Jump to content

User talk:Saberwyn

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hexrei2 (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 1 February 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Fairfield, Stockton, Lagan and MacLellan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 501st Legion (Star Wars) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 501st Legion (Star Wars) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/501st Legion (Star Wars) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GrapedApe (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question, you have removed some of my good faith edits, mainly links I have added to other articles. An example would beHMAS Adelaide (1918), my standard on adding links is my young son, he often gets frustrated when reading an article and has interest in another subject on the current page he is reading and has to open a new page on his browser and type in the word. An example here would be midget submarine. I base adding links to something I think a younger person would be interested in reading as a follow up to the subject he or she is currently ready, and to give the reader quicker and easier access I added the link to midget submarine which you later removed. My question is if the link does not hurt the current page why remove it? I can see not adding links to subjects such as ice, water, air or a basic subject but my link to midget submarine to me seemed a positive addition to the page. Is there a guide line for what subjects we should and should not link?

Thank you for your help in this matter. --duanedonecker 7:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The main guideline for linking to other articles is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, with the section on Overlinking and underlinking being the most relevant. This recommends (among other things) that links should be "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully". It also advises against linking "names of major geographic features and locations", which I personally define as nations, states, and major cities, particulatly if there is an adjacent or near-adjacent link to a more specific location.
Above and beyond this, one of my personal considerations is to avoid misleading readers by connectiong two or more links in a single "block of blue" where possible. To quote the alt text from this XKCD comic "I hate when I read something like '... tension among the BASE jumpers nearly led to wingsuit combat ...', and I get excited because 'wingsuit combat' is underlined, only to find that it's just separate links to the 'wingsuit'; and 'combat' articles." Having [[midget submarine]] [[attack on Sydney Harbour]] together runs the risk of people looking for either target ending up in the wrong article, and in this context, the attack link is more relevant to the article than the sub link.
Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thank you so much for your help!! --duanedonecker 8;05, 18 January 2013 (UTC0 —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HDML's

Hi Saberwyn, I was wondering what your opinion was on the HDML's and whether those that were reclassified as SBD's should be named as such. Example: HMDL 1321 and 1324 were both reclassifed as SBD's during their post war service. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no specific thoughts on the matter, beyond the usual "most common name" argument...are they more famous andor better known for their wartime or post-wartime service? -- saberwyn 09:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These two are better known as HDML's due to their war careers. Thanks Newm30 (talk) 04:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wray

Hi, I was hoping you'd revisit the Peter Wray article and let me know what you think please. Hexrei2 (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saberwyn&oldid=536081959"