Jump to content

User talk:Alaney2k: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:Alaney2k/Archive 13) (bot
Line 62: Line 62:


{{ping|Roger Hui}} That must be a default of AWB. I could not spot that at first. Thanks for pointing it out. I have added the title from the ref. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k#top|talk]]) 12:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
{{ping|Roger Hui}} That must be a default of AWB. I could not spot that at first. Thanks for pointing it out. I have added the title from the ref. [[User:Alaney2k|Alaney2k]] ([[User talk:Alaney2k#top|talk]]) 12:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

== Help ==
Hello. Help expanded article by [[Maureen Wroblewitz]] from [https://www.google.com.vn/search?q=maureen+wroblewitz&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQoLvy38LaAhXGRo8KHUTfCysQ_AUIDCgD]. Thanks you.[[User:Kim Mai 13|Kim Mai 13]] ([[User talk:Kim Mai 13|talk]]) 03:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:11, 19 April 2018

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Architecture bulletin

WikiProject Architecture Bulletin  

A new Historic houses task force has been created.

Please join if you are interested!

Announcements - please add your Project announcements  


Articles at Peer Review - edit list
Manor House, Sleaford
Endeavour House
Taliesin (studio)
New article announcements - add new architecture article to list
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-08-10 19:12 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.


DYK announcements - add new architecture article to list
New participants (add me)
Jpboudin, Mayarrow, Nwhysel, Cassianto, Jtmorgan
This template will be updated regularly. If you would rather not receive this bulletin, just delete it from your talk page.

CANPLACE

Please note that while CANPLACE does indeed require the province name to be present in the body text following a city's name, it does not necessarily require the city and province to be pipetexted together into a single link. If a city a city's article is already located at an undisambiguated title, and the text already says [[Toronto]], [[Ontario]], CANPLACE does not require you to convert that into [[Toronto|Toronto, Ontario]] instead. All CANPLACE means is that Ontario has to be present in the text — it does not impose a rule about how the city and province links need to be formatted. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: But putting two wlinks together like that is inappropriate under the MOS is it not? It makes two links look like one. Someone pointed that out to me. What do you think? Alaney2k (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You also have the option of unlinking the province if you feel that strongly about it; there's no rule that actually requires the province's name to be linked at all, and in some cases the link may not actually be necessary at all (e.g. if the article has already linked the province name elsewhere). But there's no rule anywhere that requires the city and province names to be contained within a single link, even if you have to pipetext that into the link overtop an undisambiguated title. And at any rate, at my monitor resolution I can tell the difference between Toronto, Ontario and Toronto, Ontario, so I don't see how it inherently makes two links look like one. For some people, sure, it might — but that's definitely not universal, because I for one can distinguish two links in the separated format. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: @Lordtobi: So what do you think about the articles where the link is [[Calgary]], [[Alberta|AB]], [[Canada|CAN]]? I've been making that into [[Calgary|Calgary, Alberta]], Canada to try to reduce the overlinking and observe canplace. That was a standard for a while for the hockey project. Should I always use the redirect? ( [[Calgary, Alberta]], Canada ) I've had editors not wanting a redirect there. Alaney2k (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For U.S. and Canada, region is usually enough, especially when it has been established before hand that the topic is Canadian. I'd say either do [[Calgary, Alberta]] ; [[Calgary]], [[Alberta]] or [[Calgary]], Alberta. [[Calgary|Calgary, Alberta]] is again a NOPIPEr. Lordtobi (✉) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the infobox, so I leave in Canada. I'd rather not make the reader have to click to realize that a place in a named province is in Canada. The point you were definite on was not to use the one I was using. :-) But using [[Calgary]], [[Alberta]] as a model, seems to lead editors to use constructions like this: [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], [[Alberta]], so I guess I will go with the redir consistently. Then, we can be consistent for both the Red Deers and the Calgarys. Alaney2k (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say that as though [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], [[Alberta]] is actually a problem. You may not like it, but there's no actual reason why it's inherently invalid to do that — there's no policy or guideline that forbids it, and the only argument against it is that some editors don't like it. Thing is, intentionally using the "City, Province" redirect in lieu of [[City]], [[Province]], just like forcepiping the province name into the city link, entirely defeats the purpose of our ever having moved the cities to undisambiguated titles in the first place — if we're going to do that, then what other reason do we have left to not just move all the undabbed cities back to "City, Province" titles across the board? Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: It's not a question of me liking it or not. Would it not be wrong under NOPIPE? I am getting conflicting advice. Then you suggest linking as [[Calgary]], Alberta, Canada in the infobox? The purpose of the wikilink there is to link to the birthplace, not every jurisdiction it is within, is it not? And Red Deer would be [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], Alberta, Canada? Alaney2k (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like coding [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], [[Alberta]] you can use the pipe trick to just code [[Red Deer, Alberta|]], [[Alberta]] and get the exact same result. Mathglot (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this trick even works, but I don't think it is a good inclusion in a publicly-editable space, as it can confuse many people (especially those that never coded). Lordtobi (✉) 10:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You kidding? The pipe trick is fantastic, specifically because it allows editors to link articles with parenthetical disambiguators without having to retype the actual name every link. (Remember, parentheticals are not part of the name of the subject, but added to give them a unique title as required by the software. The use of the comma convention for place names is just a variation in that that is seen in the real world.) Also note that when the pipe trick is employed, only the initial entry has just the pipe. The actual saved code, which the next editor would see if they edit by source, contains the pipes text. The person making the first edit enters [[Red Deer, Alberta|]], [[Alberta]], but the next person to look at the code to make an edit (presuming they're not usuing visual editor) sees [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], [[Alberta]], and never even knows thenpipe trick was used in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize that it saved the proper term into the code as well, that's amazing! I wonder if there are more such secrets, hehe. Lordtobi (✉) 14:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mention above that by using [[Calgary]], [[Alberta]] leads people to using [[Red Deer, Alberta|Red Deer]], [[Alberta]], [[Canada]]. But of course it does, there is no guideline against this, and in many infoboxes, including the hockey one for example doing it this way was the discussed outcome of how locations were to be displayed. We have been switching the hockey one from [[Calgary]], [[Alberta|AB]], [[Canada|CAN]] to [[Calgary]], [[Alberta]], [[Canada]] slowly but noticed you have been combining links which will now have to be gone through as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't clear. It was a 'if you follow that logic, it leads to this' that leads to pipes. So it was a contradiction, IMO. I get contradictory advice all the time, BTW. Can you give me an example of the "combining links"? Am I being contradictory or wrong? Alaney2k (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with city/sovereign state for all Canadian, American & British articles, to match with the rest of the international community. But of course, it's not up to me. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The three on the list allow the same place names within the country. I don't think the others do. Alaney2k (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth E. Iverson

Hi. You have changed the Kenneth E. Iverson page to say:

The result has been J, first reported in.[110]

It was originally

The result has been J, first reported in[110].

I think the original version is better as it makes more sense. The current version, your edited version, raises the question, reported in what?. As well, the passage is a quote, and in the original original [sic] text it said:

The result has been J, first reported in Reference 5.

I guess it'd be more faithful to the original text to say:

The result has been J, first reported in Reference [110].

There is probably some sort of Wikipedia rule about placement of the reference bracket, but in this case slavishly following the rule doesn't make sense. What do you think? -- Roger Hui (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Hui: That must be a default of AWB. I could not spot that at first. Thanks for pointing it out. I have added the title from the ref. Alaney2k (talk) 12:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello. Help expanded article by Maureen Wroblewitz from [1]. Thanks you.Kim Mai 13 (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alaney2k&oldid=837163066"