User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 49

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

← Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 →


Hellow, Why you delete Boomer from Redakai?, please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because disambiguation pages are for navigating to existing Wikipedia articles. The entry you added had no links to articles and I could not identify any potential links that might have relevant information. olderwiser 03:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What would the evidence look like?

Bkonrad, in the RM on Highland you made the following statement: I see no indication of potential for an encyclopedic conceptual article. Similarly, I see no evidence that people looking for "highland" or "highlands" are looking for conceptual information rather than a specific highland. I am just curious, if you had seen evidence that people [readers] were looking for something specific, what would that evidence look like? I am interested because I struggle alot with the notion that we as editors can determine what millions of readers are actually thinking when they access Wikipedia. What should I be looking for? --Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In that specific case, there are numerous entities specifically known as "Highland" which would be out of place on a "broad concept" page. In essence, although the proposer couched the move in terms of a concept dab, the proposal is actually asserting that the landform article is the primary topic. So evidence in that case might be a high volume of traffic to the landform article and correspondingly minimal traffic to any of the entities known as "highland". olderwiser 14:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Passenger Pigeon

You've had good ideas in the past. Please take a look. I've put in links and sources, and it is a better article than it was. It just got promoted to a "B". Thanks. 7&6=thirteen () 14:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Adams Twp Communities,_Houghton_County,_Michigan - I updated this to correctly list Painesdale as an unincorporated village, and you reverted it--why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the edit differences. The terminology of "unincorporated village" is a bit unusual as villages in Michigan are defined as a type of incorporated municipality. I updated the note to be the less confusing "unincorporated community". olderwiser 22:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 March 2012



You're saying that:

Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), La Pampa, Argentina (by IATA code)

is better than:

Santa Rosa Airport, La Pampa, Argentina (by IATA code)

Where in MOSDAB does it say that this is a good idea?

Thanks, Azylber (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:PIPING -- Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages. Perhaps the entry could be rephrased as Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina), IATA code to avoid the redundancy. olderwiser 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think your new suggestion is also not as good as the original. There is more than one place called Santa Rosa in Argentina, so I added the Province.
So Santa Rosa Airport (Argentina)]], IATA code is also no good
I still don't understand the need to fix the original.
See if what I put now is acceptable to you.

Azylber (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Right action - wrong reason

This was a bit sloppy, and no doubt confusing for someone not familiar with WP:MOSDAB.
Yes, "rm external link entry -- not appropriate on disambiguation page" is quite correct. But that's not what you did. You deleted the whole entry.
Yes, removing the complete entry is the correct action, but not because of the external link entry. It should be deleted because the link does not appear / is not used anywhere in WP. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right. I've found that most IPs adding such flyby advertorials have no interest whatsoever in WP:MOSDAB or any other guideline. olderwiser 12:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL! Fair comment! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you reverting the chosen one article?

I cited the source so please stop changing something when you can't spend two minutes reading.

A disambiguation page should not contain citations. The entries on a disambiguation page should be supported by the linked article. olderwiser 04:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Lynn#entry_for_.22M._Stuart_Lynn.22

Please see Talk:Lynn#entry_for_.22M._Stuart_Lynn.22 --Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Unincorporated area

Please see Talk:Unincorporated_area#Changes_to_lead. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gregory Creswell

Thank you for reverting vandalism on the article, Greg Creswell. I did some work on it a while back, and it is disturbing to see people use Wikipedia as tool for personal attacks.--Redandready (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


Please join the discussion at Talk:Big Bang Theory (disambiguation)#Bolding. Jusses2 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

White Horse

Hi, FYI, in case you were unaware: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes. IE is broken (and not only IE9). I had to use IE a while back on a temporary system and I was surprised and a little distressed to see that the {{TOC right}} did not work properly in IE. I asked about it at WP:VPT and the reaction was more or less a shrug in that there's little to be done if IE doesn't play by the rules. olderwiser 00:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it OK in IE 9. You may wish to check that it looks OK in your browser too. Regards, (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks ok in Chrome. Though such a kludge shouldn't be necessary. olderwiser 01:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but a lot of people use IE. I don't know the exact stats, but still a lot. Also, it is not the "TOC right" per se that breaks, but something to do with the combination of the Wiktionary notice and the TOC. Removing the Wiktionary link, or even swapping the order around fixes the problem in IE. Perhaps that would be better... dunno. I don't really understand the basis on which those Wiktionary notices are added. (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 March 2012

The Signpost: 19 March 2012

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

{{R from stock symbol}} Redirects

Hi - I've seen you've removed the addition I made to '' with regards to the stock redirect template - please could you advise where this redirect needs to go in order to be compliant? I am using this redirection template when querying the Wiki API and looking for this string explicitly, since a mechanism to search for articles and their associated stock symbols does not exist? Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael appleby (talkcontribs) 16:05, 27 March 2012‎

  • Sorry, but I don't understand what it is you are trying to do. Templates such as {{R from stock symbol}} are used to identify redirects. It is incorrect to used such a template on a page that is not redirect. olderwiser 16:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Well, AAPL isn't so much a disambiguation page as an article with a disambiguation hatnote ... now expanded to link to a third meaning. I think the problem, Michael, is that you're looking at a template which has one purpose (to categorise redirects), and wanting to use it for another (to find all articles accessed by stock symbols). There will be stock symbols as free-standing redirects (with the template), and others in hatnotes like this, and others in true disambiguation pages, and the two latter categories won't have the template. Sorry. PamD 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification PamD. I confused AAPL with another page that was a disambiguation page that had been similarly edited. olderwiser 16:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there a place where I can discuss this in an open-forum format, with technical assistance to this problem? Ultimately I'm using the Wiki API to search for articles containing stock symbols e.g. AAPL and I stumbled across the template {{R from stock symbol}} as a means of doing so - I am told that I cannot use this in the way that I attempted, but should I take it from these replies that there is no valid way of doing this? Many thanks for your help :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael appleby (talkcontribs) 13:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Micah True

BK, I am (more or less) the sole editor of this new article. It has gotten nearly 18,000 views in the last 2 days. Lots of traffic. It needs a fresh set of eyes. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen () 18:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 April 2012


Hello, I moved Elektra (album) to Elektra (Suspekt album) to avoid potential confusion with Elektra: The Album, and secondarily, the many albums with Richard Strauss' opera Elektra - many of them simply titled "Elektra", which makes them an "Elektra album". "Elektra (Suspekt album)" is the most precise title in my opinion. Regards, Danmuz (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I should have explained that in the "Reason", so my bad for not being more clear. Danmuz (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
(Also, please see Electra (album), which - although spelled differently - is very close). If you have no objections, based on my explanation, I will move the article again, and this time explain the reasoning. Regards, --Danmuz (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Zimmer (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zimmermann (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ram Kumar

Hi Bkonrad !
I saw that you made some edits to the article Ram Kumar. I assume that you have some interest in Indian Modernist Art. I am editing Ram Kumar and invite you to add some of your own stuff. My ultimate aim is to nominate it for a GA. Thanks ! AkshaySeth20 (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

leading/trailing spaces in h2

I see you have inserted leading/trailing spaces in the h2 on AO. Not so long ago, there was a bot active in removing them. Does the MOS have anything to say about this? (I haven't been able to locate anything.) No big deal, but I would like to know if I'm supposed to put them in or leave them out. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is purely a matter of preference I believe. MOS:SECTIONS: Spaces between the equal signs and the heading text are optional, and will not affect the way the heading is displayed. I find using ctrl-arrow keys is not always consistent depending on which browser I am using. That is, sometimes ctrl-arrow will stop at the equal sign and sometimes it will not stop unless there is a space. I find that irritating and so I often add spaces to the headings when editing a page. olderwiser 02:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 April 2012

Good Lord

Reread the WP:DAB article. There is no policy whatever of removing all links on dab pages apart from those on the left margin. That's your own peeve & a silly, unhelpful one.

That said, it is obnoxious but somewhat defensible under WP:BOLD – you're arguing for your approach. Following me around the Wiki is rather less so. Continuing this pattern of focusing your edits on those I've just worked hours to create is and will be reported as harassment.

Further, a number of your edits – removal of encyclopedic content with no attempt to place it anywhere else; creation of imaginary surnames by selective deletion of my work – is indefensible WP:POINTiness. I do appreciate your apparent long work here, but chill & knock off the WP:OWNERSHIP. — LlywelynII 12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I see you've been at this awhile and ignore everyone else's annoyance at your habits as well. Eh, at least my objections are noted. — LlywelynII 12:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you look more closely. WP:DABSTYLE: Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader. The advice is reinforced at WP:MOSDAB under MOS:DABENTRY: Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line. olderwiser 12:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Notre Dame page

Hi-- just wanted to let you know that you reversed a few good edits of mine on this page. Specifically, several redirects, a red link that has no backlinks, and the removal of "a" in the short descriptions. See: Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts as a guideline. I'm planning on fixing the few things that shouldn't have been changed. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had tried to keep your edits. Regarding the use of "a","an", or "the", Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts says nothing specifically about that. The proscription against use of such articles in WP:MOSDAB#People is specifically limited to lists of people (although I have no idea why). The page is otherwise replete with examples that use articles and the entries seem mildly ungrammatical (or perhaps read as if written by someone for whom English is not their first language). olderwiser 19:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I see what you mean about articles not being used for people, but for other descriptions on the MOS:DAB page. Could swear that style page said something about it, as I have been reverted before for using articles. Must have gotten edited out or changed somewhere along the line!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 April 2012

Georgian dispute

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Harbinger disambiguation

You removed the sentence which I contributed, under the heading "fiction", on the correct grounds that it didn't have a blue link to anything. If I could work out how to get a blue link on "Tom Sharpe" rather than a red link on whatever I wrote (I think it was "novels by Tom Sharpe"), then I would do so. But I can't. I am a new contributor and I haven't understood the technology yet. (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there is no article that supports the usage you claim. Tom Sharpe, Riotous Assembly make no mention and there is no article for the novel Indecent Exposure or the character Konstabel Els. Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not contain information that is not supported by the linked articles. olderwiser 14:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2012

Dordogne River

I'll leave that to you to sort out! Tim! (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Purple Haze

Please stop reverting changes on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht (talkcontribs) 19:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you keep your policy of answering here "I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist." I've just added an article for this particular strain as a 'courtesy end of discussion'. You should do more reserach instead of just deleting references or articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht (talkcontribs) 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not delete any references or articles, so your instruction that I should do more reserach instead of just deleting references or articles is false. Until you created that stub, there was nothing applicable. It is your responsibility to provide appropriate references for information that you want to include. olderwiser 21:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting the naming convention. HansRoht —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 30 April 2012