User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 27
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Bkonrad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Legislative terms ending on January 1st in Michigan
In reference to your comments on the page for Carl M. Williams. I am going to change your edit back to show that his term ended in 2007. The reason is that terms for legislators end at noon on January 1 rather than midnight. Yes, it might seem that it would be clearer to indicate that they served until the end of the year, but it would not technically be accurate. Also, the Michigan Legislature's own website and lists of past legislators reckon their terms as lasting through and including January 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyElk (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Toledo War
Sorry, are you afraid by redlinks? In the article there aren't these important links:
--Mojska 16:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand your question/comments. In this edit, you removed the link on Two Stickney, along with making some other changes were either incorrect (such adding the phrase "(in red)" to the map caption when there is no red in the map) or unhelpful (such as linking William Harris to a disambiguation page -- there is no article for the surveyor Harris). The other redlinked persons you identify above are not particularly important in themselves. While it is conceivable that there might be an article created about them, I don't think it improves that article to make those names into redlinks. older ≠ wiser 21:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't remember that I did that edit... sorry, but I added links to fr: and it: ... Boh, thanks.--Mojska 07:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
weeds (widow's and other mourners and wearers for the use thereof)
I don't understand hatnotes and am probably too to try. Please add an an appropriate reference out for weeds = clothes - which is what I was originally looking for. Bob aka Linuxlad (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Barek and BK: I created this article. I don't think I should be censoring it. Plainly, there should be room for an objective point and counterpoint. Nor do I think that the article should be an apologist or defender of this particular organization. OTOH, if you would take a look at the last few edits, I would appreciate it. I toned down some of the most recent contributions, and am wondering if it accords with wiki policy. I am trying to maintain my objectivity, and the objectivity of the article. I going to send this on to BK, as I also value his opinion. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Stan
Big Rapids
No, the leglislation was retroactive. Before 1923, it was known as Great Rapids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgp688 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Citation please. See HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF THE CITY OF BIG RAPIDS by DR. RICHARD SANTER and also the same story in Romig, Walter (1986) [1973]. Michigan Place Names. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. ISBN 0-8143-1838-X.. BTW, the reason Grand Rapids was called that is not because of how grand the rapids were there -- but because it was on the Grand River. older ≠ wiser 20:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I just wanted a high schooled to write what I just wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgp688 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Long Lakes
Given your active on some the Michigan articles I have edited, I though I would ask you option. On the Long Lake disambiguation page, I add a number of Long Lakes in Michigan and they were latter removed for "removed comprehensive list of Long Lakes in Michigan and Minnesota: inappropriate for dab page". Given the large number of Long Lake in Michigan would that not be a good reason for add such information to a disambiguation page? One of which was a Long Lake renamed to Lake Fenton. I though at least I could add a wikilink to a Lake Fenton article. Lake Fenton itself redirects to the Lake Fenton, Michigan (CDP) article. Is that appropriate to place physical lake in a local named after it when it does even enclose the lake? Spshu (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest creating a page Long Lake (Michigan) that lists the lakes in the state along with some additional information. This would be a set index page, rather than a disambiguation page, and so could include non-article entries that would typically not be appropriate on a disambiguation page. For an example of something similar with rivers, see Pine River (Michigan). older ≠ wiser 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello there!
I have begun a new WikiProject that has a very simple goal, to improve Wikipedia by dealing with the articles tagged for copy edit, and am wondering if you are interested. *smiles* This project is not a clone of the defunct League Of Copy Editors because we will not deal with requests for review (that is currently handled by our good friends over at Peer Review).
I expect that this will be a relaxed, happy and casual WikiProject, because participants will be able to take things at their own pace and use the project page to ask other participants for help. A handful of people have already expressed interest at the proposal page, and if you're interested, feel free to sign up at the project page itself and discuss the project at its talk page.
There are now over 4000 articles needing copy edit, and very, very few people working on them, so any help, however small, is appreciated. I am in the process of getting word out about the project, so I'm pretty sure we will be in good stead to fulfill our goals.
Cheers! -Samuel Tan 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Your recent comments
Your recent accusations were highly inappropriate and in breach of Civil. If you will persist in such accusations, I will be forced to take this to Wikiquette. It is highly troubling that you would lodge such blatant personal attacks while trying to claim that being regular of a page would offer some special insight, especially when they have proven themselves wrong, and the premise of such being in violation of own. If you cannot understand how said actions of yours are troubling, then I do not know how to help you come to such an understanding. However, since you and the others have lacked any concrete examples of such, while I have provided them, and while the community as a whole seems to be in conflict with the few opinions of another, it would probably be best that this goes to a larger forum so that the community can see the blatant abuse that is happening on this page. It is disappointing when people, as you have done, resort to personal attacks in order to push a POV that is not grounded in reason, while defending someone who took the first steps of starting an edit war to continue to push such a view. I ask you that you stop your personal attacks, and that if you are unwilling to actually discuss the issue, then please do not comment in the manner that you have done previously. Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please do -- I would be delighted to have all the edits including and especially yours reviewed by a wider community for breeches of Wikiquette. older ≠ wiser 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the fact that you edited without asking for consensus first a stable page? Or that you attacked me personally in an uncalled for manner? You honestly think that your actions are appropriate? I would like to have you on record. If not, you still have the chance to strike your uncalled for personal attacks and apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page was not in accord with disambiguation style guidelines. There is no need to seek consensus to edit pages according to established guidelines. I've not made any personal attack on you, unless you call pointing out your offensive behavior a personal attack. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page was in accord with the guidelines, as there is no "definition" there, and there is no "primary page" because proper nouns can never have such. This is made apparent by the John Smith example. And falsely accusing me of insulting others when there is clearly no insult that can be found is in breach of civil. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The page was not in accord with disambiguation style guidelines. There is no need to seek consensus to edit pages according to established guidelines. I've not made any personal attack on you, unless you call pointing out your offensive behavior a personal attack. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- You mean the fact that you edited without asking for consensus first a stable page? Or that you attacked me personally in an uncalled for manner? You honestly think that your actions are appropriate? I would like to have you on record. If not, you still have the chance to strike your uncalled for personal attacks and apologize. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
And this, this, and this, to remove the term independence, is patently absurd and POV pushing, especially when "Independence Day" is the celebratory day. Your recent edits have been following a very strange trend towards pushing POV without consensus to back them up. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting theory. Very little evidence. Are you planning to do something, or do you just make idle accusations? older ≠ wiser 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Say what you want, but you are demonstrating a very troubling trend in editing behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you say so. But judging by recent edits, your sayso doesn't have much credibility. You've got the MOSDAB on primary topics completely wrong. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Beyond your POV pushing, your link on your user page promoting a book is considered spam per: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam" WP:LINKSPAM and must be removed immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, your edits here show a clear, admitted Conflict of Interest, which is a further breach of Wikipedia policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- And again, are you planning to do something about this? Or are you merely being annoying? older ≠ wiser 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the report on you. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers again on missing the boat once more. I'll reply there. older ≠ wiser 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is the report on you. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- And again, are you planning to do something about this? Or are you merely being annoying? older ≠ wiser 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you say so. But judging by recent edits, your sayso doesn't have much credibility. You've got the MOSDAB on primary topics completely wrong. older ≠ wiser 23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Say what you want, but you are demonstrating a very troubling trend in editing behavior. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles of Confederation
I've used up my 3 reverts for the day there - up to others now --JimWae (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Phil has violated WP:3rr --JimWae (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your edits to Lodge
You very well know, if you are an English speaker, that a 'lodge' is a place that you go to when you need a place to stay out in the wilderness or somewhere. Most people would agree with me. If you want static protocol, per WP:MOSDAB#Page_naming_conventions, you would find that it agrees with me. Putting the link for the main article of "Lodge" at the end of the article in an obscure 'See also' section would not be helping people who go through the article trying to find the common definition for 'lodge'. Thank you. WinterSpw (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:MOSDAB#Page_naming_conventions does not say anything concerning this point. WP:MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic pretty clearly describes both what a primary topic is and how to format intro line for such a page. Lodging is not the primary topic for Lodge and should not be formatted as such. It could perhaps be placed somewhere else in the listed topics, simply not as the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to revise primary usage guidelines, would affect Worcester
Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Propose_change_in_guidelines_for_primary_usage: I've proposed a change in general guidelines on primary usage that would result in a move for Worcester.--Loodog (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen of your very sane contributions to disambiguation, you should know better than to edit war over a disambiguation page, sir. I've expressed similar displeasure to Sesshomaru, and at Talk:DB#Edit_warrning_and_temporary_page_protection. To force all involved parties to actually discuss rather than just revert back and forth, I've protected the page. In case you were not aware, you were 1 edit away from breaching 3RR. I know it may be frustrating, but you can set the good example and take the higher road, rather than edit war. -- Natalya 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, of course you are right. Sometimes my irritation with Sesshomaru's arrogant mannerisms clouds my judgment. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:Albion, Michigan
I have nominated Category:Albion, Michigan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Comments at Talk: HP (disambiguation)
Thank you. You have no idea how much I appreciate your rational intervention. -- Natalya 19:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Me too. :) Abtract (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Flag Icons Not Needed?
This is what you said on my page:
Flag icons are discouraged to mark places of birth and death for people. See Wikipedia:FLAGBIO.
You then said:
Please stop adding flag icons to the birth/death locations of the U.S. Presidents. Just FYI, I will begin using the rollback function to revert your changes, not because they are vandalism (which is what rollback is typically for), but only for convenience as you've been informed that the edits are not appropriate and yet persist without any response.
And this is my reply:
Why? Everybody needs flag lists to symbolise the country or U.S. state they were born in and also where they died. So I decided to go ahead with what I was doing. -- 20000 Talk/Contributions 18:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Indian Country
Thanks! This was needed. Okiefromokla questions? 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Would you have a look at this? It seems to me that (before I went through it) it somewhat oversimplified the history and Madison's view of the subject; it is also a quiltwork of long direct quotations, the sort of thing that skillful tendentious editors often produce. (And it speaks continually of Historian X and Historian Y; my eyes glaze over.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Good afternoon, sir.
Just curious as to why you deleted the added reference for th4e word "zippy"? The definition is an accurate one. Talk to any Korean or Viet Nam war vets.
D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlegoggle (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- There was no corresponding article and hence no way to verify the information. Disambiguation pages are aids to navigating articles and are not intended to contain lists of definitions. older ≠ wiser 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Milo (name), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Milo. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
backlinks
Ah, that'd be Twinkle - and me not following-up properly. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- No problem -- I didn't mean the edit comment to sound so critical. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, I didn't mind that! I know I need to check up on the backlinks. --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Stanton (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Stanton. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Danke vielmals
Schönen dank für Ihre Hilfe an Masculine und Feminine. Tchüß Alastair Haines (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
3RR at Saint Clair
I know that the situation at Saint Clair is frustrating, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware that you've surpassed WP:3RR there. It can definitly be difficult to try and reason with an unregistered editor (or even with registered editors, for that matter :D), but please try and take up a discussion to figure out why the IP editor wants to keep adding the entries. I'll attempt to keep an eye on the page, but if the reverting continues, there may be protections/blocks/some combination thereof to become involved. I trust that you can work it out. Good luck, -- Natalya 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Dan Burton
This was originally reported in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call. The article contains links to items from 1990 and many others older than my link. This is as relevant as his illegitimate child, his drug-running son, his skirt chasing, his fear of vaccines, his perception that Bolivia is not a land-locked country, etc., Perhaps you should take this up with Roll Call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualityleashdog (talk • contribs) 05:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Find the source in Roll Call, not as reported in some other publication. And don't make what are speculations into assertions of fact. older ≠ wiser 11:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Dan Burton
Don't you want to defend your comment that "the source is ancient?" Don't have a defense do you, since so many citations are clearly 18 or more years old that "pass" in this article. Get off it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualityleashdog (talk • contribs) 03:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Dan Burton
AND that is the history of the man. A reputation that he suspects he can contract AIDS from a barber's tools, that "the gays" are planting AIDS in his salad, and a general history of lunacy. The reader IS greeted with the caveat that it was REPORTED by such and such source. It is up to them to further investigate it if they wish to build their own argument upon this. This is Wikipedia, not the Encylopedia Britannica. Your challenges are encouraging me to thoroughly research the lunacy and report even more than the haircut episode. I have all the time in the world on my hands. You have a job. Stay the hell out of my state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualityleashdog (talk • contribs) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Shiawassee River
Most of my content is on my blogsite
http://shiawassee-river.blogspot.com/
There are numerous maps and other reference material in that site but hey, it's Blogger and not the all reaching Wikipedia Org
Thanks for helping me educate people about a little known natural resource in South Eastern Michigan
Willi H2O (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Re [1]: Someone changed the redirect at Biden from pointing to Biden (disambiguation) to Joe Biden. I've undone this, but imho the pages should be moved anyway, with the disambiguation at Biden and an {{R to disambiguation}} at Biden (disambiguation). user:Everyme 16:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. user:Everyme 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey! I just noticed this talk page. I changed "Biden" to redirect to "Joe Biden" (although I wasn't the person noted above). However, according to the discussion noted above regarding Sarah Palin, the consensus to me indicated that Palin to Sarah Palin doesn't make sense because Michael Palin is also a notable figure that many people would search for. On the other hand, according to the discussion above: "With Biden, there's no contest, indeed it's been like that from the start of the page I think. The other guy is his son, and doesn't even come close, it doesn't matter where you live." The example of Bush makes sense as well - clearly "Bush" wouldn't redirect to George W Bush as the user could be searching for many different things/people. With Biden, the only other items are his son and a genus of flowers. This same logic is employed with McCain and Obama, which redirect to John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively. Let me know if you think a different consensus was reached, but it seemed pretty clear to me so I was WP:BOLD and made the move. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me as well as long as people stop trying to implement some weird logic for Palin based on the completely unrelated respective reasonings for Obama, Biden, McCain. user:Everyme 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it's not such a big deal for Biden. I'm not convinced about Palin though. older ≠ wiser 22:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me as well as long as people stop trying to implement some weird logic for Palin based on the completely unrelated respective reasonings for Obama, Biden, McCain. user:Everyme 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hey! I just noticed this talk page. I changed "Biden" to redirect to "Joe Biden" (although I wasn't the person noted above). However, according to the discussion noted above regarding Sarah Palin, the consensus to me indicated that Palin to Sarah Palin doesn't make sense because Michael Palin is also a notable figure that many people would search for. On the other hand, according to the discussion above: "With Biden, there's no contest, indeed it's been like that from the start of the page I think. The other guy is his son, and doesn't even come close, it doesn't matter where you live." The example of Bush makes sense as well - clearly "Bush" wouldn't redirect to George W Bush as the user could be searching for many different things/people. With Biden, the only other items are his son and a genus of flowers. This same logic is employed with McCain and Obama, which redirect to John McCain and Barack Obama, respectively. Let me know if you think a different consensus was reached, but it seemed pretty clear to me so I was WP:BOLD and made the move. Cheers! -Bluedog423Talk 18:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
NPOV
Looks like you have a history of upsetting people. I've noticed the NPOV issue too. Grayghost01 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- So did you come here in a general fit of discontent, or do you have some specific complaint, or do you expect me to do anything? older ≠ wiser 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Georgia article
Please stop adding those "descriptions". They are not that important and at the same time they practically duplicate entries found below.Thanks--Satt 2 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop removing the descriptions. It is helpful to have short descriptions on a disambiguation page. It matters not at all that it duplicates some information buried later in the page. older ≠ wiser 13:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Dab for Leon
In your edit] to Leon, i escaped my initial confusion over the unchanged length, and realized that "shorten linked text" does accurately describe moving the corresponding square brackets closer to each other! [blush] On the other hand, i still prefer my version of one of those two entries, and of the other, where another editor may have imitated my syntax. I have always construed the current (or at least recent) MoSDab language on piping links to sections as motivated (whether explicitly i don't recall) by the Principle of least astonishment, and i have thus made a point to mention both the article and section titles in the pipe-text, to lessen the likelihood that either the article title or the positioning of the window in the middle of the page will seem odd, and thus invite the distracting question "Did i just follow another goddam 'Net-casual unhelpful link?" I suppose a long text on the lk is itself somewhat odd, but IMO it is valuable and thus explains the length by its clarifying power, even before/without making the jump: this link is to text not simply about chameleon fic-chars or the Star Fox series, but about a chameleon fic-char in the Star Fox series.
Realistically or not, i also hope for that specificity to reassure slightly the user who may be frustrated with inappropriate WP Dab lks (often placed by IP ed'rs) like
- * Leon, a character in the video game Star Ocean 2
in spite of the article having too little info to justify wading thru a 'pedia article rather than a dictionary or glossary entry, and often (as with the Star Ocean example) failing to even mention the term being dab'd.
I'd welcome the opportunity to weigh your reasoning for your contrary approach.
--Jerzy•t 18:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- When the entire descriptive phrase is a link, as in
- That seems just a wee bit excessive. I mean, why bother piping the link if essentially the entire text of the link and then some is reproduced in the piped portion? I can appreciate wanting to include enough info to allow readers to easily distinguish between a simple link to an article about a novel/video game/whatever rather than a link targeted to a section of a related list article. I suspect this may be why some editors started making redirects instead of using piped links. So for example, the link above might be recast something like:
- Leon (Battle Arena Toshinden), a character in the Battle Arena Toshinden video game series
- where Leon (Battle Arena Toshinden) is a redirect to List of Battle Arena Toshinden characters#Leon. older ≠ wiser 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)