User talk:Bkonrad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Bkonrad's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Bkonrad.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74

The Signpost: 04 July 2016[edit]


I note that you removed the link to Damon Knight. Ironically, the only article which already linked to "WRB" was "Off Center", a 1965 collection by guess who. DS (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that, only that the Damon Knight article had no mention of it. olderwiser 23:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello! Thanks for help on Urusov articles. Still I question the move from a disambiguation page to a list of surnames, as both the princely house is listed, and perhaps most importantly, a place name. This doesn't fit into a template of surnames.--Simen113 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


You don't seem to have signed this edit - I think it would be clearer if you did. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016[edit]

Redirecting Cancel[edit]

Redirecting cancel — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads. Since you had some involvement with the United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Lightweight geohack[edit]

Hi Bkonrad. In case you didn't my ping on WP:VPT, I just wanted to let you know that I've made User:Evad37/Custom GeoHack replacement.js which can do what you want - Evad37 [talk] 08:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016[edit]

Euclides (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi Bkonrad,

You have deleted the disambiguation page Euclides (disambiguation) without a prior discussion which I have requested of you, as follows:

(Deletion log); 00:11 . . Bkonrad (talk | contribs) deleted page Euclides (disambiguation) ‎(This entire page is unnecessary duplication of Euclid (disambiguation))

As a philosopher, I have just researched Euclides of Megara. Based on the vast majority of many references, I discovered that the Wikipedia entries were obsolete, still following 1911 conventions. After I've corrected the mistake, now you have decided without discussion that you know better than all the philosophy books written on Ancient Greek History, and deleted the needed disambiguation page.

Please Explain! ~~ BlueMist (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

See the edit summary of the deletion. olderwiser 04:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand, that is why I ask you for a more detailed explanation.
According to published references, Euclid needs to be "Euclid", and Euclides needs to be "Euclides". In current English usage they have been disambiguated by the scholars to be Euclid the mathematician and Euclides the philosopher.
Euclid is looked for by math students, Euclides is sought by students of ancient Greek philosophy. They are two very different people who need their independent sets of pages (including disambiguation) according to the standard English spelling of their names. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I don't understand why a separate disambiguation page is needed when Euclid disambiguation) already exists and contains the same entries. If you perhaps are proposing that the entries for "Euclides" should be removed from that page to their own page, that likely needs more discussion than the two of us. As it is though I see no need for a redundant disambiguation page with a subset of entries. olderwiser 05:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Have you looked at the Euclid disambiguation page? It has the same 'other' people, but the page is about the famed Euclid, as in Euclid Avenue, Euclid, Ohio, Euclid, the computer app.
Look, this is not your empire. Wikipedia is run by editor consensus. You cannot just rewrite a public encyclopedia according to your own personal whims. Without another editor's agreement, you must restore this page according to Wikipedia conflict guidelines. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Well point of fact, you started all this by making undiscussed changes to the long-standing order of things, so don't get off on some high and holy reprimands. You don't seem to understand how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. You created Euclides (disambiguation) which I happened to notice from watching Category:Disambiguation pages. At that point, Euclides was a redirect Euclid and I figured ithat disambiguation page was fine as an alternate spelling or transliteration. I even asked what seemed to be a missing hatnote on Euclid. You then changed Euclides to redirect to Euclides (disambiguation), making it a WP:malplaced disambiguation page. It was at this point I realized the page merely duplicated content from the existing disambiguation page. There is no need to duplicate the information. olderwiser 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • (talk page watcher)@BlueMist: I had a look at this out of curiosity, and now find that BlueMist made a cut-and-paste page move to change the philosopher's article title from Euclid of Megara to Euclides of Megara. That's not the way to do it, as by pasting the previous content to a new location we lose all the history of who wrote what in the article over the years. The way to move an article is by using "Move", or if that can't be done then making a formal Move Request. I'll see whether I can unpick this damage, but might have to get an admin to help. PamD 07:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Right, I've reverted the cut-and-paste page moves and set up a formal move request at Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. Please discuss it there. PamD 08:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Bo Diddley (song)[edit]

Greetings, Bkonrad. I've started a discussion about "Bo Diddley (song)". Feel free to join the party, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Bo Diddley (song). Mudwater (Talk) 04:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alcoholate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydroxy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


Dear Bkonrad,
somehas has turned Void (punk band) into a redirect to Void (hardcore punk band) which was created by C&P, thus deleting the entire history. Would it be possible for you to look into this?
Thanks a lot and kind regards, Grueslayer Sword Icon Horizontal.png Let's talk. 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

You have deleted article Chetana[edit]

Dear Bkonrad,

Chetana is a renounced and very significant Theatre group of India. I was trying to create a article about this group.

But then I noticed that you deleted the article. from the blelow link. If I did something wrong Please let me know what to do now so that I can create the article. Bluishshadow (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)bluishshadow

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]


I believe that for the purposes of linking, anthroponymy pages are considered dab pages, even if they have different style guidance: a link to Alphonse James is definitely ambiguous, and it should be indicated that that ambiguity is intentional—that's what "Title (disambiguation)" links are supposed to be there for. I'd appreciate if you'd restore those redirects, and the links to them on Alphonse. If "disambiguation" really rubs you the wrong way, then please move the anthroponomy pages to "Title (name)" and link to them there. Either way, its important to indicate that the ambiguous links are intentional. Thanks! —swpbT 19:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Set indexes are not disambiguation pages and I don't think muddying the already fuzzy distinctions between them makes it clearer for anything. If projects want to use some sort of set index page instead of disambiguation pages, that's fine. But if they are to be used like disambiguation pages, then they should simply be disambiguation pages. olderwiser 20:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
They aren't set index pages, they are anthroponymy pages. They are not the same thing. —swpbT 12:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
{{given name}} and {{surname}} both sort into Category:All set index articles and the templates themselves are in Category:Set index article templates and use of the templates are described at Wikipedia:Set index articles. There is some confusion on Wikipedia:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB as to what these are. WP:NAMELIST says very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. WP:FURTHERDAB says Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to Laing (disambiguation). MOS:DABNAME describes them as list articles. It seems that even if they are not set index articles, I don't think there is agreement that such articles should be considered as disambiguation pages. olderwiser 12:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, then there are several tens of thousands of cases in Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages that you'll be wanting to change. Leaving (or creating) ambiguous links that don't indicate intentionality is definitely not a solution. On the idea that anthro pages are their own unique thing, I've created {{R to anthroponymy page}} and the attendant category. If you want to go about creating all those "Name (anthroponymy)" redirects and changing all those links to point to them, feel free. —swpbT 13:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I have been working through Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. In many such cases, the intent of the redirect is not really that clear since ostensibly these articles were created to allow inclusion of information about the name as a name rather than simple disambiguation. I've no objection to using {{R to anthroponymy page}}, though I'm not going to go out of my way to create such redirects. olderwiser 14:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well whatever you do, please leave a bot-discernable indication when links to anthro pages are intentional, because, as with dab pages, many are not. With dab pages, the redirects make it easy to sort the intentional links from the mistakes; it needs to be equally easy to do so for anthro pages. If you have a better way to do that than with "Name (anthroponymy)" redirects, I'd like to hear it. Simply changing all the links from "Name (disambiguation)" to "Name" and removing the redirect does more harm than good, and would very definitely require a consensus on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, since thousands of those will be mistakes. —swpbT 15:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually I think the converse is true, that there needs to be a clearer understanding of what precisely these anthroponymy pages are and how they relate to disambiguation. My understanding is that they have been split off from disambiguation pages because in most cases these are unambiguous partial title matches (and entities known by the sole name should in most cases be included on the disambiguation page, where one exists separate from the name page). If there is some desire to devise a mechanism for distinguishing intentional links for these name pages, I'm not sure it has much if anything to do with the disambiguation project. olderwiser 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we disagree that "in most cases these are unambiguous partial title matches". I agree that they're not ambiguous with the non-anthro dab titles, but that's not the point: the entries within an anthro page are often ambiguous w/r/t each other, and there are certainly many links to anthro pages that should really point to one of those entries (i.e., they need to be disambiguated, which is why I think it's a matter for WP:DAB to weigh in on). I started the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Links_to_anthroponymy_pages and alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy about it, if there's any question of venue. I'm sorry in advance if that discussion causes work you've already done to be invalidated, but I see no way this question can go without larger-scale input. —swpbT 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You reverting my edits[edit]

Hello Bkonrad, I saw that you reverted two of my edits to pages that had "U.S." in them (here and here). How come you did this? As far as I can see your rationale is that "U.S." ≠ United States. However, in both instances, it does refer to the United States (unless you know of another state of Michigan that is in another country). I look forward to discussing this with you. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

MorbidEntreeYou're edits claimed WP:NOTUSA as justification, but U.S. is not USA. There is nothing wrong with U.S., especially in repeated references. Also this edit introduced a grammatical error. olderwiser 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
In WP:NOTUSA it specifically says that "U.S." is deprecated. And I do know that it says to substitute it for "US," but I figured that changing it to "United States" would be clearer to the average reader. And regarding this edit, what grammatical error is there? As far as I know having a full name of a country next to the word "state" isn't bad grammar (and it sounds natural when I say it out loud). --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
MorbidEntree, It says is is deprecated now in the Chicago MoS -- i.e., it is providing a summary of current guidance from outside authorities. The crucial guidance for Wikipedia is in following lines Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. BTW, "United States state" definitely sounds weird in most contexts to my ear. Point is, WP:NOTUSA is not justification for replacing U.S. with United States. olderwiser 11:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Famous Bob Inskeep[edit]

Does this look like enough of a justification to at least call him FBI in the WRAL-FM article? I didn't have any more sources that I could easily access, and I guess I was premature on the disambiguation page if I didn't feel comfortable doing it in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Not really my bailiwick. Might want to check on the talk page or with regulars on radio-related projects. olderwiser 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll just leave it off the disambiguation page because I'm not sure how important the acronym was. I just know the source used it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


Dear Bkonrad,

You deleted my explanation of Tivoli town as the primary and original meaning, so in fact it is the primary topic. (Compare Washington.) Other meanings (as Jardin de Tivoli, Paris) are derivatives, so the main meaning should be stated at the head of an encyclopedic text. Please revert your deletion. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is the primary topic, the article on the place in Italy should be named "Tivoli". As it is not, that indicates there is no primary topic. That is in essence the definition of WP:primary topic within Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the original or first use. The comparison with Washington doesn't apply. Washington lists a few of the most common meanings at the top, broken out from the long list of the other Washingtons. olderwiser 12:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Tivoli, Lazio is the original Tivoli, all of the other Tivolis are named after this original. It is a formality that the town article here is not called just Tivoli, that cannot really change the primary topic. The case of Washington is comparable, although the other Washington surname persons are not named after the president. This is not the case with Tivoli. Hansmuller (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand your point regarding Washington, but regardless, current guidance at MOSDAB indicates Tivoli doesn't merit any special treatment. olderwiser 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, concerning your reversion of my moving the Zink disambiguation page and creating a Zink article in its place, what's wrong with a 'Zink' page for Zink technology, and a 'Zink (disambiguation)' page for the disambiguation? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with starting a new article, but please don't WP:Cut and paste to move the existing disambiguation page. olderwiser 17:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. 'Zink' and 'Zink (disambiguation)' already exist, with the latter being a redirect to the former. If I wish to use 'Zink' for a new article then I need to move its contents to 'Zink (disambiguation)', leaving no other option as far as I can see other than to cut and paste. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You did not use the move function to move the disambiguation page. You copied and pasted the content. That makes a mess of the edit history which is a requirement for the copyright licences under which Wikipedia operates. Please see WP:RM for instruction about how to move a page properly if you are unable to do so. You may want to create a draft of the article you want to move at Draft:Zink first. olderwiser 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I first tried moving it but I don't have permission to do so. Would you please be able to move 'Zink' to 'Zink (disambiguation)' for me please? -Lopifalko (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain the printing product is the WP:primary topic for the term. I suggest you create a draft and then follow directions at WP:RM#CM to propose switching the pages around. olderwiser 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I've created Zink (technology) for the time being. I'm reading WP:RM, thanks for your help. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

Robbie Crawford[edit]

Johnelwaq was attempting to turn Robbie Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into a disambiguation page (see Special:Permalink/740401184) with the original article moved to Robbie Crawford (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Would you move the article over the redirect or delete the redirect. Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there some discussion or other consensus about this? As it is I don't see how the hatnote isn't adequate. olderwiser 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think it would be controversial. It doesn't much matter to me other than the copy/paste move. I was just trying to get to Johnelwaq's desired outcome. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing my disambig's[edit]

I want to know why you removed a ton of disambiguation links I put in, as I cannot find a rule stating that your reason given in the edit info is valid. It makes the site better, so why not? HarryKernow (talk to me) 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included and If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. The terms you added to the disambiguation pages were not mentioned in the linked article. olderwiser 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here in my opinion. For instance, in Ishtar (disambiguation) there is "A city in the Fullmetal Alchemist series." and that page doesn't have "Ishtar" on the page, just the same as the Ishtar in EVE Online. Nyx (NYX) disambig page refers to a character in Dota 2 and that doesn't appear in that article, and that same is true for the Warframe reference. It's clear that either you need to apply this rule to every single disambig page or let my links stay. HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That some disambiguation pages contain errors is a poor excuse to ignore the disambiguation guidelines. These pages are navigational aides to help readers find content on the ambiguous term. If the linked article says nothing about the term, that is of no help to the reader. olderwiser 02:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You've missed the point. It isn't necessarily an error, and in adding the ships from EVE, is not an error. You also are not applying your rule evenly; you're not ""fixing"" everything, just what I've added. HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well no, if the linked article does not mention the term, their is no reason for the entry. If there are entries on other pages like this, they similarly have no reason to be there. olderwiser 02:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you think making a list article of the ships would be appropriate? HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think such a list article can pass WP:NOTABILITY for games, then why not. In general that implies there is some sort of coverage of the ships in reliable sources. olderwiser 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Heavy Metal[edit]

Why did you delete my edits on heavy metal? A page doesn't have to have a link.

User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Errm, an entry on a disambiguation page does need to link to an article that mentions the term. olderwiser 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if go to the Wikipedia page the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling Wikipedia page you will see that the heavy metal sisters are list in wikitable under alumni, if you go The Transformers Wikipedia episode guide or the page I listed you will see that season one does list an episode called heavy metal war. User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, there are two separate concerns. You only mentioned A page doesn't have to have a link, which I assumed referred to the Transformers entry (as seen in this edit or this one. In both cases, the linked article in the entry made no mention of the term which is one reason I removed it.
@Davidgoodheart: The other reason, as mentioned in my edit summary here, is that these are WP:Partial title matches. I see no indication that anyone would refer to either the episode or the wrestling sisters as simply "Heavy Metal". Also, in your latest series of edits, there should be only one blue link for each entry. olderwiser 09:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Bkonrad. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome disambiguation page[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why my links to artists and albums were removed, but the links to the artists and albums that were there before my edit stayed? (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Because in a disambiguation page each entry only has one blue link: see WP:MOSDAB, so unfortunately your links were not needed. Thanks. PamD 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

Ibn al-Jawzi[edit]

Contrary to your claims, uncontroversial moves can be done without prior discussion, so I don't see where you got the idea that a discussion AND consensus are needed for this particular move. A simple google search shows that "Ibn al-Jawzi" indeed refers to Abu-al-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi most of the time. If you are contesting this move, the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that it's uncontroversial. I see references to various persons with "Ibn al-Jawzi" as part of their name in the top google search results, and the same in Google news and Google books. Perhaps some are the same person. I don't know. A full move discussion would more clearly establish whether the is a primary topic. olderwiser 14:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure...[edit]

Are you sure your edits to Matt Olsen (disambiguation) comply with our guidelines and conventions on disambiguation pages? Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably so, yes. Something in particular troubling you? Basically this is a dab page for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you look at the dab pages for some of the topics listed there as well as the guidance at MOS:DABPRIMARY, When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. Similarly Matt Olson is a different spelling and strictly speaking is not ambiguous, but is similar enough to be confusing and thus included under see also per MOS:DABSEEALSO. olderwiser 02:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]


Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie12 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elk diambiguation[edit]

Der Bkonrad, I made some edits on elk disambiguation which you cancelled. Why?

1. It's almost only in US and parts of Canada that Cervus canadensis is called elk, in the rest of the world it's usually called Wapiti.

2.You write:

Eurasian elk or moose (Alces alces), the largest extant species in the deer family

Well, it's only one specie
Using US language it should be European moose, not Eurasian, not elk, right?

3. If you mention the specie Alces alces, why not the specie Alces americanus?

The linguistic and taxonomic references was given in my contribution

Oxford Dictionary

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

OTIS, Catalog of life

English, the common language separated by two countries ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbjörn Sunde (talkcontribs) 15:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a prescribed format for WP:PRIMARY TOPICs as well as for disambiguation pages in general that you're edits did not follow in several respects. If y you think the page titled as elk should be renamed, please discuss rather than have the disambiguation page include commentary more appropriate for an article or make it look like these articles are titled other than what they are. olderwiser 16:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)