User talk:DexDor/Archive 2012

January 2012

Hello, DexDor. You have new messages at Download's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Airport article

In reference to the edit summary there was nothing really wrong with the particular airport. I just thought that it looked better with the informational images. In fact it looks better with the one you moved to the top. Also a minor reason to remove the Chubu airport is to get rid of possible arguments over which airport is at the top. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well deck/Well dock

With some reservations your split out of modern military Well dock from the historic and traditional shipbuilding & nautical term Well deck looks pretty good. The reservation is centered on splintering. The commercial type similar to the amphibious ships appears to be a dying, at least not growing, breed partly due to labor and other issues in better developed ports and container ports going in almost everywhere. If you expect to see more than a stub "naval oddity" in design here your solution would give that room to grow. The two do need linkage as the origin of the military term was in WW II designs for amphibious ships with a very deep version, an extreme, of a well deck, particularly in the LSD type that grew into what you are now splitting out to "well dock" usage and something, in fact and design very different than a "well deck" of old. It should not be just naval if the commercial version of the wet well/well dock continues. That would be akin to "deck" and "naval deck" articles. Palmeira (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If, as the lede says, the traditional/military meanings are "entirely different" then they should be separate articles - WP is about subjects, not words. The commercial (baco) ship docks may not have much in common with the military ones (do they ballast the ships for use?); it could be just a See also link. Replacing an existing article with a different subject (even if related) is not the correct way to do things as it can make a mess of article history, talk page, interwiki links, inlinks etc - you should have created a new article for the traditional meaning and we could then have shuffled the articles around. Having said that, what you've put in looks good (e.g. well cited). DexDor (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that you "owned" the definition and article titled "well deck" that has over 100 years of usage and known to almost anyone with nautical experience. Perhaps you should read up on the history of amphibious craft, particularly the WW II era LSD to see how a modern ship inherited a term, at least in some circles, for something that is physically rather different. So, there was no "replacement" at all, just putting in the first meaning of the term as if someone had written about the third dictionary meaning of a word and then objects to its first and second being inserted! I also note, and have reverted, your changes in picture captions that are pertinent to the article and would help a reader with understand what well decks are in ship profiles and architecture. Palmeira (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I'm happy for the article at Well deck to be about the traditional meaning. The alternatives would be for it to be a dab page, about the modern military meaning or a mixture of both meanings (which, if they are entirely different, would fail WP:NOTDICDEF). AFAIK there are no synonyms for the traditional meaning so it probably makes sense for the modern meaning to use one of it's synonyms as title. DexDor (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We probably are in general agreement, though (before enough coffee) the bit about how I shouldn't have edited the article with the very well established definition set me off a bit. How about discussing this over in the well deck article talk page because I think it might be useful to any that may follow in the future. I am going to put some references there and also how I see the evolutionary tree from classical to today's naval usage. It is actually interesting I think and we can probably pin down a point where the physical structure began branching from the traditional structure. Hope to see you there. Palmeira (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting close to vandalism now. I will ask for other eyes on this subject. Yes, I am quite aware that clicking on thumbnails expand images. I am also well aware an image of a structure in the text, with explanation, helps those not familiar with such details understand the text. I am reverting you again and expect you to cease this stuff that has already been described on the related page by another as making "changes as a part of some type of battle"! Ever since I added the long term, traditional definition to "well deck" when it had only a modern take you have been engaged in some sort of battle. Enough. Palmeira (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this has been resolved by intervention of other editors after it was raised at WT:SHIPS. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia telephony

I reverted your move to an acronym. Only in the rarest of cases do we use acronyms as titles. Especially this one conveys nothing to a general audience. Please seek opinion on talk page first before exercising such drastic decisions. Kbrose (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

German Aircraft Data

Hey DexDor, I need help finding sources and page numbers for this data set on the German Luftwaffe. Any help would greatly be appreciated because I could really use it for some academic research. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_production_during_World_War_II

Frankiefuller (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)frankiefuller[reply]

Terminology

What a terminology category has to do with linguistics? Terminology categories are used for terms associated with any particular topic. Reverting your edits in Reserve Tranche Position and Financial Transactions Plan. For more info read the introduction of Category:Terminology Aravind V R (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The intro to the Terminology category says it's for articles discussing terminology (which is a subset of language) - that's precisely why these articles (which are about finance, not about language) shouldn't be in the Terminology category. That the article title is a term is irrelevant as articles should be categorised on their subject, not the form of their title. There are currently lots of articles incorrectly in the Terminology category (Wastewater for example). There are some notes about why incorrectly categorised articles can be a problem on my user page. DexDor (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Category:Terminology. These articles should be moved to Category:Terms rather than uncategorized altogether. Please do not remove any more. You will pretty nearly empty the category if you carry on and we will lose the information of what articles ought to be moved to Cat:Terms. Thanks. Spinning Spark 16:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that talk page. Unfortunately, a technical problem means I can't add to long discussions (unless I added a new section and then deleted the heading, which would confuse the edit history). Suffice to say, I think several editors in that discussion should read WP:NAD carefully. I haven't left articles "uncategorized altogether" (except once by mistake). I've already emptied several of these categories (as have other editors in the past - see Category talk:Terminology). I removed around 600 articles from Category:Aviation terminology including deleting (by PROD or changing to redirect) some and creating some new categories under Category:Aviation; not one of those articles should have been under Category:Language (incidentally, I was only challenged on one of those edits, but it turned out that that even the Aviation category wasn't appropriate for that article). What useful information are we losing if incorrect category tags are removed from an article ? The Wastewater article is currently in Category:Terminology, but the Groundwater and Drinking water articles aren't - do you think any of those 3 should be under Category:Language ? It might help to consider the difference between the Testicle article (which is about biology) and the Bollocks article (which is about language). DexDor (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not arguing that all of these are correctly categorised. What came out of the discussion was that there should be a category for terms. So what we should be doing is recategorising all these pages with a "terms" category. If you simply remove them from the "terminology" category, we lose the list of articles that need recategorising. Sorry, I cannot help it that you did not want to take part in the discussion, but it strikes me that there is a need for such a category given that the vast majority of entries are actually for terms. This will just keep on happening if a home isn't found for them. I don't know why you referred me to WP:NAD, I'm not suggesting creating a page for every possible term in every field, only to categorise the ones we already have. Spinning Spark 20:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles in the terms/terminology cats should not be under Category:Language at all - they should just be in the appropriate law/science/history etc cat. What's the point in moving them from one language cat to another ? DexDor (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be fixed by taking it out of category:Words? I really don't see why you are raising all this after the RfC has been closed. You should have done it at the time. Spinning Spark 23:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC, which IMO is rather muddled, doesn't explain exactly what the Terms cat is for - my guess is it's for articles _about_ words which aren't slang words (in which case Words is the correct parent cat). But, doesn't the Terms cat then just duplicate the existing Category:Words and phrases by language ? DexDor (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the debate was muddled, but the time to unmuddle it would have been while it was still open, and you admit yourself that you saw the debate. It is at least clear that you should not continue to empty these categories - if anything you should be restoring so that something can be done to recategorise. It really is not going to achieve much to argue about it with me, if you want that changed the onus is on you to start a new debate (please let me know if you do). Anyway, I do not agree that "Terms" is the same as "Words and phrases by language". It is more like "Words and phrases by discipline". Spinning Spark 11:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each edit I make to an article is intended to improve the encyclopedia. If you disagree with any of my edits you're (of course) welcome to revert (with an explanation). My edits include improving categorization, replacing duplicate articles by redirects, PRODing etc which sometimes results in a category being emptied and hence deleted. The Fishing trawler article is about fishing trawlers, not about the word fishing trawler. Do you think it is correct that articles Fishing trawler, School meal etc are under Category:Language ? Unless you answer that question this discussion isn't going to make any progress as I don't know what part of WP:NAD or categorization you have a problem with. As for the name and purpose of Category:Terms - it would be better for the discussion to take place on the talk page of that category (or CfD etc) so other editors can be involved. DexDor (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup-To Crossposting

on 18 April 2012 you removed Followup-To and put in a Redirected Crossposting. there is still multiple links in the Crossposting article to Followup-To. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.93.114 (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, fixed. DexDor (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mid-air collisions of military aircraft

Category:Mid-air collisions of military aircraft, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcut

Please don't change the existing citation style with discussing it first. This is clearly against WP:CITE. Thank you. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: My edit(s) [1] didn't alter an existing reference; they changed a link to a reference. DexDor (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy applies to that just the same. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited Woodcut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lucas Cranach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page

Hello, DexDor. When you moved Militant to a new title and then changed the old title from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Militant" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, when you redirected HLOS, you created a double redirect at HLOS (disambiguation). Please do not change redirects without checking for and fixing incoming links. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]