User talk:Tedernst/Dec05

signature

testing my signature to see if I correctly added a talk link Tedernst | Talk 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

testing again [[User:Tedernst|Tedernst | [[User talk:Tedernst|Talk]]]] 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

again - what am I doing wrong? Tedernst | Talk 16:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

duh! That bold talk is because pages don't link to themselves. Silly me! Tedernst | Talk 17:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

testing a new sig with smaller font for "talk" Tedernst | talk 20:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MFACM

Thanks for you support on the Mexican Fine Arts Center Museum article, I'm surprised it wasn't created before. I will probably nominate it for DYK on the front page, so any other insights would be great. - AKeen 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AM

You are in the right, it looks like the other editor is a little confused. Hopefully they will take a look at the MoS and understand. I won't clean up AM now (could confuse the situation), but I'll take a look at it tomorrow if its style is not sorted out by then. --Commander Keane 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be useful at Talk:AM where the wikilinks and other non-MoS:DP content is being added back by User:Tobias Conradi. Thanks/wangi 18:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

morphology dab

Morphology (biology) redirects to comparative anatomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think if you're going to dab links, you should avoid the redirect as well. Otherwise, the issue might really be that the disambig page might really be what needs changing. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Another possibility may be that comparative anatomy just needs some clarifying text. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T28

I say the general rule is that LND's go at their unhyphenated form with their hyphenated form a re-direct, not vice versa. This is because I think of the hyphenated form as simply a variant. However, I hear that the LND template was removed because the LND category was found useless. Why?? Please explain with as much detail as you can. Georgia guy 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Morphology

The reason it is good to have some content on the Morphology disabiguation page is that that page is what users see when they type "morphology" in the search box. Please leave my changes intact unless you have an argument why someone who types "morphology" shouldn't see a simple definition along with the dab links. Mike Dillon 22:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say that you'd removed my text. I was responding to the edit comment that you wanted to remove the lead text. Since "morphology" is a general term with specific meanings in different fields, I think that having some content makes sense, even if it is a disambig page. However, I have removed all non-dab links from the text to be closer to MoS:DP. If a generic term has a consistent root meaning or overarching meaning, a short gloss seems helpful to me, despite what MoS:DP says. Otherwise, each article would have to explain the meaning or link to Wiktionary. Hopefully you're happy with the lead now. Mike Dillon 22:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Tedernst,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

InkLink

Hi,

Just FYI, I've nominated InkLink for AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InkLink

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shreshth91's RfA

Hello Tedernst,

I just wanted to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. It finally closed with a tally of 22/0/0. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the entire community. If you ever need anything, please just let me know. Cheers!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 00:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of entries under NG after merging with ng

May I know what led to the disappearance of several entries originally under NG? Specifically under the part "NG may stand for:". There were at least two entries that are gone now. One being "No Good abbreviated...", and the other one was "In Japanese, ng represents...".

I would've thought that those two entries were far more relevant than "NG may stand for: Newsgroup(.com)".

--TKY 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I guess the one which I added would be more suitable on Wikitionary.

However, I believe the Japanese definition isn't a dictionary term. In fact, it's a term that the Japanese manufacturing industry uses. If the sentence itself links to "Japanese" and "manufacturing", do you think it can stay on the "ng" page?

--TKY 04:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the conversation has been moved to Talk:Ng (disambiguation). Tedernst | talk 16:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up Flashing

Hi there, you removed lots of stuff from the flashing article: [1]. Since the articles Flashing (weatherproofing), Flashing (retail) and Flashing (cinematography) are not written yet, the info that you a removing can go nowhere and is effectively deleted. Is this really what you want to do? Peter S. 20:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we just put it back on the page? Peter S. 20:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just created a stub and added 1 entry back (cinematography). No offense. :-) Peter S. 21:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the stub is not by me, it was on the disambig page before. Cheers :-) Peter S. 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Presbyterian Church

I have reinstated the information/sources while removing the mention of disambiguation so that people with so much time on their hands that they can look for mis-styled disambiguation pages rather than contributing to articles (just teasing, but that is how I feel!) will not remove information that will be useful when the articles come to be written.

--PeterR 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But it is a dab page. And the format you've reverted to makes it much harder for anyone to figure out which page they're actually looking for. For the articles that already have been written, the information on that page is redundant. For those that haven't been written yet, perhaps that information should simply be used to start the articles so it can be removed from the dab page immediately. The page is clearly a dab, with or without the tag you've removed. I do not reformat as a bureaucratic exercise, but to make the encyclopedia easier to use for the reader. Tedernst 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll try and sort it out over the next couple of weeks. From your talk page I'm obviously not the only one who has this sort of problem with Wikipedia's rules on disambiguation pages, but yes, I can see where you're coming from - it is an encyclopaedia not a sprawl, and it does need to be tidy. Just give me a little while as, after having spent time gathering and referencing the information, I naturally want to make sure it isn't lost. Catching up with other things after first baby arrived, though. --PeterR 22:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End of the World disambiguation

Let's use the talk page for that. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

You're welcome, and best of luck! --Merovingian 18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412's RFA

Thank you, Tedernst, for your support in my RfA - I swear, I wasn't already an admin - but now I'll do my best as an admin to make the reality of Wikipedia rise to the level of the dream. BD2412 T 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ^{<--note new "admin gold" sig :-D}[reply]

Adminship nomination

Your admin nomination has closed and was not successful on this occasion. I hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia and will consider standing again in future. Remember that you had more support than oppose votes, and that many of the oppose votes stated that they would support if you stood again in March or April. Best Wishes, Warofdreams talk 11:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vote on your nomination but it seems to me that you would make an able admin and are due for a renomination relatively soon. I'll check back in 6 weeks or so and if everything still looks good, I will gladly do the honors for a fellow Chicagoan. Keep up the good work. -- DS1953 17:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello Tedernst. Macedonia (disambiguation) is a rather hot page as you may have noticed in the past. That means that extra caution is needed when editing. On, the other hand, the nice manual of style, says "For places, it may only be necessary to write the name of the article." And it that case it would be may not because a small description is needed for all those places in many different parts of the world. Take care. +MATIA ☎ 01:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with "hot page" I meant that it is a target for pov-pushing and/or vandalism. The word "may" I've bolded from the manual of style, means it is a suggestion not a must-do. Perhaps, someone from USA, can understand and know the difference between those places you mentioned, but a small description is needed. And most of all, I left you the above message, because someone would probably revert you, it happens all the time at that article, and I've tried to explain to you the situation. Let me know if I can, or I should, clarify something. +MATIA ☎ 11:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you mean excessive wikilinks removed? Can you explain to me how you understand the relevant manual of style? +MATIA ☎ 12:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My failed RFA

Dear Tedernst,

I would like to thank you for supporting me on my RfA. Even though it failed with a with the final tally of 55/22/6, I want to thank you anyways. I don't want to be one a admin anymore until I reach 10,000 edits now that it's over with. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

antioch

good cleaning, but I think to far. I personally like grouping. e.g. US-stuff can be grouped. see Santa Cruz Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antioch (disambiguation)

I can't belive this has happened again, but I have overwritten your edits (to Antioch (disambiguation) this time), due to an edit conflict. Tobias has warned me about some heavy artillery being deployed against changes to this one, so I wrote an essay on the talk page in preparation and then got the famous Tedernst edit conflict. I ended up just overwriting your verison (our versions were higly similar anyway, which is comforting). If you get a chance could you compare our two versions and make ammendemnts. Sorry about this mate, but it leaset I'll be the one who gets their version reverted, if it comes to that.--Commander Keane 17:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucia

You just deleted the principle existing links to cities from a geographical disambiguation page, and changed the geodis to disambig. Is there a particular reason that you vandalized the page? --William Allen Simpson 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to disagree without calling someone a vandal?

Let's take the easy one first, shall we? The geo dab template is useless. A dab is a dab, as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to have multiple templates. I don't care very much about this. Feel free to change it back.

The other point you raise is about links I deleted. I did delete two entries. I did so because they didn't seem to link to anything named Seleucia. If I am wrong, please feel free to put them back and format them correctly per MoS:DP.

Thank you for making your opinions known. --Tedernst | talk 21:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(consolidated here) I'll change it back.

They do link to two major Seleucid cities, and all those city names are in the articles (apparently you did not actually look at the articles), AND they were formatted pursuant to MoS:DP#Break rules. After all, since the name part should be at the front of the list and there are many synonyms, AND we're not supposed to pipe, that makes this the "best looking" format. (I tried a long list of single names each pointing to the same place, and it was ugly.) If you have a suggestion, I'm willing to hear it! --William Allen Simpson 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried a compromise edit. I think the information that was on the page is useful and the usefulness of that information outweighed the MoS: style questions should not harm encyclopedic value of articles. I have removed the quote, though. Kusma (討論) 22:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'd tried that format at Revision as of 2005-12-05 07:52:58, didn't like it very well, not sorted alphabetically. Oh well, I'll try something more along those lines. --William Allen Simpson 23:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the columnar form. --William Allen Simpson 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest we all spend energy on writing those red-linked articles than squabling over the shape of this dab page? Tedernst | talk 23:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen (plane)

Thank you for the note — that was a mistake on my part. I had found Bremen (airplane) on Special:Allpages and wanted to add it to Bremen but forgot the correct name and didn't notice the redlink I had created. It is fixed now. Thanks again, Kusma (討論) 12:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line

OK, so I went a little overboard without building consensus on the Green Line page, but that page (and the other color line pages) are fairly messy and disorgnaized crufty collections at the moment. I've put some of my suggestions on ways that the page can be improved at Talk:Green Line and welcome your input. --Jfruh 02:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

request

Please be careful when editing Macedonia related articles. The MoS you refer to is a guideline. The lines you removed according to your interpretation of the guideline are crucial in that part of the article. Thanks. +MATIA ☎ 19:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morphology

Since the editing of Morphology seems to be getting a little contentious again and you decided to not "leave it to others" to decide about the intro text, I've reconstructed our earlier exchange into a thread on Talk:Morphology. I hope you don't mind. I still feel that the general idea that "morphology" is a "study of forms" does belong on the page since people will inevitably link to morphology for unanticipated uses. However, I'll see if any concensus develops on the talk page before I start another edit war (although I don't expect much input...). I personally don't how a minimal shared description, if available, could do anything but enhance the functionality of a disambiguation page. "Morphology" means pretty much the same thing in each of those fields, except that the "form" is field-specific. Mike Dillon 02:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dab MoS

Sorry I never got back to you about the ordering of items. I thought it was kind of a grey area and wanted to mull on it, got distracted and, well, anyway. I think my logic was "it's not clear which article has greatest claim to the title, or is most commonly used, so I'll just order according to the order at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Order of entries." But I don't strongly hold an opinion on that one, for the page you queried. Sooo...

As for the Wikitionary position, that's much clearer: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Wiktionary links

To do this, use one of the "Wiktionary parameter templates" on the first line.

Which creates a consistent look and feel, one that I think is pretty nice. Josh Parris#: 07:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BrColumbia-geo-stub

It's definitely bottable, but the one bot (Mairibot) that the Stub Sorting project has access to, has a backlog from WP:SFD to attend to right now. While it is generally a good thing to clean up the redirects, it also has a lower priority than getting obsolete stub types ready for deletion. I doubt if there will be a bot to attend to it anytime soon. If it bothers you, deal with it. If not, it won't be the end of the Wikipedia. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]