|
——————————————— Archive, February 2017 ———————————————
I know this edit is from 2014, but i'm just curious why did your bot change this redirect? DashyGames (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DashyGames: Hello, it was probably because of this edit corresponding with the Wikipedia:Double redirects process running on Wikimedia server that generates the Special:DoubleRedirects log. This task typically runs once a day and simple edits like this does not really cause an issue. My bot merely processes that.
- So basically, because User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Wikipedia:Sandbox -> Washington Redskins the bot changed that to User:Sandbox for user warnings -> Washington Redskins to avoid the redundant redirect.
- That was a very interesting find. Perhaps modifying redirects or using the #redirect magic word should be limited to auto confirmed users IF this is a pressing problem. At the moment this case seems to be the only example (or at least the first time I have seen something like this).
- -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) FYI, I once ended up fully protecting a lot of the sandbox shortcuts (WP:SAND, WT:SAND, WP:SANDBOX, WT:TEST, ...) because of bots doing this :) There's more examples in their histories. The nobots template can also be used if it's a problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zzuuzz: I think protection is a better option here in that case since these are redirects that will not be changed. Removing nobots is trivial after all. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
For O-7 through O-10, if the officer is in the Army, they are referred to as a "General Officer", while if they are in the Navy, they are referred to as a "Flag Officer". If you check Section 526a of Title 10 (10 USC 526), you will also see federal law specifically refers to "General Officers" of the Army, Air Force, and USMC, and to "Flag Officers" of the Navy. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @AzureCitizen: Ah, I did not realize that, thank you for correcting it. Going back to the subject, I feel a separate section for OF-6 and above does not make a whole lot of sense. Articles on other military people tend to cover "military career" as a section without such distinctions. This will be particularly helpful since this individual will now get a section for their role as the National Security Adviser to the POTUS as things are bound to happen around the world. Do you think we can simply drop the sections by rank down to a "military career" section? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly... feel free to remove the subsection headers (company, field, general, etc.) Most biographies don't have subsections like that; I put those in to replace what was there previously, which was "Early Career", "Later Career", and "Controversy over promotion to general", or something like that. If want to just have a nice clean section titled "Career" or "Military Career" instead at the top, I'm okay with it. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
