User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 36

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37

WaterWinterWonderland link

I was wondering why you removed the link I added to my web site? It is an essential source for information about the state of Michigan. Echosyst (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Gary Ritz

Essential in what way? There are dozens of web sites with similar information about Michigan. There is no reason to give preference to one over others, and Wikipedia is not a link farm. olderwiser 00:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor needs enlightenment

Hello Bkonrad. I notice you've reverted some of the edits of this IP on Michigan Legislature and Michigan Senate. He's been making a so-far-futile attempt to file a proper report about you at WP:AN3. Blocking confused people is hardly worth it, so could you try leaving a message at User talk: about the style issues? (From a quick look I assume that he's changing the style and won't take no for an answer). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've stopped caring about the stylistic issues. The item of most concern is the claims about the supposed use of post-nomials with members of state legislatures. I've tagged the paragraphs with {{cn}}. I don't see that there has been any further activity with that account in the past couple of days. olderwiser 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Move for the page Gutenberg

Hello, you undid my copy/paste move to the page Gutenberg. The reason it was a copy/paste move is because the page at Gutenberg (disambigulation) already exists, so I had to change it around. Since you appear to have reverted my edit because it was copy/paste, I will retore it to my revision. If you disagree with the premise of by move (that Gutenberg generally refers to Johannes Gutenberg), feel free to reply, and we'll work something out. Regards, The UserboxerComplain/ubx 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy and paste moves are never correct. If you cannot move a page for whatever reason, please follow the process described at WP:Requested moves. olderwiser 20:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

National Public Radio

I completely agree with your removal, and have removed the information again myself...but I'm not sure your edits would qualify as being exempt from WP:3RR. Edit summaries as the main form of communication generally doesn't work the best in a dispute. --OnoremDil 20:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right and I should know better, but sometimes it is unfortunately too easy to lose perspective over things that seem so obvious. olderwiser 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I noticed that you added further descriptive information to entries on Nighthawks (disambiguation). I would offer that, since we're only disambiguating titles on such a page, we need only enough description to distinguish amongst listed topics. Observe that MOS:DAB indicates that distracting information should be avoided. ENeville (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed at length on the pages of WT:DAB and WT:MOSDAB and there is some differing views on what it means that a description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. I and others hold that brief descriptions are nearly always helpful to provide context for readers. For example, if you look at the examples on WP:MOSDAB itself, one could question why it is necessary to have any description at all with the entry for Dark Star (song). Are there any other songs named "Dark Star"? Or is any description at all really necessary for Tambo (weapon)? I and others have argued that the guidance to keep descriptions to a minimum is to avoid paragraph-long entries that some inexperienced editors sometimes add. The goal is not terseness for the sake of terseness. olderwiser 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

County web site links - Clinton IA

Links to the county's web site appear in two places: once at the top, in a summary data box, and once at the bottom.

I found the links were dead and located a fresh link. I updated the second instance (at the bottom of the page) but couldn't figure out how to edit the top instance (in the info box). (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism ?

Is there any particular reason you delete my Balmoral College [1] ? --Jor70 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no wikipedia article, thus nothing to disambiguate. olderwiser 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the disambiguation page "CBA"

Hi Bkonrad,

Could you please stop undo my work in those sports-related (mostly basketball-related) articles. The title "China Basketball Association" is incorrect and must be changed to "Basketball Association of the People's Republic of China". Also, I am going to create some articles for those so-called "redlinks with few or no other incoming links and no indication of potential for article" and expand them in the future. Could you leave them alone for the time being, thanks. (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC) Pro Hoops

Please read and understand WP:MOSDAB for guidance about what to put on a disambiguation page. I will continue to correct edits that are inappropriate. olderwiser 14:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Season One Hatnote

I disagree with your revert on Season One. Can you please discuss. (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with many of the edits you've been making. What would you like to discuss? olderwiser 16:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If you are talking about the hatnotes that you removed or revised, I'm not going to fight you about those. Just this one. Since it comes down only to aestheics, I feel that the punctuation in my version is better be cause:
  • it does not lend to confusion
  • it is more raw
  • I do not know of code that can fix the template to cover the punctuation. (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
What is presented to readers (rather than editors) is more important. Which is of the following more easily understood by casual readers?
olderwiser 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The first case is more clear because the reader will know that the page is not a category page, a disambiguation page, a list, a table, or article. They will know that it is a search page. (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the raw link is more likely to cause confusion. olderwiser 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
TBH, I don't think we need it. Will you mind if I remove it? (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Remove what? olderwiser 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not Bkonrad, but yes, I minded that you removed it, TBH. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The hatnote. (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I took a look at the article in question (this [revision]). I find the link in the hatnote very confusing and less than helpful. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Change to Template:Otheruses -- OK?

Could you have a look at this change please? I'm not sure that an editor, particularly this editor, should have removed the text without first obtaining consensus.

(This particular editor has been using my contributions list to help decide where to edit (there is no other explanation for the articles chosen and the edits made). He is applying a number of guidelines in a very literal and almost aggressive manner, and this is causing me increasing stress and severely interrupting my own contributions to WP. I suspect I shall have to come up with a strategy to cope with this, as direct discussions are unproductive!)

(deep sigh) -- EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Partial Matches in Disambiguation Pages, Question, Suggestion?

Hi Bkonrad,

I recently added an entry for the Canadian band "Madison Violet" to the page "Madison". You removed it with a comment that is too short for me to understand completely: "rm partial match with no indication it is ambiguous with the term being disambiguated".

IMHO, "Madison Guaranty" fits in the same category (consists on "Madison" followed by a non-general expression (not like "High School" etc.), however, "Madison Guaranty" is still on the page. :)

Could you explain to me what you mean, please?

And: do you have a suggestion how I (or anyone else) should/could write in such a disambiguation page.

Kind regards, (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Style guidelines for disambiguation pages are at WP:MOSDAB. The general guideline is at WP:Disambiguation. The relevant sub-topic is under Partial title matches.
The basic logic for inclusion on a disambiguation page is whether the term is ambiguous with the title of the page. In this particular case the question is whether "Madison Violet" is known as simply "Madison", such that someone might type "madison" into the search box expecting to find the band, or whether an editor might mistakenly create a wikilink from "Madison" intending that the link go to the article on the band.
While the Madison page may have some partial title matches that don't really belong there, that isn't really a reason to include more. The example you mention, Madison Guaranty, could reasonably be considered ambiguous. Consider the headline of one of the articles used as a reference: "Appraiser on Madison Loans in Plea Accord". olderwiser 21:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Here's a quick example of a dab page with buildings/structures in the ==Places== section: Waterloo (disambiguation)

I've seen loads of dab pages like this, seems to be the most common arrangement. (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That there are lots of poor examples to be found is not a very good reason to perpetuate poor usage. However there are shades of gray. Some structures, such as a railway station or pier can be understood as places. A ferris wheel however seems very hard to conceptualize as a place in the same category with cities and towns. olderwiser 15:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. My impression was "most common" as opposed to "lots of bad examples". Often (but not always) it seems the best way because the buildings/structures are listed immediately (indented) below the listing for the actual location. Ferris wheel in question is a gigantic fixed structure, I suppose I regard them in a similar (and permanent) way to something like a giant radio mast or similar. (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)