Jump to content

User talk:RuneMan3: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
RuneMan3 (talk | contribs)
m Fixing boldface in quote.
Line 17: Line 17:


Rune, you've been splitting off a series of articles from [[Dome]]. Unfortunately, you are breaking the bibliographies in the process. For example, [[History of prehistoric and ancient domes]] has a series of references that all point to a non-existent bibliography section, so none of the references work anymore. You need to create a reference section with a {{tl|reflist}} template and also copy the relevant sources over from the source article, as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_early_modern_period_domes&diff=prev&oldid=650712160 this revision]. Then, you need to go thru the source article (Dome) and remove any sources from the bibliography that are no longer used. Thanks for editing, [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 04:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Rune, you've been splitting off a series of articles from [[Dome]]. Unfortunately, you are breaking the bibliographies in the process. For example, [[History of prehistoric and ancient domes]] has a series of references that all point to a non-existent bibliography section, so none of the references work anymore. You need to create a reference section with a {{tl|reflist}} template and also copy the relevant sources over from the source article, as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_early_modern_period_domes&diff=prev&oldid=650712160 this revision]. Then, you need to go thru the source article (Dome) and remove any sources from the bibliography that are no longer used. Thanks for editing, [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] ([[User talk:Oiyarbepsy|talk]]) 04:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

== Your article splits ==

RuneMan3, in addition to what [[User:Oiyarbepsy|Oiyarbepsy]] stated about your article splits, I want to address you with the topic of unnecessarily splitting articles. See what [[WP:Spinout]] states about "no need for haste." Ideally, WP:Spinouts should only be created when needed. We should not be unnecessarily forcing our readers to go to more than one article to read about a topic. Judging by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narcissus_%28plant%29&diff=prev&oldid=650246277 this edit] (where you asked about the matter at the article talk page), you are being careful when it comes to splitting articles. But I wonder if you are creating unnecessary [[WP:Stub]] articles and similar in other cases. Take [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_tooth_development&diff=638734379&oldid=633175457 your move] of the [[Tooth development]] article, for example, which I noticed last year. I don't think that there was a need to split the content into a [[Human tooth development]] and [[Animal tooth development]] article. Per [[WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy]], we generally keep the non-human animal content in one article as an "Other animals" section unless the content needs a separate article. This is the case for the other listings at [[WP:MEDSECTIONS]] as well. I will ask about the Tooth development split at [[WP:Anatomy]]. If you want to comment on it, I ask that you comment on it there to keep the discussion centralized (see [[WP:TALKCENT]]). If you want to comment about anything else I stated above, then I ask that you comment here at your talk page to keep the discussion centralized. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 01:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:24, 12 March 2015

If anyone would like to comment kindly on any content/subject, feel free to do so! -RuneMan3

Page move

I have reverted your move of Jacob wrestling with an angel to Jacob wrestling with God. This is not an uncontroversial name change, and requires discussion and consensus. If you wish to make such a move, please discuss it at Talk:Jacob wrestling with an angel first. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, different people have different interpretations of Scripture, and this is one of the more ambiguous pieces of it, so I will let this revert stand. Besides, it lists alternative interpretations of the event in the beginning of the article anyway, so shalom, peace. RuneMan3 (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say that I believe your move is wrong, just not uncontroversial, and requires discussion first. So, open a discussion at the talk page and see where the consensus goes. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dome  with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the above message in the manner prescribed by the guidelines (strike through - in order to show that it is my deletion) because I made a mistake. You did leave an explanation and further explained it on my talk page. I just missed it for some reason. I am sorry about the mistake. Please proceed with your edits. Donner60 (talk) 03:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken bibliographies

Rune, you've been splitting off a series of articles from Dome. Unfortunately, you are breaking the bibliographies in the process. For example, History of prehistoric and ancient domes has a series of references that all point to a non-existent bibliography section, so none of the references work anymore. You need to create a reference section with a {{reflist}} template and also copy the relevant sources over from the source article, as in this revision. Then, you need to go thru the source article (Dome) and remove any sources from the bibliography that are no longer used. Thanks for editing, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your article splits

RuneMan3, in addition to what Oiyarbepsy stated about your article splits, I want to address you with the topic of unnecessarily splitting articles. See what WP:Spinout states about "no need for haste." Ideally, WP:Spinouts should only be created when needed. We should not be unnecessarily forcing our readers to go to more than one article to read about a topic. Judging by this edit (where you asked about the matter at the article talk page), you are being careful when it comes to splitting articles. But I wonder if you are creating unnecessary WP:Stub articles and similar in other cases. Take your move of the Tooth development article, for example, which I noticed last year. I don't think that there was a need to split the content into a Human tooth development and Animal tooth development article. Per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we generally keep the non-human animal content in one article as an "Other animals" section unless the content needs a separate article. This is the case for the other listings at WP:MEDSECTIONS as well. I will ask about the Tooth development split at WP:Anatomy. If you want to comment on it, I ask that you comment on it there to keep the discussion centralized (see WP:TALKCENT). If you want to comment about anything else I stated above, then I ask that you comment here at your talk page to keep the discussion centralized. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]