Jump to content

User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2015/Nov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Medical Assistant (Royal Navy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Heligoland Bight. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


Salem witch trials

No just WP:BOLD. Some of the names were so generic (Mary Parker, Alice Parker, etc.) they required dabs and others had/have no articles (i.e. remain redlinks), so consistency was the basic reasoning. I didn't know about Deliverance Dane as I already have more than 1200 articles on my watchlist (mostly DOYs) or what I/we should do about it. Yours, Quis separabit? 10:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

I noticed one of the recent redirects you created needed to be "patrolled" and was mildly surprised, having seen you pop up on my watchlist every now and then, always making good edits. I looked into your edit history a bit and everything looked as I'd assumed it would, so I've added the autopatrolled 'right' to you account. Let me know if you don't want it for whatever reason. Next paragraph is the generic, templated message:

Hi Colonies Chris, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didnt know such a right existed. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to October 14 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • fifty-pence coin]], which replaces, over the following years, the British [[ten-shilling]] note]], in anticipation of the [[Decimal Day|decimalization of the British currency]] in [[1971]], and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Duncan Renaldo filmography

Thank you for your good faith edit on Duncan Renaldo filmography. I have restored the publisher links you removed under the References section. Please don't remove again, either on this article or others. Not only is linking the publisher's Wikipedia article correct, but it is often expected and requested in reviews.— Maile (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've fallen foul of this kind of thing myself, a blind adherence to a script. Probably best not to use it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: this has nothing to do with scripts - your intervention is not helpful. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Ironic, looks like your intervention is not helpful either. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
@Maile66: Please give me an example of these links being requested in a review, so that I can correct the misinformed person who's asking for them. There is rarely any value in linking to a publisher; that's why, for example, the guidelines at Template:Citation#Publisher say:

publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant.

(my italics)

The point being that wikilinking the publisher should only be done in exceptional cases where it is of special relevance, not routinely; the purpose of a citation is to allow the reader to locate the text that's being referenced; a publisher wikilink does not help with that. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
"if relevant" is as about as subjective as it gets. Better you stop unlinking these things and do some constructive. There is no damage to Wikipedia when linking publishers. Spend your time more wisely. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Please think twice before trying to mandate your interpretation of how we should link things. I don't recall seeing you active at FAC or FLC so why you're trying to push your own perspective is beyond me and others. Please refrain from intervening in such a manner in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor fixes?

I don't see this as "minor fixes", but some useful copyediting mixed in with changes to a consistent referencing style. Can you explain why you wished to remove every single publisher field from the article? Any why you changed other fields from correct values to incorrect ones? Relentlessly (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's 'minor fixes' because there's no change to the article content, just various forms of cleanup. The removal of the 'publisher' parameter is in accordance with the guidelines at Template:Citation#Publisher - it doesn't provide anything useful to the reader who's wanting to use the reference to check a fact. Which fields do you feel I changed incorrectly? Colonies Chris (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)'
The ones that suggested the official Giro d'Italia website was actually the La Gazzetta website, for instance. Yes, they are on the same domain, but no, they are plainly separate websites. Your edit plainly did not comply with the above guideline because nowhere in that guideline does it say the publisher name should be removed. At a push the ProCyclingStats changes were correct. And changing a citation style used consistently throughout an article is not a minor fix in my book. If you can't check the "minor edit" box, it's probably not reasonable to describe it as "minor". Relentlessly (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
This was not a mistake. Anyone who clicked on the 'Giro d'Italia' links in those references would have gone to our article on the race; the reference is to statements which appear in a section of the website of the Gazzetta dello Sport, so that's where the link needs to go (if the link is needed at all). As for 'publisher', why this resistance to the removal of something that is no use to our readers? We don't just throw in random information and links because they're available; we select what's useful - that's why the guidelines recommend omitting it. Suppose, for example, the Gazzetta dello Sport were taken over by a different publisher tomorrow - would you go back and change all the publisher references? Of course not, because they have no value, whether they have the present or the previous publisher. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Please stop doing this Chris, you're usually quite a helpful editor, but since you've now been advised at least twice, you should actually pack it in and do something constructive instead of this disruptive editing. Your own perception of "value" isn't necessarily what the rest of Wikipedia wants to see, stop denying information. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Your intervention is unwelcome and unhelpful. Please stay off my page. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You are of course welcome to omit the publisher parameter from articles you write. I have been specifically asked at FAC and FLC to include them, so I do. I cannot for the life of me work out who or what benefits by your coming into an article that you have never previously edited and altering the citation style. As to the question of the Gazzetta website: there is of course a close link between the Giro and the Gazzetta (RCS Sport), hence the shared domain. But the websites are entirely different. I reverted your change earlier, incorporating several helpful corrections. Relentlessly (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you please give examples of when you've been asked to add the publisher parameter? There needs to be any discussion with any reviewer who is asking for this to be added; it's contrary to the guidelines for citations and, above all, useless. No reviewer should be making FA/GA status conditional on this.
The document you are quoting in those references is produced by the Giro d'Italia but hosted on the Gazzetta website. The question is whether a link to the Gazzetta article, or a link to the Giro article is more useful to anyone trying to check a reference to that document - I would think the answer is neither. In any case, would it not be better to link directly to that document on the Giro website rather through an intermediary? Colonies Chris (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Relentlessly, I can't quite see what the problem is in Chris's changes, which inter alia seem to be designed to future-proof the article's publisher field. Tony (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well I suppose entirely removing a field does protect against the possibility of it ever changing in future. I'm not convinced that is very helpful, but there we go. Relentlessly (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I am thoroughly confused by your question. Relentlessly (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Which question? About the Giro regulations? If the regs have to be referenced via the Gazzetta website, then most useful way of setting the citation parameters would be for the website to be the Gazzetta and the publisher to be the Giro - but not wikilinked. The Gazetta and the Giro and RCS Sport may be closely connected, but they're not the same as each other. Not wikilinked, because a link to our article about the Giro isn't going to help anyone checking a reference. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop!

Chris, please stop changing all sports' year spans from 4 digits to two. The long-standing, long-debated consensus for sports year spans is four digits. I strongly implore you to visit WT:CFB. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I echo this request. Please take a look at WP:DATERANGE, specifically: "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons.[9] This format is also indicated for date ranges appearing in reference citations if any dates (of publication, access, archival) are in YYYY-MM-DD format, because the range in question could thus be easily mistaken for a yyyy-mm date: XYZ Annual Review, 2005–2006. Accessed 2013-04-07. but not XYZ Annual Review, 2005–06. Accessed 2013-04-07. Another case is in tables (and lists the items of which begin with date ranges) in which some but not all date ranges span a century (sortability of a date column in a table also requires a consistent format for all entries: 2005–07 will unintentionally sort before 2005–2006)."
My changes were in line with the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Chronological_items

Ranges

  • A pure year–year range is written using an en dash and the range's end year is usually abbreviated to two digits:
  • Periods straddling two different years, including sports seasons, are generally written with the range notation (2005–06).
  • A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons.
(extracts; my emphasis)
Firstly, the MoS only says may use 8-digit format if it is a range of sports seasons - not must. Secondly, the ranges for baseball managers may or may not correspond to sports seasons - it's hardly unknown for managers to be sacked mid-season. Thirdly, space is at a premium in templates, so where there is no ambiguity, why not abbreviate to 2 digits? Fourthly, please provide a link to the discussion where this consensus was reached; WT:CFB just documents your immediate concerns, not the actual consensus. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 619 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 23]] – [[Pope Boniface V]] succeeds [[Pope Adeodatus I|Adeodatus I]] as the 69th pope]] of Rome.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Brackenbot

Hi Chris, ignore BrackenBot. Regards. --Joskinfieds (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Redbone (Ethnicity)

Thanks for the edits! This is my labor of love. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.52.23 (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Celestyn Czaplic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish–Lithuanian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Metalmania
added links pointing to Massacre (band), Death (band) and Pain (band)
Resurrection Fest
added links pointing to H2O (band) and Architects (band)
American League
added a link pointing to Cleveland Blues
Cedar Rapids Kernels
added a link pointing to Miguel González (baseball)
Exit (festival)
added a link pointing to Virus (band)
List of Major League Baseball players (He–Hi)
added a link pointing to Boston Braves
McKeesport Tubers (baseball)
added a link pointing to Boston Braves

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris/Archive/2015/Nov&oldid=1083949416"