Jump to content

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

Tivoli

Dear Bkonrad,

You deleted my explanation of Tivoli town as the primary and original meaning, so in fact it is the primary topic. (Compare Washington.) Other meanings (as Jardin de Tivoli, Paris) are derivatives, so the main meaning should be stated at the head of an encyclopedic text. Please revert your deletion. Thank you, Hansmuller (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is the primary topic, the article on the place in Italy should be named "Tivoli". As it is not, that indicates there is no primary topic. That is in essence the definition of WP:primary topic within Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with the original or first use. The comparison with Washington doesn't apply. Washington lists a few of the most common meanings at the top, broken out from the long list of the other Washingtons. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Tivoli, Lazio is the original Tivoli, all of the other Tivolis are named after this original. It is a formality that the town article here is not called just Tivoli, that cannot really change the primary topic. The case of Washington is comparable, although the other Washington surname persons are not named after the president. This is not the case with Tivoli. Hansmuller (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I still don't understand your point regarding Washington, but regardless, current guidance at MOSDAB indicates Tivoli doesn't merit any special treatment. older ≠ wiser 11:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Zink

Hi, concerning your reversion of my moving the Zink disambiguation page and creating a Zink article in its place, what's wrong with a 'Zink' page for Zink technology, and a 'Zink (disambiguation)' page for the disambiguation? Thanks -Lopifalko (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with starting a new article, but please don't WP:Cut and paste to move the existing disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 17:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. 'Zink' and 'Zink (disambiguation)' already exist, with the latter being a redirect to the former. If I wish to use 'Zink' for a new article then I need to move its contents to 'Zink (disambiguation)', leaving no other option as far as I can see other than to cut and paste. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You did not use the move function to move the disambiguation page. You copied and pasted the content. That makes a mess of the edit history which is a requirement for the copyright licences under which Wikipedia operates. Please see WP:RM for instruction about how to move a page properly if you are unable to do so. You may want to create a draft of the article you want to move at Draft:Zink first. older ≠ wiser 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ahh, I first tried moving it but I don't have permission to do so. Would you please be able to move 'Zink' to 'Zink (disambiguation)' for me please? -Lopifalko (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not certain the printing product is the WP:primary topic for the term. I suggest you create a draft and then follow directions at WP:RM#CM to propose switching the pages around. older ≠ wiser 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I've created Zink (technology) for the time being. I'm reading WP:RM, thanks for your help. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Robbie Crawford

Johnelwaq was attempting to turn Robbie Crawford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) into a disambiguation page (see Special:Permalink/740401184) with the original article moved to Robbie Crawford (footballer, born 1993) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Would you move the article over the redirect or delete the redirect. Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there some discussion or other consensus about this? As it is I don't see how the hatnote isn't adequate. older ≠ wiser 23:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't think it would be controversial. It doesn't much matter to me other than the copy/paste move. I was just trying to get to Johnelwaq's desired outcome. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Removing my disambig's

I want to know why you removed a ton of disambiguation links I put in, as I cannot find a rule stating that your reason given in the edit info is valid. It makes the site better, so why not? HarryKernow (talk to me) 19:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included and If the topic is not mentioned on the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic. The terms you added to the disambiguation pages were not mentioned in the linked article. older ≠ wiser 19:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here in my opinion. For instance, in Ishtar (disambiguation) there is "A city in the Fullmetal Alchemist series." and that page doesn't have "Ishtar" on the page, just the same as the Ishtar in EVE Online. Nyx (NYX) disambig page refers to a character in Dota 2 and that doesn't appear in that article, and that same is true for the Warframe reference. It's clear that either you need to apply this rule to every single disambig page or let my links stay. HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
That some disambiguation pages contain errors is a poor excuse to ignore the disambiguation guidelines. These pages are navigational aides to help readers find content on the ambiguous term. If the linked article says nothing about the term, that is of no help to the reader. older ≠ wiser 02:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
You've missed the point. It isn't necessarily an error, and in adding the ships from EVE, is not an error. You also are not applying your rule evenly; you're not ""fixing"" everything, just what I've added. HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Well no, if the linked article does not mention the term, their is no reason for the entry. If there are entries on other pages like this, they similarly have no reason to be there. older ≠ wiser 02:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you think making a list article of the ships would be appropriate? HarryKernow (talk to me) 02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
If you think such a list article can pass WP:NOTABILITY for games, then why not. In general that implies there is some sort of coverage of the ships in reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Heavy Metal

Why did you delete my edits on heavy metal? A page doesn't have to have a link.

Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Errm, an entry on a disambiguation page does need to link to an article that mentions the term. older ≠ wiser 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if go to the Wikipedia page the Gorgeous Ladies of Wrestling Wikipedia page you will see that the heavy metal sisters are list in wikitable under alumni, if you go The Transformers Wikipedia episode guide or the page I listed you will see that season one does list an episode called heavy metal war. User:DavidgoodheartDavidgoodheart (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, there are two separate concerns. You only mentioned A page doesn't have to have a link, which I assumed referred to the Transformers entry (as seen in this edit or this one. In both cases, the linked article in the entry made no mention of the term which is one reason I removed it.
@Davidgoodheart: The other reason, as mentioned in my edit summary here, is that these are WP:Partial title matches. I see no indication that anyone would refer to either the episode or the wrestling sisters as simply "Heavy Metal". Also, in your latest series of edits, there should be only one blue link for each entry. older ≠ wiser 09:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Bkonrad. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Stockholm Syndrome disambiguation page

Hi, I was wondering why my links to artists and albums were removed, but the links to the artists and albums that were there before my edit stayed?108.36.82.37 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Because in a disambiguation page each entry only has one blue link: see WP:MOSDAB, so unfortunately your links were not needed. Thanks. PamD 07:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Ibn al-Jawzi

Contrary to your claims, uncontroversial moves can be done without prior discussion, so I don't see where you got the idea that a discussion AND consensus are needed for this particular move. A simple google search shows that "Ibn al-Jawzi" indeed refers to Abu-al-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi most of the time. If you are contesting this move, the onus is on you to provide evidence to the contrary. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that it's uncontroversial. I see references to various persons with "Ibn al-Jawzi" as part of their name in the top google search results, and the same in Google news and Google books. Perhaps some are the same person. I don't know. A full move discussion would more clearly establish whether the is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure...

Are you sure your edits to Matt Olsen (disambiguation) comply with our guidelines and conventions on disambiguation pages? Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reasonably so, yes. Something in particular troubling you? Basically this is a dab page for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you look at the dab pages for some of the topics listed there as well as the guidance at MOS:DABPRIMARY, When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. Similarly Matt Olson is a different spelling and strictly speaking is not ambiguous, but is similar enough to be confusing and thus included under see also per MOS:DABSEEALSO. older ≠ wiser 02:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sup

Hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie12 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Elk diambiguation

Der Bkonrad, I made some edits on elk disambiguation which you cancelled. Why?

1. It's almost only in US and parts of Canada that Cervus canadensis is called elk, in the rest of the world it's usually called Wapiti.

2.You write: Eurasian elk or moose (Alces alces), the largest extant species in the deer family Well, it's only one specie
Using US language it should be European moose, not Eurasian, not elk, right?

3. If you mention the specie Alces alces, why not the specie Alces americanus?

The linguistic and taxonomic references was given in my contribution

Oxford Dictionary

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

OTIS, Catalog of life


English, the common language separated by two countries ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torbjörn Sunde (talk • contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a prescribed format for WP:PRIMARY TOPICs as well as for disambiguation pages in general that you're edits did not follow in several respects. If y you think the page titled as elk should be renamed, please discuss rather than have the disambiguation page include commentary more appropriate for an article or make it look like these articles are titled other than what they are. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Names of literary works

Hi Bkonrad. I picked your name from here, looking at the level/ frequency of you participation (Also, as I am presently editing on literature pages, it resonated with Joseph Conrad). Could you please advise on the formatting of these titles, specifically with regards with the inclusion of the author's surname (Pasternak) vs full name (Evan Hunter)?. As a second question, do you feel that "(novella)" and "(novel)" would be sufficient differentiators? Perhaps @Neonorange: can also weigh in, given the considerable amount of MOS interventions. Thanks and regards to both, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Rui Gabriel Correia: See WP:BOOKDAB for specific guidance on how to disambiguate titles of articles about books. In general, the guidance suggests using only "(novel)" or "(novella)" etc. If further disambiguation is needed (i.e., there are multiple instances of a type that have the same title) then disambiguate using the author's surname. Only if there were two books with the same title and and same author surname would the given name be necessary. older ≠ wiser 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bkonrad:, Thanks for the prompt response. That was insightful, clear and to the point. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Angel

Thanks for correcting my edit. I have moved it to Fictional characters, because that is what it should be under, not books and comics.

Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_76&oldid=781714687"