User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 84

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bkonrad. 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.

Archive 80

←

Archive 82

→

Your reverting of my edits on SCP page.

You have twice reverted my attempts to create a "Religious Group/Organisation" subsection on SCP. Would you care to talk about it on Talk:SCP? I've already created a section for this dispute.

86.132.149.100 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I have listed our dispute on Wikipedia:3O and created a subsection for it on Talk:SCP.

86.132.149.100 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Reference

You replied that existence is not the only criteria for an entry and I would like to inform you that I am aware of this and there is an article that mentions this Broadway and it is Washington State Route 99 (Proof) Thank you for your time --97.113.175.151 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hatnotes and link to disambiguation page

Your continued contribution to WP is noticed. And I would like to share a feedback on two methodological aspects of WP in English that create difficulties: geographical article names and hatnotes. Concerning the articles of my creation especially on Canadian rivers (especially Quebec), I always check if the name of the watercourse (or the lake) is duplicated in Canadian toponymy. If so, I usually add the name of the downstream river (eg Bras Coupé Lake (Opawica River)), to distinguish it from the other toponyms for which an article will eventually be created.

In fact, there is a second river in Quebec called "Bras Coupé Lake". In short, especially on geography articles, it is important to have a methodology that takes homonymous titles into account because of the duplicate toponyms. In the past, I often had to flip (or correct) titles of articles in geography to return to the original title on WP.

On the other hand, hatnotes in WP articles greatly facilitate navigation on homonymous topics. I often use them in WP searches. It is unfortunate that these hatnotes are erased on the WP project in English. WP must be an effective navigation tool. And the breadth of the WP encyclopedia requires an effective methodology to spot among the homonymous subjects.

Thank you for considering these comments.Veillg1 4:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC).

@Veillg1: The existence of other rivers and lakes (or any topic for that matter) that have no articles in Wikipedia (or even articles that so much as WP:DABMENTION them) indicates disambiguation is not necessary — at least not until such articles or mentions are created. In short, the scope of disambiguation is existing articles within the English Wikipedia — not the Internet and not the world at large. Similarly, WP:NAMB indicates we should not add unnecessary hatnotes to articles where the titles are not ambiguous. Also, in cases where a hatnote is appropriate, a link to the disambiguation page should always use the form that includes "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect. The redirect should be created when needed. See WP:INTDABLINK.

However, beyond that, could you perhaps at least TRY to make the disambiguation pages you create or the entries you add to existing pages conform to WP:MOSDAB. You tend to use bolding inappropriately (only the initial line on a dab page typically has any bolding), and to overlink the entries (each disambiguation entry should have only one navigable blue link — and that blue link should support the claimed usage), and to produce overly long descriptions (the description only needs to be long enough to allow a reader to distinguish the entry from other entries). older ≠ wiser 13:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Veillg1: I received your email, but I would prefer any discussion to occur on wiki. You wrote Following the creation of the "Lake Winds (Opawica River Tributary)" on WP, I noticed that you changed the title to "Winds Lake". You have also changed several other stream articles titles that are of my design. It is not unreasonable to believe that your goal is simplicity. However, this change (and the others as well) causes a major methodological problem on WP. For example, there are five water bodies in Quebec, whose French designation is "Lac des Vents" (English: Lake of Winds) and more than three other water bodies in Quebec using the word "Vents" (English: Winds). I'm not sure what you're referring to. There is no Lake Winds (Opawica River Tributary) article nor any at Winds Lake or Lake Winds for that matter. As I wrote above, on the English Wikipedia we do not preemptively disambiguate article titles (at least not in general). This has been discussed many many times in the past, although perhaps you may not be aware of these discussions. WP:AT and WP:DAB are the guidelines that establish when to add disambiguating phrases to an article title. We disambiguate titles based on the need to disambiguation existing articles. We do not disambiguate articles based on only content in external sources. If there is later a need to disambiguate the terms, WP:RM is a relatively simple process when the moves are uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Oups! Sorry! In my comment, I wanted to refer to the article "Des Vents Lake". Generally, I appreciate the contributions of other contributors to the articles of my writing, however we have to discuss especially changes of WP article title and "hatnotes".

Title changes Title changes in WP articles create serious classification and navigation problems. Let's put in perspective that I conceive many articles on water bodies and rivers, especially those in Quebec. Before choosing a geographical article title I rigorously check if there are no other similar or similar toponyms. If so, I choose a composite title so that it is sufficiently descriptive and that it is harmonized with the titles of the same subject in the other languages.

For example, the title "Lake Ventadour (La Tuque)" has been changed to "Lake Ventadour". There are others "Lake Ventadour" in Quebec. This creates confusion for the reader of the project in English, but also with other languages that do not use the same way to choose titles. We must return to the original title in English. In short, the names chosen initially are suitable.

Question on Lake Titles in English: Should the term "Lake" be before or after the lake name? Ex .: "White Lake" or "Lake White". Both versions are in use in English; which is the most appropriate in English? Thank you in advance for enlightening me on this point.

Hatnotes: In French and in other languages, "hatnotes" are widely used. Hyperlinks help make the content more accessible to the reader. They facilitate navigation on WP especially geographically, especially when the place names refer to subjects of various meanings. Unfortunately, in English, "hatnotes" are often erased. In English, this situation complicates my life (as well as many readers) in my cross searches. In sum, there is no good reason to remove the "hatnotes" on the project in English. Those who do not use these hyperlinks ("hatnotes") do not suffer any negative effects. I strongly recommend keeping the use of hatnotes. Veillg1 15:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC).

@Veillg1: Regarding titles, once again, unless there is EXISTING content that supports the need for disambiguation, we always assign the base name as the title BEFORE applying any parenthetical disambiguation. As other articles are created (or updated), the pages can then be moved and retitled as needed, but ONLY when there is content in an exiting article that supports the usage. Your practices have resulted in MANY irregularities that I have been attempting to rectify. For example, you created an article at Ventadour Lake (Ventadour River), but there is nothing at Ventadour Lake. What possible benefit could there be for a reader searching for Ventadour Lake? The same applies for the article you created at Lake Ventadour (La Tuque), which I recently moved to Lake Ventadour and which did not exist before I moved it. As for whether "Lake" goes before or after the name, that is mostly just a matter of how it is most commonly referenced in reliable sources. In general, I think "Lake XXX" is more idiomatic, at least in N. Am. English -- practice may vary based on regional language differences though. If reliable sources do not provide a basis for preferring one or the other, then a disambiguation page at one or the other title with a redirect from the other might be best -- although if there are only two entries, a hatnote on each article might be sufficient. As a suggestion, if you see that there are multiple rivers or lakes with the same name and you plan to write articles for them all, then you might want to first update applicable list article (or perhaps in the case of a river system, the parent river article) to include a mention of the river or lake (or whatever) and then there is valid link for an entry on a disambiguation page.

PS -- to emphasize -- please do not ever create an article with parenthetical disambiguation (or comma disambiguation) where the base name is a red link. There must always be something at the base name BEFORE even considering whether any form of disambiguation is needed. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

As a side note when disambiguation is needed, in general a lake is not a tributary to a river. It may be part of the watershed of a river and it may be a source for a river, but in general, only other streams are considered as tributaries.

Regarding hatnotes, practices in other language Wikipedias are mostly irrelevant on English Wikipedia where there applicable guidelines (e.g., WP:Hatnote). In particular, we don't add unnecessary hatnotes to articles (WP:NAMB). older ≠ wiser 14:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Tributaries - Thank you for your feedback on tributaries and lakes. I take note of it in the future design.

@Bkonrad: Titles for geographic names - Our discussion of article titles of geographical features is interesting. Without doubting your good intention, your titration methodology raises a significant disagreement versus mine. For my part, before choosing a Canadian geographical article title, I check with the Atlas of Canada (Department of Natural Resources Canada) and with the "Commission de toponymie du Québec" (translation: "Quebec Geographical Names Board") about the existence of identical names for streams or bodies of water. Consequently, I choose an appropriate title in case of disambiguation.

My understanding of your methodology is that you are banking on the notion of the simplicity of the titles by referring to WP policy on titling (which should be updated especially in terms of geographical homonyms). Your concept of simplicity of titles is that if there are no other identical titles already published on WP, the simple title prevails; and this without regard to the fact that identical titles exist on WP in other languages or exist in the tasks or exist on other mediums or that articles should possibly be created on the geographical elements having the same topographical name.

So far, several changes of title of the articles of my creation on WP generate erroneous pages of "redirection"; in addition, many corrections of these modified titles are expected in the future with the addition of new articles on geographical elements bearing the same toponym. So far many modified titles have had to be brought back to the original version. Regrettably, these corrections of titles make the articles' discussion pages more cumbersome and in many cases create redirect pages that prove to be wrong because they are directed to modified titles and are not necessarily directed to the disambiguation pages.

In short, a new methodological perspective is needed on the titling of articles on watercourses (and water bodies) homonymous on WP in English. It is necessary to adopt a titling methodology that anticipates the creation of articles on homonymous toponyms. The methodology of adding the upstream watercourse or geographic area to the title seems to me to be common sense. The current title titling rule of homonymous geographical elements of WP (based on simple titles):

applies better to a small encyclopedia that does not involve (or little) homonymy;
harmonizes very badly with the addition of many new writings on homonymous geographical elements;
generates many past and future corrections, weighing down the history page of each article concerned and the discussion pages;

In short, the simple titling of homonymous geographical articles raises laudable criticisms and creates many irritants among users and designers of geographical articles. In a vision of efficiency of navigation in this vast encyclopedia whose editorial content is in full development, a revision of the rules of titling of homonymous geographical articles is necessary. I propose you to pool our energies to modernize the rules for titling homonymous geographical articles.User:Veillg1 ≠ User talk:Veillg1 17:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Veillg1:If you're looking to change disambiguation practices on English Wikipedia, you'll need to establish consensus at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation and then likely you'll need to propose specific changes to WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. However, I do not see that the current standards need to be adjusted. I think your practices need to adjust to accommodate the current standards. But please feel free to start a discussion with the disambiguation project participants.

I can appreciate you may have long-term objectives with regards to article creation. However, disambiguation applies to existing content. And as I said above, your practice has repeatedly resulted in situations where you had created an article with a disambiguated title where the base term was a red link. That is profoundly unhelpful. When titling an article, you should ALWAYS examine whether there is an existing article occupying the title. If not, then the new article gets the base name until such time that disambiguation with another existing article is required. We do not in general pre-disambiguate article titles. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Bkonrad: Thank you for your feedback on the process of initiating a discussion to eventually change the rule on disambiguation on English Wikipedia. I certainly intend to initiate this debate in the best interest of Wikipedia users. The current old rule creates temporary titles that will eventually be corrected (possibly back to the original title) when articles are written on identical place-names. Before choosing a title, I always check the directories of place names. In addition, my unpublished drafts are harmonized with future article titles according to my list of geographical articles to be drafted; but the changes in published titles bog down my plan and greatly affect my editorial productivity.

The old rule currently in force gives me disadvantages of navigation and creation; the same is true of the other editors. Thus, with these titles corrections, users end up with many inappropriate redirects, a heavy history with several changes and difficulty creating new articles with homonymous titles. In addition, the simple title does not allow the reader to locate the stream on the planet.

The notion of creating titles only according to the existing articles is inappropriate in a large encyclopedia in development, especially when we know in advance the other identical place-names which will undoubtedly be the object of an article. In the meantime, editors and readers are losing effectiveness. Anticipation of future titles in geographical article design is required.User:Veillg1 ≠ User talk:Veillg1 21:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move: Pączki → Paczki

Greetings! I have started a requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki#Requested move 2 January 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks — Kpalion^(talk) 16:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Transformation vs Transformation (disambiguation)

I recently moved the disambiguation content of the transformation page to its counterpart with disambiguation in the name transformation (disambiguation), swapping the redirect between them too. I see that you have reverted this. While I have active on Wikipedia for some time, I know that I still have much to learn. The change I made seemed logical, so could you help me understand which policy I contravened in doing this? Thanks. Davidjcmorris Talk 17:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Davidjcmorris: Hallo David, there seem to be two problems with your move:

It's quite OK for a disambiguation page to be at the base title, not at "... (disambiguation)", in the case, like this one, where there is no Primary Topic for the title. See MOS:DABPAGENAME
But in any case, the page should not have been "moved" by cut-and-paste. Please use the "Move" tab, or the Requested Moves process, if you want to change the title of a page, so that its history is preserved. Less important for a dab page than for a content page, but still worth keeping track of who did what, when. Thanks. PamD 18:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the promptness and quality of your feedback. My understanding is much clearer now. Davidjcmorris Talk 20:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Is "pączki" an English word?

Hi, thank you for your participation in the recent requested move discussion at Talk:Pączki. I've posted a follow-up question to better understand what the result of that discussion means not only for the article's title, but also for its content. I'd be very greatful, if you could reply at Talk:Pączki#Follow-up: is "pączki" an_English_word? — Kpalion^(talk) 18:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Rehan

Hello, can I ask the reason for your revision of Rehan? Gherkinmad (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 00:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Popular vote

By eliminating the U.S. use of popular vote, which is not covered by the text as you reverted it, the page has a very serious shortcoming. "Indirect election" is a specialist's term which few will recognize. deisenbe (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The US Electoral College It is covered in both indirect election and popular vote (representative democracy). There are many such examples of indirect elections around the world and it is not the purpose of a disambiguation page to enumerate all of them. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

News and notes: Communication is key

In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Title of article "Aigle River (Doda Lake)"

@Bkonrad. The title "Aigle River (Doda Lake)" has been changed to "Aigle River". In Quebec, there are 3 rivers named "rivière de l'Aigle" (English: Eagle River) and 3 others named "rivière des Aigles" (English: River of Eagles). The choice of the original title in English "Eagle River (Doda Lake)" takes into account the existence of several homonyms. Note that I always do this check before choosing a title for a geographic article. Unfortunately, the system does not allow me to correct the title of this article. Thank you in advance for reversing to the original title.Veillg1 13:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC).

Veillg1 Are there any existing articles in Wikipedia that support the claim of multiple rivers with the name? Until there is, there is nothing to correct. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

older ≠ wiser Thanks for the change to title "Aigle River (Doda Lake)".Veillg1 13:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC).

Title of article "Lake Ventadour (La Tuque)"

@Bkonrad. The title "Lake Ventadour (La Tuque)" has been changed to "Lake Ventadour" on English Wikipedia. In Québec, there are 3 rivers names "Lake Ventadour" (English: Ventadour Lake). Two of them has an article on English Wikipedia ("Ventadour Lake (Ventadour River)" and "Lake Ventadour (La Tuque)"). Please note that I carefully select title of geographic articles on Quebec before posting an article on Wikipedia. I checked particularly the harmonization with the list of rivers of Quebec published on English Wikipedia and the existence of the same article on other languages. The same topic may exist on Wikidata, list of rivers or list of lakes on Wikipedia, same article existing in other languages. Often, the changes concerning original geographical titles (lakes and rivers) on Quebec create confusion and it is complicating a lot my writing. Changing the title only on the logic that there is no other identical title on English Wikipedia is clearly insufficient. I would appreciate if you reverse it to the title to "Ventadour Lake (La Tuque)" or "Lake Ventadour (La Tuque)".Veillg1 1:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC

I'd appreciate it if you would follow standard naming conventions and article disambiguation guidelines and not create titles with unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. Especially in cases where there is nothing at the base name. older ≠ wiser 02:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this discussion on titles of articles with identical place names. It should be noted that there is a reason for the use of parentheses in a title related to a toponym; the parentheses are required to distinguish identical place names even if there is no English Wikipedia article yet about the contain in parentheses. Concerning "lake Ventadour" articles, I followed the standards of Wikipedia.

The strict application on English Wikipedia is based on rules of disambiguation, rather than rules of homonymy. Let's put in perspective that the current standard naming conventions and article disambiguation guidelines are applied rigorously by some Wikipedians on English Wikipedia; but very controversial among other Wikipedians because of the strict application.

The current rules do not take into account the existence of identical place-names which are not yet the subject of an article on English Wikipedia; this simple logic is clearly insufficient for an encyclopedia in accelerated development. The current policy generates simple temporary titles on English Wikipedia that will eventually be changed when articles are published on identical place-names.

Current regulations about naming articles raise frustration among Wikipedians, inconclusive debates and a lot of wasted time. Numerous title changes for the same article create confusion and add to the history of articles. In addition, unfortunately titles on Wikipedia in other languages are not harmonized with English project.

A modernization of the rules on English Wikipedia is necessary especially about creation of title of articles on identical toponyms. I offer you to join our energy to update the Wikipedia standard naming conventions and articles disambiguation guidelines.Veillg1 05:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Veillg1 As I mentioned before, if you want to change the current naming convention, please open a discussion (somewhere other than my talk page) and establish consensus for such changes. Until then, you should follow the current guidelines.

To be clear, your practices have very bad results with regards to readers. For example, many of the pages that you create with parenthetical disambiguation have no entry at all at the base name. Thus readers searching for the base name will encounter a page does not exist situation (which is to be expected since readers are unlikely to be very familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions). When you created Lake Ventadour (La Tuque) on 11 January 2014‎, there was nothing at Lake Ventadour until I moved the article there on 14 January 2018. As I explained previously, 1) ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS place a new article at the base name unless there are other topics with existing coverage in Wikipedia. Wikipedia disambiguation pages DO NOT disambiguate the world at large. They do not disambiguate content of external sources. Disambiguation pages are simply meant to help readers locate currently existing content within Wikipedia.

And, when you do add entries to disambiguation pages (or create a new disambiguation page) could you at least TRY to follow formatting and linking guidelines at WP:MOSDAB? older ≠ wiser 16:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Republic

There is a well expressed criticism of the first two paragraphs on the Talk page. I fully agree with those criticisms. I think you should restore my edits as greater improvements. You are welcome to add your own improvements. But the current composition is utterly horrible written by someone with a political agenda to promote and amateur understanding of the topic. If you can not restore my edits then at least post the article with some kind of warning, please. It is an embarrassing sample of Wikipedia.DHT863 (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

article: "Republic (disambiguation)"

Sir, these are minor edits. You are free to make corrections as you see fit. But please do not reverse someone else's hard work but build upon their efforts. We need to work together for improvements. Small edits add up to objectivity, universality, and neutral point of view. ---DHT863 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)