User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 46

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 →

Madras (disambiguation)

OK. Understood, but please restore the Madras Thorn which qualifies to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xufanc (talkcontribs) 01:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? There is no indication in the article that it is known as simply "Madras". olderwiser 02:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

--Kumioko (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"one blue link per line"

I'm not necessarily opposed to this edit, but this is the first time i've heard "one blue link per line". Is that a Wikipedia policy, or a personal preference? Richard Myers (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

See MOS:DABENTRY. olderwiser 11:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
ha. well then. i'm no longer mad about what i wound up here over (max...). i stand properly corrected. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

{{lang}} templates

I thought this edit [1] quite amusing, since {{lang}} doesn't have a "links" parameter (why should it, there's nothing worth linking) while the bit you might want to delink is staring you in the face. But I don't think the {{lang-xx}} family should have a "links" parm either: firstly, we don't want to have to repeat the same piece of code on every member of the family, and secondly we don't want to complicate templates unnecessarily, when it is so simple to produce what is wanted in standard wiki markup. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I based that edit on {{lang-de}} without realizing {{lang-ar}} used a different core template. The option is intended to turn off the link to the language. In many contexts displaying a link to the language by default amounts to WP:Overlinking. olderwiser 14:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) PS, if there is a simpler way to implement this instead of separate updates to each of the lang-xx templates, that would be great, but that's far beyond my skills. olderwiser 14:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Template bloat is alive and well, I see [2]. It's obviously useful to have a {{lang-xx}} series that links to the main article on the language (to save the trouble of looking up the article, and to make life easier if its name changes), but if you don't want to link to the language article, but still mention the language, then it's much simpler to just write yyyyyy: {{lang|xx|...}}, where yyyyyy is the name of the language. No need for {{talkback}} by the way, I have your page on my watchlist. Regards, --NSH001 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
That seems typical for a wiki. Various people working on similar problems with little or no coordination. Seems that what would help here is if documentation more clearly explained that if you want the language with no link, use {{lang|xx}} and if you want the language with a link use {{lang-xx}}. Up till now, I've mostly seen people using {{lang-xx}} and had not realized {{lang|xx}} would produce the same results without the link. olderwiser 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Having a chance to think about it some more and see a bit more of how it works, I have to say I like having the option available in the lang-xx templates. For one, these templates automatically format the text with italics where applicable. Using lang|xx the editor has to manually add the formatting in the situations where it is applicable. But like I said before, I don't know if there is a more elegant way to implement this to all the lang-xx templates at once rather than one at a time. olderwiser 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Armored car

Please do not delete my post on the armored car page I have to write on it for my college English course, if you can leave the page up for a couple weeks I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bman3 (talkcontribs) 22:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


Two minor points: Having worked with aquatic animals for many years, I cannot say I ever remember hearing anyone calling the harlequin rasbora just the "harlequin" (an alternative, but now infrequently used name is "harlequin fish", but still not just harlequin). I have no intention of starting an edit war over it, but you mentioned you knew publications where this short form is used: Could you please point to this/these? Secondly, regarding this: Taxila haquinus is actually identified as a metalmark in its article: The family Riodinidae = metalmarks. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

From links in the article: [3] and [4] both mention "harlequin" alone as a common name. Then there is also [5] [6] [7] among others that include references to the fish as simply "harlequin". olderwiser 17:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
As for metalmarks -- that is highly non-obvious. And considering that, both Taxila haquinus and the disambiguation page should mention the Harlequin metalmark (Praetaxila segecia) as it seems rather confusing otherwise. olderwiser 17:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the rasbora. Having checked a range of books I haven't found it in the short form but your links are clearly sufficient. The butterfly: Yes, likely "highly non-obvious" if you're not familiar with butterflies but very easy to check (either a simple search or a click on the first wiki link for an unfamiliar word in that tiny article). Taxila haquinus is never known as the harlequin metalmark (usually just harlequin though some use the IMO better orange harlequin) and Praetaxila segecia is never known simply as the harlequin. Always harlequin metalmark or, for the Australian subspecies, Australian metalmark. It's also found in New Guinea but the old version of its article failed to mention that. In any case that brings its inclusion on the disambiguation page back to the editing guideline WP:PTM. If including every single metalmark butterfly with the word "harlequin" in their name it'll eventually be a loooong list, e.g. all Paralaxita with an English name have "harlequin" in it. RN1970 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
PTMs for species are always a bit problematic, especially for common species, which are not uncommonly given shorthand references in which the adjectival portion of a name functions as a noun. For the butterflies, Praetaxila segecia its inclusion on the disambiguation page is marginal and only really needed because of the ambiguity with another metalmark butterfly that is known as "harlequin". As for Paralaxita, I've no idea what that is and there doesn't appear to be an article at present. I suppose the question of inclusion can be addressed when there is something there. But in general, I'd agree that if the species is only known by the full adjective + noun, then it would not need to be included on the disambiguation page. olderwiser 20:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why one blue link per line?

Please, help me to understand, why you write one blue link per line in the disambiguation page Peter?

And why you change the links to the exact name of the article if we can put them better?


Arussom (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSDAB. olderwiser 16:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Ok, understood :D
Arussom (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Re: Doctor of Nursing Practice--that's fair, but please see the end of that Wikipedia entry. The American Association of Colleges of Nursing approves the use of term "doctor" in the clinical setting to refer to those holding the clinical terminal Doctor of Nursing Practice degree. It makes no difference that the AMA disagrees. The AMA is not authoritative on this matter. Healthcare is changing, and it is important for Wikipedia to reflect that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirlepa11 (talkcontribs) 23:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for updating my English in article National Academy of Sciences (disambiguation)‎. I was already not sure if that part was ok. -- SchreyP (messages) 22:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


I think your recentism/article links argument is weak. If you look at articles that link directly to a page, the governor has 2½ times the linkage that the painter does. I would counter the recentism argument by pointing out that the governor has a great deal of notability aside of being Mitt's father; and even Mitt has been in the public eye long enough to not be the "flash in the pan" that recentism targets. And with regard to your Google Books argument, I think that that is more than counterbalanced by the governor outhitting the painter 10:1 Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Manchurian Candidate "disambiguation"

Why do you think this is useful? First, it's really a WP:SETINDEX, because the three items are related. Second, the intros on the articles on the novel and the two movies already function as set indexes, because they all link to and identify the other works in their respective intros. So placing a link to this as a hatnote on any of those articles is redundant and a waste of time, as it just sends a reader off to a separate page that restates what is in the intros of those articles. postdlf (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

  • For one, the primary article about the book is arguably eclipsed by either of the movies, certainly by the iconic first movie. As someone who spends a great deal of time disambiguating mistaken links, it is far more intuitive to have a hatnote than to have to parse any portion of the article text. Feel free to propose it for deletion (AfD) if you think I'm wrong. olderwiser 20:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I do think you're wrong.  ; ) But I'll chalk it up to editorial disagreement, which AFD is far too often called upon to resolve when sometimes it's fine to just leave things alone even if you don't agree with them. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Descriptions and WP:MOSDAB

What the MOS says on this topic is: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."

I don't see how that jibes with a view that the description associated with each link should be at least several words long, just in case some other topic exists -- not on Wikipedia, but anywhere on the planet -- that could use the same title as that link. Which is how I'm understanding the view that's guiding your edits on Hamlet (disambiguation). Please either explain to me how you're acting in support of this guideline, or explain to me why this page is a special case where we should ignore the guideline, or allow me to bring the page in compliance with the guideline. I'm sure neither of us enjoys edit warring.Theoldsparkle (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

A strictly minimalist approach is unhelpful. I spend a lot of time disambiguating mistaken links to disambiguation pages. If there is a single entry for Hamlet (band) the natural tendency is to link directly to that one. However, I find it extremely helpful to have some description with the entry to more readily distinguish whether that is in fact the correct entry. If I'm fixing links and the article containing a link is in a context that is incongruous with the description, it is a cue that the link should not be made to the single existing entry. Whether that means de-linking or creating a stub or adding a redlink with an appropriate blue link on the disambiguation page will vary according to the context. I never understood why some editors take it as a unbreakable imperative that descriptions must be pared down to the absolute minimum. I find that attitude unhelpful for readers and other editors alike. olderwiser 22:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Bkonrad/Archive 46! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First time for everything...

Re: Thomson/Thompson: thanks for your eagle-eyed revert. A severe case of late-night p-blindness.

On another matter: could you possibly explain to a non-US resident the connection (or apparent mutual exclusivity) between ZIP codes and CDP's? I have recently been coming across this sort of statement in Random Articles:

Although Waldron is not specifically tracked by the Census, the ZIP code is 98297, and this ZIP code is coextensive with Waldron Island.

and have been unable to find an explanation in either ZIP codes or US Census Bureau or after a moderate amount of googling. Thanks >MinorProphet (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no strict correlation. They are different types of geographic referents that sometimes overlap and in rare cases are identical. Zip codes are assigned and managed by the U.S. Postal Service. One breakdown of geographic data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau is by the approximate area served by a zip code. A census-designated place is a type of populated place defined by the Census Bureau in cooperation with local authorities. A place might have a ZIP code, but not be a CDP and conversely, a place might be a CDP and not have a ZIP code. In the case of Waldron, Washington, it appears that the data presented there happens to be for the ZIP code, which is presumed in the article to be equivalent to Waldron Island. Hope this helps. olderwiser 23:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
The scales fall from my eyes, and now I see. >MinorProphet (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


I think you were confused by the fact we had a history merge as well as a content dispute. Please revert your edit so as to avoid any impression that the debate is prejudiced against him (they have been very sensitive so far). When the move request runs its course, then should apply the same change. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, now I see multiple users noticed it. I'll revert it myself. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Erm, no. the merged edit history, primarily that of the disambiguation page, is at Moroccan. The disambiguation content was copied and pasted. It would be piling wrongs upon wrongs to move what is now at Moroccan (disambiguation) over Moroccan. I've replied in somewhat more detail at Talk:Moroccan (disambiguation)#Requested move, please reply there. olderwiser 11:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


for restoring qnx Ottawahitech (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IETF DANE standard not welcome?

Why the emerging IETF DANE standard does not have "indication of potential for encyclopedic article"? I added it to the Dane disambiguation page but you swiftly removed it.

I was looking for information about it but could not find much. Every other IETF standardization effort that I have previously looked up in wikipedia has had an article already, even if they are still emerging standards which are being worked on (like "DANE"). Thus I was thinking I might be the first one to write a summary in Wikipedia after researching the topic. Not welcome. Why? This standardization effort may make the huge SSL certificate business (think "DigiNotar" and similar failures) obsolete. Are you against that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DABRL for the critieria on inclusion of redlinks on disambiguation pages. Also, Wikipedia is not a general directory or a glossary of terms. If there is no article in Wikipedia with any content relevant to the topic, there is nothing to disambiguate within the context of Wikipedia. olderwiser 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Andover, Kansas

The link doesn't have any details on Talk:Andover, Kansas. Try it. • SbmeirowTalk • 13:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I found 2010 Census Bureau maps for Andover. It doesn't show the boundary going into Sedgwick County. I can't explain the change notes that you found. See Talk:Andover, Kansas. • SbmeirowTalk • 14:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)