Jump to content

User talk:MDCollins

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.3.99.176 (talk) at 05:43, 3 March 2010 (→‎Major characters in The Railway Series). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify...

I re-read the edit summary of a reply I made to you here and I realised you might interpret it in the wrong way. The bit about "confused nagging" isn't meant to say anything other than I was just refering to your edit of "there's something nagging in my mind ... but I might be confusing it with something else". Anyway I just wanted to be clear that no other meaning was meant in my edit summary. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! If I wasn't agreeing with you, then maybe I could have mis-interpreted it; but as we are forming consensus, and seem to be in agreement I doubt I would have even thought about it! Thanks for the thought though. —MDCollins (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaks! Solution.

Go and read my comment now because you might like it.BLUEDOGTN 21:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major characters in The Railway Series

Long time, no talk! I've been leaving you to 'your own thing' rather than bothering you about 'Thomas' stuff, but I could do with an opinion here. I'm having a real battle with an anon editor who seems to have swallowed the entire rulebook and is applying WP guidelines to the letter with a litigious fervour I have not previously encountered here. There are a lot of editors who have been rankled by his activity. An example is that he sees the {{for2}} template as unnecessary and has been religiously changing them to anything else, including inappropriate {{main}} templates. We use {{for2}} to link subsections of the T&F/RWS character pages.

Recently he attacked Major characters in The Railway Series, changing all the {{for2}} links to {{main}}, which of course is misleading. (He has done the same to the T&F pages. I have yet to find the enthusiasm to correct them.) After much heated discussion, ranging across WP, I have re-re-applied the {{for2}} templates that link to the TV series page (with revised wording) and he seems to be tolerating these, for now.

However, in the 'main' characters at the start of the article, the context of the link to the TV series is different and hence the format is different too. If you look at the most recent stream of edits (23 Feb), he has changed my recently-applied formatting to a different form, where the link is more disguised. I cannot decide whether his edits were good for the article or not, and just wanted your opinion on whether they provided the best wording for a link between the RWS and T&F pages.

I hope the above makes sense. I ended up editing very late last night, and the after-effects haven't worn off yet. Cheers.

EdJogg (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - sorry I haven't been any help recently. I did notice the rather "kind" message he left on your talk page yesterday and had a look at the tfd discussion but it was late and even I was getting confused with them all. I've had a quick look at the Main characters (his last edits); I don't find a lot wrong with the format (apart from Don and Doug which is a broken link...), don't see it makes much difference. However, I don't think the link is even necessary. Why link to a TV series summary when it then points to the {{main}} anyway? Why not remove the link altogether? Could leave in place "Duck is a main character", or remove it altogether as the main characters cross over anyway (just point out the exceptions)? Actually re-looking back at how it looked last month, maybe it does make a difference. It is more clear that the old link would link to a character summary, rather than perhaps the main article. Could revert, or consider removing.
We either need a "Main" template or the "see also", both is probably excessive. I'll have another look into things tonight.—MDCollins (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You have made me re-evaluate the need for those links, and you are right, they are not needed. Each of the main characters also has a "Main" template leading to their main article, which covers both book and TV characteristics. The section in "Major characters..." and its T&F equivalent are only summaries, so it is not right to cross-link one summary to another. The lesser characters are another matter, since each subsection is effectively a 'main' in its own right, and cross-linking is entirely appropriate.
I'll remove the links now (which were all 'pre-move' anyway!).
Thankfully our 'friend' must have gone to bed as everything's been much quieter so far today -- yesterday the intensity was getting towards the point of me considering giving up editing...
EdJogg (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do that! Just remember that these editors who just turn up and try to change everything get bored after a few days, and in a couple of weeks you can do a mass revert and they probably won't even notice. Remember the trouble in the past - Felix? etc. Those who stick around edit longest!—MDCollins (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. Sage words, my friend, thank you. It was the intensity that was the problem, and once he started stalking my contributions I wondered what I'd have to do to escape and get on with my other editing in peace. (He must have been stalking as there's no way he'd have otherwise stumbled across Tower Bridge and the Furness K2 (suggested prototype for Edward)...)
Things have moved on. He has gloated over 'winning', regarding the overlinking in steamroller -- it took an effort to avoid getting into a slanging match there! But his TfD for {{for2}} has been thrown out. Now he's trying to prove that that template can only be used as a hatnote (where it is unlikely to be useful). Sigh. I am biding my time. There are about 6 of 'my' articles he has attacked (among 100s of edits), and I'll need to revisit them when things have quietened down. (He also has a thing about heading text, and most are reduced to single words.) Some of his edits are good, but his style is so confrontational (BOLD+++) that this is not so easy to spot. As for the template, I now don't care if he gets his way, as I'll just create a new template to do the same job, or else apply the formatting directly, which is how it was applied in the first place!
Time will tell... -- EdJogg (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can not just wait weeks and then revert everything.
We are well aware of that. Thanks for reminding us though. Must of forgotten that "rule" in the heat of battle.—MDCollins (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actual changes I've made to the articles are RULE based. They are not my own opinions of aesthetics. You simply cannot use that style of disambiguation on Major characters in The Railway Series because it is not necessary and unwieldy. Also the hatnote is not meant to be used in this function. Also, disambiguation is for terms that may be CONFUSED. Clearly, the application is for related articles. Disambiguation is used for tangential topics, not related topics.
I already integrated the bluelinks in prose. What is your obsession with hatnotes?174.3.99.176 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obsession with hatnotes is yours. My obsession is making a quality encyclopaedia.
Wikipedia has very few rules, essentially they relate to Notability, Reliability (of information) and Verifiability. Beyond that there are Policies and Guidelines, and these are to be applied using common sense.
You should also be aware of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which allows any editor to ignore a 'rule' if it is preventing the improvement of Wikipedia. Claiming that {{for2}} can only be used as a hatnote is just such a rule. You should be well mindful of that if you want to avoid making every WP editor hostile to your intents.
EdJogg (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC) -- (Sorry MDC!)[reply]
If you got out of your thomas world, you would see that NO article uses this hatnote to link to other articles. Hatnotes are for disambiguation, and if you want to disambiguate bluelinks, then do it in the paragraph. YOU DO NOT NEED {{for2}}!100110100 (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are disambiguating "x the Railway Series character" from "x the Thomas and Friends character".—MDCollins (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, that man. I've just written effectively the same thing on the "Major characters" talk page (before seeing what you'd written here). Do you think he'll get the point?
The fact that this format isn't used outside these articles may simply reflect the fact that there are no other subjects (currently) that need this treatment. Doesn't mean it's wrong!
BTW Mr 308 the only reason I am spending a lot of time in 'my thomas world' at the moment is because of your continuing insistence on degrading the articles. What I should be doing at the moment is post-FA review of two articles, GA preparation of a third, and pre-DYK proof-read of a fourth. That is why I might not get round to repairing the articles for a number of weeks. -- EdJogg (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs more people like me to audit your damn articles.174.3.99.176 (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major characters in The Railway Series

So then why did you revert me.174.3.99.176 (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I explained that on the article talk page which you read before posting here. I've given further explanation, not that one was needed.—MDCollins (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MDCollins&oldid=347457021"