User talk:14nights
14nights, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi 14nights! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Lightbreather (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC) |
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Bfpage |leave a message 14:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Sofia Hellqvist name link in Prince Carl Philip biography
[edit]The name link for Sofia Hellqvist in Prince Carl Philip's biography now redirects to Princess Sofia, Duchess of Värmland. That's why I changed it but left her maiden name intact - so the reverting that you apply is outdated.Skippy-9 (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Skippy-9: Have you read Wikipedia's editing guidelines & manual of style? If you did, you would know that you are wrong. As I have pointed out before, see WP:NOTBROKEN and MOS:NOPIPE. Cheers, 14nights (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed I could have read that but there was nothing wrong with the change itself - it happens more often than not. It refers to the name of the page versus the name you want displayed, you could read about that - it's also on Wikipedia. I just want links to work correctly and the template that I mentioned works perfect for that and is also accepted. That's the last I mention about this, I am not about to enter a competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy-9 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Skippy-9: The links are working correctly. Where did you get the idea they were broken? If you truly read Wikipedia editing guidelines & manual of style I pointed to you above, then you would know "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text" (per MOS:NOPIPE). If that's not enough for you, here is the first paragraph from WP:NOTBROKEN (italics & color are mine):
There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace
[[redirect]]with[[target|redirect]].- Unless you can cite an exception, as listed in the Wikipedia editing guidelines, or show the Wikipedia policy says "always use piped links", you have no grounds to stand on. So point me to the policy, as I have done for you multiple times, or stop reverting because you think you're above policy. If you want to stop this competition then why did you just revert me? 14nights (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed I could have read that but there was nothing wrong with the change itself - it happens more often than not. It refers to the name of the page versus the name you want displayed, you could read about that - it's also on Wikipedia. I just want links to work correctly and the template that I mentioned works perfect for that and is also accepted. That's the last I mention about this, I am not about to enter a competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy-9 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)