User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 54

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

← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 →


My last edits are following the rule, so stop undoing them. Taylor Strand (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the link -- not only the displayed portion -- should use the form with "(disambiguation)". olderwiser 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No, links should never deliberately go to a redirect page. That is a more fundamental rule and thus supersedes this idea you have come up with. Taylor Strand (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is no such rule on Wikipedia. In fact, besides the well-established disambiguation guideline, there is WP:NOTBROKEN. olderwiser 20:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The rule of direct linking is a general rule on the Internet. As I see it, your reverts are just as much violating WP:NOTBROKEN. Taylor Strand (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are very confused. You might find WP:Redirect instructive. And URL redirection suggests that redirection in not an uncommon practice on the internet in general. olderwiser


Why did you make this edit? WP:PTM says against it. If someone is looking for Golden apple (disambiguation), they will type that in, they won't type in apple, expecting to find that. CTF83! 01:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, nothing here suggests it's ok to have Apple Store (online), Big Apple (disambiguation), Golden apple (disambiguation), and The Little Apple (disambiguation) listed at Apple (disambiguation). CTF83! 02:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bzzzt! Wrong. WP:PTM offers no guidance on what to include in the see also section. Such entries are appropriate for the see also section of a disambiguation page per WP:MOSDAB#"See also" section. olderwiser 03:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Uh, which of those 4 bullets is similar to what you're doing? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Apple_.28disambiguation.29 CTF83! 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Such partial title matches that have some overlap with the ambiguous term are typically included in the see also section. olderwiser 03:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you have no logic here. Why did you include those, but not Apple Blossom (disambiguation), Apple pie (disambiguation), Apples and oranges (disambiguation), Apple of Sodom (disambiguation), Adam's apple (disambiguation). Is it just pick and choose on what you want to add? 04:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


If pawpaw is not the genus, the redirect was incorrectly titled. I deleted it (as I noted should be done in the previous edit summary). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the redirect was not such a problem. But the disambiguation page shouldn't encourage such misleading usage. olderwiser 14:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
If "pawpaw (genus)" is wrong, the redirect is a problem. If "pawpaw (genus)" is not wrong, it should be used on the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Redirects exist for many purposes, including "mistakes" such as misspellings. This does not mean that because a redirect exists it must therefore be used on a disambiguation page. The traffic for Pawpaw (genus) is non-zero as well, suggesting that at least some might be using it as a search term (which again doesn't necessarily mean the redirect should be used on the disambiguation page, but merely that it's existence may help some readers find the topic). olderwiser 14:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Nothing in "pawpaw (genus)" was misspelled. It seems to me that a genus can have a common name as well as a Latin name, so there's nothing generally incorrect about "pawpaw (genus)": "pawpaw" is the common name of a genus, "pawpaw" is ambiguous, so "pawpaw (genus)" would have been the proper way to qualify the title, and would then be used on the disambiguation page. But if that's wrong, it's wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that there was any misspelling, I only offered that as one type (out of many) of redirects that may technically "incorrect" but are useful as redirects nonetheless. The problem is that the form implies that pawpaw is the name of the genus. Pawpaw is a colloquial name for members of the genus and perhaps by extension of the genus itself. olderwiser 14:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Or to put it a different way, what criteria for deletion applied to justify deleting the redirect? olderwiser 14:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken redirect

Hi, Bkonrad. It looks like you accidentally created Wayfarer's Dole as a redirect to itself. Hopefully this will be easy for you to fix. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was a bit careless when creating that. I've just fixed the redirect. olderwiser 01:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

Deleting of the LOTRO entry

Kindly help me understand why the KAOS entry referring to the LOTRO game is being deleted w/o explanation. (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)Chuck

Please see WP:Disambiguation. Disambiguation pages help to navigate pages on wikipedia. They are not directories of content on the internet. If the subject is notable, then write an article on it. olderwiser 18:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When I look at the page I added the KAOS entry to it covers a large number of topics under the term "KAOS" all presented on a single page. Am I understanding you correctly in that you're suggesting that a KAOS kinship in the LOTRO game is better suited to it's own wiki page?

/Chuck — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not articles and should not contain content that is not supported by a linked article. A claim that "XYZ" (or whatever) means something should be substantiated by the linked article. olderwiser 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

1794 boundary line

hi Bkonrad, I am reading a history book written in 1874 by John Clark Ridpath and on page 484 it says the following: On the 20th of August, 1794, Wayne marched..... The relentless general then compelled the humbled chieftains to purchase peace by ceding to the United Syates all the territory east of a line drawn from Fort Recovery to the mouth of the Great Miami River. This was the last service of General Wayne..... Does this mean anything regarding the boundary line of Indian land in Ohio? Jennifer — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, see the Treaty of Greeneville. olderwiser 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Isaac Hull.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Isaac Hull.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. moogsi(blah) 10:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Please stop

I am fixing that disambiguation linkage I added to all the 'Treaty of Paris' article re "Treaty of Paris(disambiguation)'. Thanks, Shearonink (talk)

Hello? Shearonink (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see anything that indicated a response was expected. olderwiser 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
You left a note at 14:41, I read it, I went to fix the issues but then ran into edit conflicts because you were editing the hatnote/linkage in those articles starting at 14:53. Just asking you to give me some time to fix the hatnotes myself - that's all. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
And I was thinking you'd give a fellow editor the courtesy of fixing their own mistakes, especially after I left you the note above at 14:46, but your response indicates I should have been more clear? Shearonink (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't think it was such a big deal. I looked at what links here and started fixing the incoming direct links (both from your edits as well as from others). olderwiser 15:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose I like to try to clean up my own Wiki-messes when given the opportunity, helps me to keep on learning about WP. I do appreciate the fact that you fixed all those links up, but I was right in the middle of changing the code myself and ran into your was frustrating. But what is important is that when a reader ends up at the wrong 'Treaty of Paris' article, they will now have a guide to help them find the right one. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy River

Please check on the discussion on Sandy River. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have replied there. Thanks for the note. olderwiser 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Bkonrad. You have new messages at DASonnenfeld's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Patience is a virtue....

Re this edit to John Cunliffe, the reason I removed the blue link was because I was in the process of creating the article John Cunliffe Pickersgill-Cunliffe, which took longer than 12 minutes to write (given that I was checking references etc. so that it didn't get speedily deleted or some such thing). Sometimes it does help to be patient--it saves other users extra work. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I can appreciate what you say, but how am I to know that you were working on it? Maybe I'm a little jaded, but it is far more common for editors to add redlinks to a dab page with never any intention of creating an article. I notice an edit to a page on my watchlist and I have a decision to make -- either I fix it then and there or I leave it alone until the next edit to the page pops it up on my watchlist. olderwiser 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and I understand what you say, but if it's not a case of simple vandalism then there's a good chance that the editor in question is actually doing something that will take longer than 12 minutes to be realised. If it's been like that for a day or so, then maybe not, so go ahead and revert. Like I said, patience is a virtue! --RFBailey (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arias (surname), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlos Arias and Antonio Arias (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) 12:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Re: your comment

at Talk:Treaty_of_Paris_(1815)#Dab_hatnote, the editor in question also removed all the hatnotes on the 'Solaris' articles that had been mentioned in the two ongoing discussions. Shearonink (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is WP:POINTy, but it would also be pointy to revert those at this point as the discussion is focused on the treaty of paris article. If there is consensus to modify the supposed policy, these changes can be undone later. olderwiser 01:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. At this point I'm just done with it. All I wanted to do was help people - any further discussions about any Treaty of Paris & hatnotes & the 'Solaris'-policy can continue on without me. Shearonink (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If the above sounded snippy or something, not my intent at all. I appreciate your reasoned comments at the various discussions and want to thank you for that. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Talk:Putumayo (disambiguation) - I hope this source for wrong linking can be removed. Pedro Gonzalez-Irusta (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Removal of "IA" as a "Humanoid Persona" by "1st Place" for the "Vocaloid 3".

Good Day, or Night I suppose since we probably live in different Time Zones. I want to discuss with you about the Subject. There is already a reference about it right here. To put it simply, IA is an Official Humanoid Persona developed by 1st Place for the Vocaloid 3 Platform. Her voice was sampled from Lia, notable for Tori no Uta and the songs released using IA has achieved 1 million views on Nico Nico Douga. That value is the highest among the other persona made for the Vocaloid 3, which explains her notability that can probably rivals Hatsune Miku's. Well I guess that's enough details about her for now. Now tell me, why have you removed her off the disambiguation list for IA?

P.S.: I will not be able to reply until March 6, 2013 due to Life Matters. --Bumblezellio (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are for navigating content on Wikipedia. Is there an article in which the usage you mention is described (preferably with appropriate context and references)? If the linked articles do not support the usage, the disambiguation pages should not make any claims regarding the usage. olderwiser 03:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see the link to List of Vocaloid products you provided above. I mistook it for an external link. The entry should point to that page until further content is developed. olderwiser 03:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!! (^v^) --Bumblezellio (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

United States

First, it would be great to know why you reverted my edit. Second, you should be aware that the rollback (i) can only be used for obvious vandalism, which my edit is not; (ii) even if my edit were vandalism, after rolling it back you were obliged to go to my talk page and explain me why my edit was inappropriate, which you failed to do. Please be more attentive in the future. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, from the diff it looked as though you simply removed all the iw links with the only reason being that they weren't needed anymore. It seems there is some new mysterious mechanism for iw links now which your edit summary says nothing about. It would help greatly to avoid future confusion if you could link to some sort of documentation describing what happened with the iw links and why they aren't needed in the article anymore. olderwiser 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Now Wikidata has taken all interwiki links, you can check for instance here that they are still visible, with a small arrow below the links pointing to Wikidata. I will return shortly with the links.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are the most important ones: the announcement on the blog post, with further links in the end, and an admittedly not-so-active RFC. I hope this helps. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to ask me.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Yeah, I kinda figured that out. I have paid no attention to the wikidata deployment, so I mistook the removal of the iw links with only a rather cryptic explanation to be vandalism. I suspect I may not be alone in that regard. It'd help if you included one or more of these links in your edit summary. olderwiser 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I already figured this out. Will do smth about it. As I suggested at the village pump in reply to you, may be we should run a watchlist notice or smth, to make users aware. I have no idea though what is an appropriate place to discuss it, and I will shortly be asleep anyway, I am in Europe.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


<personal attack removed> Stop editing what I write. Your attempts to silence the truth are futile as I will keep reverting the edits. I will not tolerate you spamming the boogie disambiguation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Red link deletion

Hello. You recently deleted the red link MARLOWE (BOUTIQUE) that I had added to the Marlowe (Disambiguation) page. I did that in an effort to resolve another issue. But perhaps I went about it in the wrong manner. So I thought I would ask you for a bit of advice. First, I was attempting to resolve a disambiguation request at the Good Article Magnificent Mile. The "Marlowe" that was tagged in that article referred to a (franchise) retailer on the Mile. I thought that the proper course of action, once I had established that none of our current "Marlowe's" linked to the retailer, was to establish the red link on the Marlowe (disambiguation) page... in case someone might one day wish to write an article about the retailer. Was that wrong? Should I have, instead, just removed the link [[ ]] brackets on MARLOWE and deleted the disambiguation tag? Any suggestion you might offer would be greatly appreciated. Gulbenk (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there reason to think that an encyclopedic article can be written about the boutique? Are there reliable, objective (third-party) sources for the subject? If not, then there is no reason to make it a red link. If yes, then consider making a stub. Wikipedia is not a directory of commercial establishments. olderwiser 17:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. You may have misunderstood my question. My concern is how to properly address the disambiguation. If it's proper to simply remove the brackets and delete the tag, I would gladly do that. I have no interest in establishing an article, or even a stub, about Marlowe the boutique. But...(to answer your question) there do seem to be third-party sources about the clothing chain, and there are established articles about other boutiques in this particular niche (see D-A-S-H). That was the reason for the red link. Getting back to my original question: how would you have handled this? Thanks again for your time. Gulbenk (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if there is no article to disambiguate and no indication that the subject is notable, the redlink term can simply be delinked. olderwiser 20:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

County organization

Every other article on Wikipedia I have looked at for Michigan counties (which, granted, is not all 83) uses the date of organization, rather than the date that the county boundaries were set off. Until the county is organized, it doesn't exist. For example, most of the townships in Michigan were surveyed and set off years or even decades before they were organized; the squares were drawn on the map, but they had no political existence until years later, when a government was created for that area. Nobody would say that the State of Michigan existed from the day that the Michigan Territory was set off, after all; it needed to be organized as a state before it was official. MrArticleOne (talk) 04:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've looked at most of them, and the usage is surprisingly inconsistent. Many do give only the date organized. Some specifically qualify it as the "date organized". Some give only the date set off (e.g. Washtenaw County, Van Buren County). Some give both the date set off and the date organized. I suggest the latter is a more reasonable approach (e.g., Alcona County or Calhoun County).
I'm sorry but it is a false statement to say Until the county is organized, it doesn't exist. The survey townships that you mention are distinct from the civil townships that were later formed based on the survey township lines. Once a county was set off, transactions involving that county used that county's name, i.e., a deed for purchased land would be for that county, even though the county might be administered from another county until a government could be organized. Similarly, court actions would reference the events in the unorganized county, even though the court were in the county charged with administering the county until government were organized. Nearly every reliable source for the dates of a county will give both dates, as both are meaningful. It is ridiculous to think of the State of Michigan existing before being recognized as such by the U.S. Congress which has the authority to admit states to the union. However, nearly anyone would agree that Michigan existed before it became a state. olderwiser 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I know that the survey and civil townships are different -- but the civil townships were based on the survey township lines. To say that the township existed as a political entity when it had merely been surveyed is approximately the same as saying that the county existed as a political entity before it was organized. Moreover, counties consistently reference the date of their organization in their county seal or flag insignia. Tuscola County's says "Est. 1851," which is neither 1840 nor 1850, but tends to support the 1850 date as the proper one from which to trace the origins of the county (I presume that they went with 1851 because that is when the Board of Supervisors first met). It is, moreover, far from ridiculous to think that the State of Michigan existed before being recognized as such by the U.S. Congress -- as the Seal of Michigan indicates, the State asserts 1835 as the date of the State's creation, because that's when the State organized itself. The first Michigan Constitution was ratified on Oct. 6, 1835, the 1st Michigan Legislature convened on Nov. 2, 1835, and Stevens T. Mason was sworn in as Governor on Nov. 3, 1835. While Congress did not allow Michigan's elected representatives to take their seats until Jan. 26, 1837, the State had existed politically long before that. Would anybody say that Michigan was established when the French government organized the colony of Louisiana in 1663? No, I think not. I don't see where the set-off date could possibly mean anything until a government was organized. Until then, it's just a descriptive square on a map, little different from a survey township. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The correlation between survey townships and civil townships is largely arbitrary. Many times, the initial civil townships established incorporated several civil townships (and in many UP counties still do). Additional civil townships were established as needed to serve the population. In a few cases, civil townships were formed that are not based on the survey townships were formed (sometimes of political reasons and sometimes due to physical geography). A township as a political entity did not exist prior to it being organized. That is in some ways a tautology. Named civil townships are created only when they are organized. They have no other existence. Counties exist in a real sense from the time they are set off.
The State of Michigan's organization is an interesting story in itself, but is really beside the point. "Michigan" as an entity, existed before the state self-organized its government. Michigan as a distinct entity was established when Michigan Territory was formed. The apparatus of state government was organized in 1835, but was not recognized as a state of the union until 1837. The set off date is significant in that records for that new entity were made, even if administered by another county until the county government was organized. If the date were not significant, then why would nearly all reliable sources for county histories take pains to describe both? olderwiser 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
BK, This dovetails with this discusSion 7&6=thirteen () 16:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
"If the date were not significant, then why would nearly all reliable sources for county histories take pains to describe both?" It is not that it has no significance whatsoever, but the set-off date only becomes significant retroactively, when the Legislature goes on to organize a county government within those boundaries. That's exactly what happened with Arenac County, which was set-off in 1831, but because it was unorganized, the Legislature was able to come back in and monkey around with it later, organizing Bay County in 1857. Until it's organized, it's a provisional political entity, even if it is useful as a descriptive entity (in terms of naming where parcels of real property are located -- much like survey townships). The Tuscola County infobox listed only the set-off date, which, it seems to me, is clearly less important than the date of the organization of the county's government for these reasons, and quite frankly, given the example of Bay and Arenac Counties, it seems misleading to uninformed readers to me to put that in the infobox (although it obviously belongs in the body text). MrArticleOne (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the organized date is more important, I don't agree with you that the set off date is unimportant. Yes, it is a "provisional" or interim sort of status, and is subject to political machinations. That doesn't mean it isn't worth noting. olderwiser 16:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The set off date and the organization date are independent political acts by the legislature. Using one date only, such as the incorporation date of a city, is somewhat deceptive. See the recent edits on Center Line, Michigan, which falls into that trap. Center Line existed as a community for a lot longer than 1937. 7&6=thirteen () 16:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013