User talk:Dgtsyb/Archives/2011/04
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dgtsyb. 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. |
Gerber format
Regarding this edit, links that are already linked in the article body, as these ones are, are not normally inserted in "see also". Perhaps you will self-revert this now. Regards, SpinningSpark 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the "see also" section should be a useful summary of the links directly related to the article... But, knock yourself out, you seem to want to own the page anyway. — Dgtsyb (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of owning the page, it is a matter of following the Manual of Style. SpinningSpark 09:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I agree with Dgtsyb that the "See also" section should be a useful summary. However, the style manual clearly states that only the first occurrence of a subject should be linked. I think we should follow the style manual, even if we do not like it; a summary is useful. Dgtsyb, we may try to gather consensus to change the style manual, but this will be an uphill battle, I am afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karloman2 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I had exactly the same problem when I first started writing on Wikipedia - trying to make "see also" comprehensive. This is a misunderstanding of what "see also" is supposed to be, which is to link things which could, or should, be discussed in the article but which the editor does not have the time or ability to include. In theory, a perfect article, when fully expanded, may not have anything in "see also" at all. If you want to include a durable set of links in an article, there are other ways of doing it. A list can be included within the article body as is done at filter (signal processing). Another way is to place a navigation template at the foot of the article as is done at technology. A navigation template for "printed circuits", for instance, would be useful on a large number of other articles as well as Gerber format. While the normal place for navigation templates is the foot of the article, there are other possibilities, such as electrostatics which has one in the lede. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Place and route still has nothing to do with Gerber. — Dgtsyb (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest, I had exactly the same problem when I first started writing on Wikipedia - trying to make "see also" comprehensive. This is a misunderstanding of what "see also" is supposed to be, which is to link things which could, or should, be discussed in the article but which the editor does not have the time or ability to include. In theory, a perfect article, when fully expanded, may not have anything in "see also" at all. If you want to include a durable set of links in an article, there are other ways of doing it. A list can be included within the article body as is done at filter (signal processing). Another way is to place a navigation template at the foot of the article as is done at technology. A navigation template for "printed circuits", for instance, would be useful on a large number of other articles as well as Gerber format. While the normal place for navigation templates is the foot of the article, there are other possibilities, such as electrostatics which has one in the lede. Hope that helps. SpinningSpark 17:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I agree with Dgtsyb that the "See also" section should be a useful summary. However, the style manual clearly states that only the first occurrence of a subject should be linked. I think we should follow the style manual, even if we do not like it; a summary is useful. Dgtsyb, we may try to gather consensus to change the style manual, but this will be an uphill battle, I am afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karloman2 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- It is not a matter of owning the page, it is a matter of following the Manual of Style. SpinningSpark 09:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
signaling
Just a quick note after your revert of another editor's update to the SS7 page. You state in the summary edit that "(two l's is correct)", I'd just like to point out that 1 l is also correct. Its just a question of US versus UK english and I believe (from memory without checking) the WP standard is US english unless the page is specifically local in nature (ie UK/Australian/Canadian/etc). Not that I'm going to revert - since I dont really mind either way personally. But its the stuff of revert wars. beardybloke (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Even the ANSI standards spell it Signalling Connection Control Part and Signalling System No. 7. This is a little different than the regular use of signaling, particularly where it is used in the titles or names of the protocols. — Dgtsyb (talk) 10:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)