Jump to content

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95→Archive 100

Alessandro Minelli (footballer) (disambiguation)

Hi. I think I see what I did wrong. Adjusted the dab you moved it to. Could you take a look and make sure it's correct? Alessandro Minelli (disambiguation) Onel5969 TT me 02:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Bkonrad

I'm afraid my insistence on the VR edit felt somewhat personal. If so, I apologize. There are many disambiguation pages that become useless because of too much information with no hierarchy. (Do you agree?) The VR page may not be one of them. It may turn out your approach is the correct one. We remain open to more "voters" and reasons.

I just wanted to clarify my motive. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  • UPDATE: I wrote a message about your situation on the VR talk page. I am confident that we will find an approach that will improve your experience on Wikipedia. 79.115.14.74 (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Alkanet (disambiguation)

Hi Bkonrad, in 2016 you deleted Alkanet (disambiguation) with the stated reason 'target is not a disambiguation page'. According to the history of Alkanet it's been a disambiguation page since 2008. Do you see any problem with my re-creating Alkanet (disambiguation)? Leschnei (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To what end? The target is not a disambiguation page. IMO, using such redirects to non-disambiguation targets dilutes any distinction between dab pages and other sorts of list articles that might superficially resemble disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 17:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Bkonard, I'm sorry, I was confused by the short description at the top of the page (coming from Wikidata) that lists it as a disambiguation page. I should have noticed the index article template. I agree with you that redirects to non-disambiguation targets are unhelpful, and I'll see if I can fix the Wikidata entry. Leschnei (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Insula

As Insular cortex is the primary topic of the term Insula, Insula should redirect to Insular cortex according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is there a primary topic?: "Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article. [...] While Wikipedia has no single criterion for defining a primary topic, two major aspects that editors commonly consider are these: A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lymoz (talk • contribs) 10:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Confession (disambiguation)

With respect, it makes sense to add the TV series[1] pending the creation of a page for it.
Please revert your revision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnavas2 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ "A Confession theme tune, cast, trailer and release date". Tuppence Magazine. Retrieved 11 August 2019.
It makes sense to add the series when an article with relevant content exists. older ≠ wiser 23:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Bethlehem (disambiguation)

May I ask why my edit was reverted? --Dcheney (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Wheels

Wheels See talk page. 144.178.0.140 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Darwin

It’s a city

Hi,this is really frustrating me that you have Brighton as a town? I know it’s brighton & hove but Brighton is not classed as a separate town we are a city. One city Brighton & hove,Brighton same place same city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5681:6C00:B091:AF04:9658:3020 (talk) 19:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then there should not be separate articles for Brighton and Brighton and Hove. Until you can gain consensus to do something about that, you can expect that myself and other editors will continue to revert your baseless and unsourced edits. older ≠ wiser 19:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
So are you saying that Brighton & hove are still 2 separate towns? when we where given city status I thought we where one and people just say Brighton for short,like saying Brighton not Brighton & hove Albion. How can you still class a city as 2 different towns it doesn’t make sense,yes we was 2 towns now we are one city— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5681:6C00:B091:AF04:9658:3020 (talk)
Unless given verifiable evidence from reliable sources, I think the article at Brighton and Hove is correct -- that Brighton and Hove is a seaside city in East Sussex, in South East England. The towns of Brighton and Hove formed a unitary authority in 1997 and in 2001 were granted city status by Queen Elizabeth II. older ≠ wiser 20:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
But can you give me any evidence that Brighton is a separate town and not a city please— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5681:6C00:B091:AF04:9658:3020 (talk)
Not up to me and I don't particularly care. Make your case at Talk:Brighton or Talk:Brighton and Hove and gain consensus for your edits. older ≠ wiser 20:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
Well I do care because I’m a brightonian and I’m proud to say that I live in this city,when we where given city status the 2 towns where united not classed as separate anymore,yes there’s Brighton yes theres hove it’s 2 different parts of the city not 2 different towns— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5681:6C00:B091:AF04:9658:3020 (talk)
I've nothing else to say and I won't respond if you continue to comment here. I've already explained that you need to gain consensus for your edits at the relevant article talk pages. And by the way, please sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~ at the end of your comments -- and also please begin your commments on a new line rather than appending to the end of the preceding comment. older ≠ wiser 20:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
I think you need to gain consensus for what your saying,the links you have give me are old and not useful,if you don’t I will be taking this further,having spoken to many residents I have full backing that brighton is a city,there is no evidence for what you are saying,Brighton and hove was given city status in 2000 period. We are a city! Brighton is a part of Brighton and hove,same city.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:5681:6C00:B091:AF04:9658:3020 (talk)

Førde Church

Hi there. Then which one is it? The long gallery seemed the best option. What you did is simply link back to a dab page, that shouldn't really happen. Onel5969 TT me 16:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Gallery (architecture) is not a dab page -- or if it is, it is an incorrectly executed incomplete disambiguation. In the context of most medieval, church or middle-eastern buildings, a gallery is most typically a balcony-like structure. older ≠ wiser 19:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_93&oldid=955373933"