Jump to content

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58→Archive 60

The Signpost: 29 April 2013

Disco (disambiguation)

Please stop adding entries to Disco (disambiguation) that are not appropriate per WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

AmericanDad

Not that everyone else involved in the discussion was above reproach at all times either, but I'm rather bothered by the tone that AD chose to adopt, both during the discussion and in situations not immediately related to it. I guess my question to you is whether you feel we should pursue some level of action with regards to this, or leave it be at this point. Thanks for your input. Doniago (talk) 00:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer not to have any further interactions. older ≠ wiser 01:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair 'nuff. Doniago (talk) 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
As I know you've had dealings with them within the past month, I'm notifying you that I've opened an ANI filing regarding AD86's conduct. Doniago (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Alright - What do you want

Let me tell you one thing - What you Americans this not the truth.

I'm Gonna have this page contain correct info. Lets see how your vested interest will stop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.206.5 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess you like it?

I really can't see how ceramics refers mostly to any of those; it's ambiguous and I'm not even sure what I believe "ceramics" means any more. This stuff is complicated, man. So the disambiguation page seemed best to me; I guess you approve? Red Slash 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you're older != wiser?? Ahh, that's how I vaguely recognized your username! Red Slash 18:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AA may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

Avatar

At Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic for Avatar? I've made some noises about what I think you're saying, even though I said I'd let you answer for yourself. Care to clear that up? Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2013

DAB

Hi, you may wish to give your opinion here.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2013

To restore your energy after spending time and energy researching Talk:Echo (phenomenon)#Requested move, User:Davidwr has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You said "No, piped links should not go in the initial position-- if piping is necessary, it should go in the description", but where does it say that? If this be true, then I guess I'll have to change everything I've thrown up on disambiguation pages relating to runes so that people won't become confused.

All I know is that the bare minimum you're doing to make these conform to whatever rule or idea sucks.

— Espreon (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

@Espreon: There is well-established guidance for how to format disambiguation pages. See WP:MOSDAB. When you edit a disambiguation page, a page notice gives an abbreviated form of these, including the instruction to not pipe the links. There are two ways of handling similar entries. 1) Place unlinked form using the ambiguous term in the initial position and use description to link to the actual article 2) Create a redirect for the form using the ambiguous term and place unlinked mention of the actual target article in the description. The intent is that users should have a cue as to what article they will be arriving at. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, so would something like the following be all right?
"Ac (rune) (ᚪ), a rune of the Anglo-Saxon fuþorc that continues the function of the Elder Fuþark rune ansuz"
— Espreon (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
@Espreon: Yes, that would be good. older ≠ wiser 17:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks.
By the way, at OS, you changed it so that it says Old English ōs is cognate with Æsir, but I find this a bit awkward given that ōs is a singular and that æsir is a plural; the nominative singular of æsir, and thus the direct Old Norse cognate of ōs is áss. It would be nice if you fixed this somehow.
— Espreon (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how. In the original languages these may have had some meaning, but to me, they are all have a uniform "unknown thing"-ness to them. I based the description on information in the article, which is not always very clear for non-specialists. older ≠ wiser 10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I suppose it could be changed to something like:
"Ōs, in Old English denoting a god in Anglo-Saxon paganism, cognate with Old Norse áss, thus related to æsir"
What say you?
— Espreon (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think there already is an entry for Ōs and in general the description is kept brief to only what is needed to distinguish the entry from others. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I guess I'll just have it say something like "related to æsir"... I forgot about that option.
— Espreon (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 June 2013

Wing and Wings disambig

Hi Bkonrad, You recently reverted some changes I made to the Wing and Wings disambiguation pages. I agree with you that we should treat searches for plural and singular noun forms the same, and I can see why you think my change interfered with this. But if you take a closer look you'll see that this was not the case. If you look through the results on the page, the majority of them are not simple nouns that can be written in either form (wing or wings), but rather proper nouns for which only one form is valid. We know that a user who types "wing" is not searching for Wings (band) or WINGs or "Wings" (Live song), and equally, we know that a user searching who types "wings" is not looking for Anna Wing or Toby Wing or Wing (singer). As for those words which can be written in plural or singular form, I've added those few to both pages. If I've missed one on the plural page, just let me know, or of course you can just add it there yourself. --Xiaphias (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

There might perhaps be a rationale for splitting the pages, but your edits also introduced numerous issues with regards to how disambiguation pages are to be structured and formatted. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, could you be a little more helpful here? If you would just explain what these issues are I will happily address them. I know it's easier to just click the "undo" button but I've explained the rationale for the split and unless you have a reason not to split them I'm going to go ahead and keep it that way--Xiaphias (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC
For the record, you may wish to consult WP:DPAGE which plainly states that "Editorial judgement should be used in deciding whether to combine terms in the ways described above [which includes combining plural and singular forms]. If a combined disambiguation page would be inconveniently long, it may be better to split the disambiguation page into separate pages." I've acted in accordance with that policy to make the overly long combined page more manageable and easier for our users to navigate, which was my only intent. If you can't spare the time to explain the reason for reverting my edits then I would politely ask that you refrain from doing so in the future. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Pir (Hinduism)

Why will you not allow the Hindu title Pir to also be known on Wikipedia? It is well know and every other meaning for it ks their so why not Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.131.10 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no article (on wikipedia) that I'm aware of that supports the usage. Disambiguation pages are not collections of dictionary definitions or foreign language glossaries. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

thanks

later, link was made, you hate a new data?, i don't understand, thanks for your delate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmotbmot (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

;markup

Just a question... When is it appropriate to use ;markup instead of bold? Thanks! Gjs238 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@Gjs238: According to H:DL, the only appropriate use of ; markup is for terms in definition lists where it is followed by a : markup for the definition. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jayhawk 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:
  • * [[Jayhawk Area Council]], an eastern Kansas council]] of the Boy Scouts of America

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lì (chinese surname) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"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:
  • Zheng" (利徵) was feudal lord. after fall of Shang Dynasty, his child "Li Zhen" (利貞) and wife Qihe (契和 emigrate to [[Chen (state)]]. some Li (利) family change surname to Li (李), Li (理). also, various
  • *in [[Qing Dynasty]], [[Manchu people]] get surname Li (利).<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marl (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"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:
  • {Wiktionary}marl}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

Re: Anti-Islam

Just checking that you've seen my edit summary. I agree with you that they're different - that's why it's not necessary to put it on a disambiguation page, which is geared towards clearing up ambiguity between articles or titles that might be confused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely you're not saying reasonable persons unfamiliar with the subjects would not confuse Anti-Islamism and Anti-Islam? older ≠ wiser 21:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just had an idea which I think will accommodate both your worry about people getting confused and my desire to avoid inaccuracy. ("May refer to" is a standard dab page formula, but "anti-Islam" doesn't refer to "anti-Islamism" and, as you point out, they are separate things.) Why don't we keep the list of three things, but also include a hatnote that mirrors the one I've just restored to Criticism of Islamism? "For criticism of Islamism, see Criticism of Islamism. 'Anti-Islam' may refer to..." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
What precisely is the inaccuracy? Strictly speaking, none of the entries on Anti-Islam are literally ambiguous with the exact phrase. However, I think all of the entries could be seen in various contexts as relevant to the term. older ≠ wiser 21:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
While "anti-Islamism" presumably falls under the umbrella of "anti-Islam," "anti-Islam" doesn't mean simply being against the political philosophy of Islamism. (An analogy might be "Christianity may refer to Catholicism...") I don't think WP should perpetrate this inaccuracy - one beloved of anti-Muslim groups who'd like to promote the idea that religious bigotry is a principled political opposition. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a disambiguation page. I suspect the fine-grained distinction you seem to be making is meaningless for most non-specialists. The main purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers find pages ambiguous with the title. If there are readers who might confuse Islam and Islamism, I don't see the harm in having both entries on the page. older ≠ wiser 22:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, what do you think of my proposal? It avoids the confusion for readers that you're worried about, without equating anti-Islam with anti-Islamism. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
As a side note, I can imagine the confusion running the other way (people thinking "anti-Islamism" is the "ism" of being "anti-Islam"), but we already have things in place dealing with that. I do doubt that anyone goes "anti-Islam" intending to learn about opposition to Islamism, but my solution does address that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Editor "not here"; zero communication

Hi. Re Lí (family name) moves (again ignoring admin User:Anthony Appleyard) Revision history, and the resulting controversy at Talk:Lì (chinese surname) restore RM, the editor User:Bmotbmot is simply not there. I've already left two warnings on his/her Talk page, after these latest moves I think someone else should leave a 3rd Warning, will you do it? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Bmotbmot --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Cooper River (New Jersey)

Hello,

An IP user is vandalising the above page. After reading through Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Abuse response my head is now spinning and I though it might be helpful to report here. Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

why need a blank page?

why need a blank page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmotbmot (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

@Bmotbmot: What blank page are you refering to? Yi (surname) is not a "blank" page. It is a redirect to the disambiguation page because there are multiple possible surname-related meanings for the term. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_56&oldid=1168299498"