pages are erroneous. However, there are situations in which an intentional link to disambiguation page is needed. The guidance (which has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page and has been reconfirmed repeatedly) is to use redirects that include the text "(disambiguation)" when intentionally linking to disambiguation pages that do not include the parenthetical. The reason is that link to the the page will not then be included in reports identifying disambiguation pages with incoming links and editors fixing such mistaken links can readily identify that the link is intentional and not mistaken. olderwiser 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It will confuse the reader, as it confused me, especially by avoiding the overarching principle, that redirects should not appear. I thought it was another example of the warren of disambiguation pages that emerge, not a different spellings. The reason given is a solution to the problem of users doing things without thinking, as a semi-automated or mechanical process. Redirects and dabs have a compelling reason to avoid additional complexity, or users getting a different page name to the one they click on. The guideline labours under what fashion is being imposed, often to suit some point by those bored by actual content, it purports to resolve problems of its own making. There are many overlapping things stemming from Spalding/Spaulding, I laboured to resolve that and you made it more complicated to suit some fictional consensus. I watch those pages, any claim of coherence and agreed practice is unfounded. I don't wish to be drawn into these unproductive discussions, if the page says that in 6 months then set about 'enforcing' some rule. Change it back for now, we serve readers, tracking and maintenance has other solutions. You may have the ultimate solution, but there is every chance you repeatedly changing the edits of a heavy user, and very thoughtful contributor, on an erroneous interpretation of consensus, guidelines and procedures. cygnis insignis 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no overarching principle that redirects should not appear. Redirects are not broken. There is no reason to avoid using legitimate redirects. Some redirects, such as misspellings and such should be fixed. But linking though other redirects is perfectly acceptable, especially when there is a rationale for using the redirects that results in improvement to Wikipedia by helping to repair and minimize mistaken links to disambiguation pages. Most of the rest of your complaint seems based on personal tastes rather than anything based in policy or guidelines. olderwiser 21:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
NOTBROKEN applies to articles. Characterising my comment as a complaint and personal taste is inaccurate and impolite. The fact is that some log in to engage in talk page discussions, and confound guidelines to make their own inconsequential preference a source of discord, so advertising the hours they invest in wikilawyering on these same pages. The result is lot of blather on some exceptional circumstance, novel solutions, and circular arguments, and claims to ownership of nomenclature and the site's architecture by those with little experience of its practical application. The fact is that the guideline didn't support your edit, then B2C changed it; I'm sure you both wish everyone was as interested in the to and fro of the pages. Believe what you like, I'll continue to do what works, there is no reason to reply. cygnis insignis 22:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. Full stop. If you have a problem with the guideline, I suggest you take it up at WT:Disambiguation. It has been discussed and confirmed repeatedly. If you want to start complaining about civility, your condescending insinuations are insulting. olderwiser 22:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
You need not take it personally, but you are free to believe I was insinuating something if it suits you. You made part of personal, in your response above, civility aside it is impolite, that is, not conducive to a reasonable discussion. It is a common practice in forums where tldr overrides evidence and rationales provided to make discussion redundant. What you are suggesting is a consequence of what I outlined, some are preoccupied with contributing to process matters, in pseudo-debates, and they suppose that everyone else will too. Do that if you want, I prefer to deal with content. I didn't have a problem with the guideline until you added your baffling arrangement in advance of B2C's change. cygnis insignis 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't take it personally; you said what I wrote was impolite and I was merely pointing out that what you had written in several responses has been at least equally if not more impolite (people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones). B2C edit's did not introduce this concept; it has existed in some form or another on the page for quite a long time. If you want to focus on content, fine. But if you want to remain willfully ignorant of existing guidelines, then please don't insult other editors who do the tedious work that you are oblivious of. If you wish to delude yourself with imaginings about what other editors occupy themselves with, that is your prerogative, but it is not very productive. olderwiser 23:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)What's more important than the guideline wording is the rationale behind it. There are two problems with dab pages being at [[Plain Name]] rather than at [[Plain Name (disambiguation)]] and that is this:
  1. Editors are prone to unintentionally link to [[Plain Name]] rather than to the title of the article about the specific topic to which they intend to refer (for example, linking to [[Mercury]], which is a dab page, rather than to [[Mercury (planet)]]).
  2. Repairing these unintentional links is a tedious process because you have to read the text to figure out which meaning was intended before you fix the link to link to the correct meaning. Worse, the best way to find these in the first place is to use "what links here" with respect to a plain name dab page (like [[Mercury]]), but if we just leave the ones that are determined to be intentional links to the dab page, then the next editor who clicks on "what links here" will see them and will have to re-review them - a lot of work is thus done over and over.
That is why the convention was developed to explicitly link intended links to dab pages to [[Plain Name (disambiguation)]]. That's what WP:INTDABLINK was intended to say, did say after I fixed it (and has now been reverted as part of a bigger revert of a lot of my other changes). That way we know every link "that links here" needs correcting, and we can easily do that, and know when we're done (when no links from article space not including redirects link to the dab page at the plain name). That's the up side of doing that; what's the downside?
I've also started a discussion about this at WT:D#Evidence this guideline needs wording improved. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The page doesn't have that name, though I see the reason is to push it one based an unworkable opinion on how pages should be named and a basis for the pointless creation of millions of pages to suit this notion. Solutions for problems that are already resolved, should be thousands of potential edits in a scheme like that. cygnis insignis 23:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, link fixed. You think there are millions of dab pages at the plain name, like Mercury? Don't most of them already have a corresponding redirect from [[plain name (disambiguation)]], like Mercury (disambiguation) redirects to Mercury? What are these millions of pages that you think need to be created? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
If you go to Mercury, click on "what links here", and set the options to look at only article space and ignore redirects and transclusions, you'll see this list. I suspect all of them need to be fixed because somebody probably already went through there and made the ones that intentionally link to the dab page link to Mercury (disambiguation) rather than to Mercury. In any case, the ones that do link to Mercury (disambiguation) are not listed here and so make this job easier and more efficient. How this a problem that is "already resolved"? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Lilith

Hi: It is a minor thing, but I have to wonder why you change the description of Lilith in the disambiguation page. Your last description said you changed what I had put to be "a neutral description". As I took the text verbatim from the definition in the article entry, I am not sure how it was not neutral. Could you explain your viewpoint? I know that it is common within Christianity to follow the mythology that Adam and Eve were created as the first humans in the garden of eden. As Christianity flowed from Judaism, and in Judaism (and Islam) the mythology is that Lilith was created first, as an equal to Adam, rather than as subservient to Adam.

Now it is not important which mythology one prefers or wishes to ignore or whether they believe or or not, or what religion they are from, as documented by the article on Lilith, indicating that she was the first woman. In a disambiguation page, there needs to be enough detail to give people direction. Lilith is best known for being the first woman, that is the most notable aspect, and in fact the origin of the name. One does not need to be a descendant of Ishmael or Isaac in order to follow the disambiguation page.

I guess not listing her as a "demon" is more neutral. Atom (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you saw this text 'Lilith is a female demon in Jewish mythology; in some Jewish folklore, Adam's first wife. as verbatim from the Lilith article. On the other hand, Lilith ... is a character in Jewish mythology is directly from the lede of the article. There might be some value to mentioning the first woman aspect, but strictly speaking that detail isn't really necessary for disambiguation. olderwiser 15:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not place the "demon" part into the description. My comments were also directly quoted from the article. It is my view that for the purposes of a disambiguation page that only sufficient detail to allow a user to resolve which entry applies to their interest or search is needed. As the most notable aspect of the name "Lilith" is that she was the first woman created by G-d, I guess that seemed like a good description.

The first two para's in the Lilith article read:

"Lilith (Hebrew: לילית‎; IPA: lilit, or lilith) is a character in Jewish mythology, found earliest in the Babylonian Talmud,..."

And,

"In Jewish folklore, from the 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was
created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."


From Encyclopedia Mythica (http://www pantheon org/articles/l/lilith.html)

"One story is that God created Adam and Lilith as twins joined together at the back. She demanded equality with Adam, failing to achieve it, she left him in anger.
This is sometimes accompanied by a Muslim legend that after leaving Adam Lilith slept with Satan, thus creating the demonic Djinn."

It seems supportable that Lilith and mythology preceded the invention of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The name preceded Ishmail-Abraham-Isaac and all Mythology that came from those religions.

Regardless of all of the theory, It seems clear that for the purposes of disambiguation, We could use something like "In some versions of the Judeo-Islam-Christian creation myth, Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam."

Or if that is too long. "The first woman within some mythologies." The focus being on giving enough detail for a user to discriminate between usages. And Lilith as the first woman is the most notable characteristic of the name. Atom (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Laviolette

I see we have Patricklaviolette (talk · contribs) and PLaV (talk · contribs). I guess it doesn't matter that much so long as they don't edit together. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm wrong, the 2nd was was Paul, not Patrick. Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of roots entry

Hello, excuse me but why did you remove the entry I made on the Roots page, did I do it wrong? How should I have done it? The Roots program still has a users group [2] and played a big part in shapping todays genealogy programs. I believed that wikipedia is meant for this type of historical/encylopedic stuff. Thank you for reading 114.76.89.229 (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Caribou

Thanks for catching that one. It's true that in English "caribou" is a common near-synonym for "reindeer", but only in English. Elsewhere the word used is always a variation of reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I am a biology teacher in the town of Reed City and was surprised to see a detailed addition to the Hersey River topic. My students and I have been doing research on the river for years. This year I wanted to post water quality test results on wikipedia. You obviously know quite a bit about the Hersey River and we are interested in hearing from you. ANy information about the history of the Hersey River would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

24.180.216.25 (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC) dcarlson

Barber's pole

BK, There is a question about the proper use of categories here at Barber's pole. See ole english talk page. There are 'too many notes.' Die Entführung aus dem Serail (section The "too many notes" tale). Your guidance would be appreciated. Thank you and happy holidays. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Stan

Not supported?

Isn't this considered support? - Tournesol (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps so. I was of course looking for sill, not sild. olderwiser 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of...

...the discussion we are having at Pine Valley, I would like to apologize for my tone. While I did mean every single thing I said and stand by my position, for civility sake I should have been able to word my replies better. For what it's worth, please accept my apologies, if you can. It's obvious we both are passionate about the topic even as we interpret the guidelines differently and hold vastly incompatible views regarding the implementation details. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 19:32 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalker (disambiguation)

Conrad, Im correcting the problem with the disamb page. There are a lot of meanings for stalker, so I have created Stalker (disambiguation), to try to correct that, now is necessary put the {disamb} in the rest of meanings--AeroPsico (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The disambiguation page was already at Stalker. You incorrectly attempted to move the page by copying and pasting the content. If you think the newly created page at Stalker (Stalking) is the WP:Primary topic and should be located at Stalker, you can propose a move by following the instructions at WP:RM. olderwiser 13:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I did move, but the problem is that Stalker (disambiguation) already exists. What is the solution? Erase this page?--AeroPsico (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No, you did not move -- you copied and pasted the content. Moving is done by using the move function. If you are unable to move a page if, as in this case, because there is an edit history at the target title, then you can request a move by following the instructions at requested moves. olderwiser 14:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)