User talk:Niceguyedc

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Niceguyedc.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Odd edit

Just to note that [1] is a bit odd - you're changing a direct link to the dab page to one that goes through a redirect. Also, your edit summary is inaccurate, the page you link to in it is a guideline, not a policy. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: Actually, that part of that page is a policy - the community has adopted the policy of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. (my emphasis). Piping the link through the (disambiguation) redirect helps those of us at WP:DPL (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 21:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. One of my bugbears is when people refer to guidelines as policies, as it implies rigidity when it's more of a convention. Maybe in this case "standard approach" would be more applicable? Ideally, there should be a reference/link to the page where the policy decision took place, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: I absolutely agree with you that the link to the discussion where that was decided should be included. This weekend I will look for that link (it's bee a few years) and add it to the page. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: After looking through all 44 archives at WT:D, there was no one discussion where it was decided to make WP:INTDABLINK policy. What does exist in the archives are many discussions about intentional links to disambiguation pages, and the large majority of editors agreeing that it is good practice to designate intentional links to disambiguation pages in some way, and that way is by linking to the (disambiguation) redirect. Usually, in my view, our policies reflect longstanding practice, and this practice has been going on for over 10 years (when there were over 1.3 million ambiguous links to disambiguation pages, instead of the current 66,000).
On a side note, the editors who, similar to you, have asked about why this linking is done reads like a Who's Who of long-term editors, administrators, and even a current bureaucrat. Going through the archives seemed like a walk through the history of Wikipedia.
The edit to change the wording to include the word "policy" was done here by BD2412. As I've now pinged him, I'll let him give any additional reasoning behind the clarification (as he called it in the edit) to the language of WP:INTDABLINK. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion - I haven't been able to find it either - but the gist was that WP:INTDABLINK should be uniform and without exception, ergo, a policy, not a guideline. bd2412 T 01:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the history! If it is a policy, it should probably appear on pages like Wikipedia:List of policies. It sounds more like an adopted convention to me, though, which is there for technical reasons. Presumably if there was another way of flagging intentional disambig links (e.g., through link metadata), then this convention wouldn't be necessary. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for adding War Pain OGfromtheGut (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed for referencing

Hello niceguydc,

Could you please help me on the notability issue tag on page T.K.Chand.

I am not sure how to proceed.

Editninja16 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Editninja16 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The advice given to you by JamesBWatson is spot on. Follow that advice. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 20:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Japan foreign marriage

An article that you have been involved in editing—Japan foreign marriage —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 78.148.77.86 (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]