User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2014/Feb
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Colonies Chris. 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. |
Removing publisher links
Has there been any discussion on the removal of publisher links? Curly Turkey (gobble) 10:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- The general principle is, as always, to make links that are likely to be useful to the reader. The documentation for citations (Template:Cite_book#Publisher) says "may be wikilinked if relevant". In my opinion, such links are rarely relevant or useful, so I generally remove them. There is discussion of a sort at Talk:Hattie Jacques, where User:SchroCat insists that he finds them useful, but refuses to clarify in what way he finds them useful. Do you feel that such links have significant value? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Rarely, in the case of periodicals like The Economist, The New York Times and USA Today, which are themselves much, much better known than their publishers. Just means extra clutter otherwise. -- Ohc ¡digame! 12:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hưng Yên Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tran (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) 08:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Districts of Vietnam
Just a reminder: when you change an article on a place in Vietnam to add the Vietnamese language diacritics to the spelling, you need to ensure that you do not change the spelling in the category declarations — if changing the spelling of a category declaration results in the article being filed in a "category" that does not actually exist, then the category declaration ends up being a redlink and the page is consequently uncategorized. It's fine to change the spelling in the body text, but the category declaration must remain at the spelling that the category is actually located at. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, I'm aware of that. But apologies for not noticing and fixing that unwanted element of a universal change this time. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)