User talk:Colonies Chris

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

Welcome!

Hello Colonies Chris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- GraemeL (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians of all time.

Crash changed to accident[edit]

It's a small point, but I quite agree with you in changing "crash" to "accident" twice on the G&P Joint Railway page -- "crash" was not a very grown-up style of wording. Thanks.

Looking at your talk page, I see that, exactly like mine, bracketbot and the disambiguation link are you main correspondents :-) Afterbrunel (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, my best friends are bots :) Colonies Chris (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Aside from me. Tony (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2000 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • millions of [[Slovenian tolar|SIT]] of damage. It is one of the worst catastrophes in Slovenia] in the past 100 years.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Album chart shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 18:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Chris, for what it's worth, I think you're in the right on this one. You seem to have raised the issue on the template talk page on 11 December. You appear to have waited four days, received no opinions or comments to the contrary, and then made the relatively minor edit. Four days with no reply seems a reasonable way of establishing an initial consensus, and is hardly rash. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to December 22 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • **[[Dongzhi Festival]] (East Asia])

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1826 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * June – Photography]: [[Nicéphore Niépce]] makes a true photograph.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Flags in lists of shipwrecks[edit]

Please do not unlink flags in the various lists of shipwrecks. There is no consensus for this. Also, you by doing this, you are removing valid links to articles. The  United Kingdom is not the same as the  United Kingdom, Nor is  Russia the same as  Russia. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots, it's not whether those links are "valid" or not (presumably they all work technically); it's whether they breach the guidelines concerning overlinking (which they do). Please do not obstruct edits that bring articles into line with long-established consensus at our style guidelines. Tony (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tony1: - It is also long established consensus that shipwreck lists have linked flags. That said, there may be room for a compromise. Maybe a RFC is called for. Would suggest WT:MOS might be the best place. WT:SHIPS or WT:SHIPWRECK would also work, but both projects can be notified if hosted on WT:MOS. Mjroots (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Mj, there's no need for an RFC—MOS already says explicitly "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason". Whatever local band of editors has decided that non-informational and largely or purely decorative icons should clutter infoboxes and tables needs to take heed of long-established, wider consensus. Please explain how those flags have any informational meaning to readers, unless they're the extremely well-known flags (US, Canad, UK). The Australian and NZ flags are just about indistinguishable except with a magnifying glass. This kind of decoration is already discouraged, and we should be thanking Chris for removing it. Tony (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
We have two issues here. Firstly, whether flags should be present at all, and secondly, whether the associated country names should be wikilinked. There's no value in wiklinking well-known countries that are substantially the same as current countries - that would apply to the United States, to take the most obvious example, and to cases such as United Kingdom vs United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, where the distinction, in this context, is unlikely to be significant. There may be a case for keeping the flag icon where this reflects the actual flag that the ship itself would have flown (at least for military ships; there's perhaps a sort of parallel with use of flag icons in sporting contexts). Colonies Chris (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The use of flags in shipwreck lists is well established, and I would argue that there is consensus for such, established over many years. I've been an editor on Wiki for more than 9 years, and such use was already established then.
As I said above, I'm,open to discussing the issue at RFC. I have a idea that I'm willing to put up for discussion, which would limit, but not eliminate the links in these lists. Mjroots (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The MoS states (at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Appropriate_use_2, "The use of ship registry flags and International Code of Signals flags in infoboxes of ship articles is appropriate.". And it seems reasonable to me that this would also cover lists such as these. My concern is to eliminate unnecessary wikilinking of well known countries (which is almost all of them in these lists). Colonies Chris (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)