Talk:Ty Erickson

Editing other user's user pages
Hi, I noticed you made some edits in good faith to one of my User pages, type UserDraft. I appreciate your intention but editors I don't know don't normally edit my userdrafts unless it's for violations such as having non-free content in them or active categories, for example, according to policy. The way the categories were authored was my poor attempt to make them inactive. I have since changed them to have no code around them so this issue should be moot now. If you could follow the policies in WP:NOBAN and WP:USERTALKBLOG regarding respecting my userspace and not edit my pages unless there is a violation or substantial contribution, I would appreciate it. In the case of those two circumstances, I would also appreciate if you could address them on my talk page first as also suggested in the policy. Also, regarding the citation changes, please see WP:CITEVAR regarding changing citation styles. But, I will ask my mentor about the newspaper citation style. I have used it in certain situations, but not all the time. She has over 12 years experience like you, and she is watching over this article. Thank you for your help. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * dawnleelynn: Thank you for contacting me about my edits to your user page, specifically User:Dawnleelynn/Ty Erickson. I came to this page because it had five lint errors of type multi colon escape. I fixed those five multi colons, and then I made a few stylistic edits that I thought were helpful, but if you don't like them, feel free to revert.


 * WP:NOBAN says, "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful.... If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is sensible to respect their request...." I believe my edits were not substantial, and I expected them to be helpful, so for these reasons I thought they were OK. I will try to remember to respect any request not to edit your pages.


 * WP:USERTALKBLOG says, "In some cases a more experienced editor may make non-trivial edits to another user's user space, in which case that editor should leave a note explaining why this was done. This should not be done for trivial reasons." I am a more experienced editor, with over 44,000 edits. My edit summary explained both what I did and why: "rm double colons in wikilinks to remove Lint errors: Multi colon escape; rm spurious commas; improve &lt;ref>s". To further clarify that lint errors are not a trivial reason, see WP:Linter. If you believe my changes to &lt;ref>s were inappropriate, I won't argue the point. However, I don't know if WP:CITEVAR applies. WP:CITEVAR says "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style ..." but it's not clear that this article had an established citation style, in the sense of following a citation style in wide use. In my experience, usually in Wikipedia we don't list both the newspaper name and the website (stripped of http:). So when I saw both, I removed one. I won't argue the point further, and you're welcome to choose a citation style of your liking. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. You must lend me a little good faith in applying the policies on editing of userspace. I did not equate the leaving of a note with an edit summary. And I did say thank you for editing those categories and acknowledged that you were did the right thing there. In fact, it led me to totally de-codify them so they won't bring up any more issues again. And the categories won't be made live until I move the article to mainspace, like I said, and no further defense of the lint error edit was necessary. Regarding the citations, I also clarified that I was going to ask my mentor about them, who, now that you tell me your edit count, actually has more than double yours. I didn't dismiss your suggestions, I said I would look into it with my mentor first. I have been doing my citations this way since I started seriously editing around a year and a half ago. So, you can't blame me if I want to look into it a bit first. Happy Trails! dawnleelynn(talk) 18:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * dawnleelynn: Good faith always lent! The usual way for preparing categories for sandbox, draft, and other not-ready-for-publication articles is to use the brackets and a single colon, which references the category without putting the page in the category. Happy Trails! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

dawnleelynn: I'm not going to mess further with your &lt;ref> styles, but I thought I'd go to The Open Wikipedia Ranking and see what the most viewed articles have regarding listing newspaper names and websites. Results follow:


 * Barack Obama lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Napoleon lists newspapers without websites, e.g. Max Hastings, "Everything is Owed to Glory", The Wall Street Journal  October 31, 2014
 * George W. Bush lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Ronald Reagan lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Franklin D. Roosevelt lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Elizabeth II lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Adolf Hitler lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * William Shakespeare lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * George Washington lists newspapers without websites, e.g.
 * Winston Churchill lists newspapers without websites, e.g.

This survey of (allegedly) the 10 most-viewed "human" pages of 2016 shows that all 10 reference newspaper sources with the newspaper names without a form of the website, that is, The New York Times without www.nytimes.com. Also, 9 of 10 use not  for news articles. This does not invalidate other citation styles, but it does show a trend. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding I may not apply policy perfectly since I've only been editing about 1 1/2 years. I tried putting the categories in like this: Category:Steer wrestling and only the first was one was red-linked, the rest were blue links. See . That's when I tried putting in the two colons in front. It worked but caused those lint errors we have spoken of, so that's no good either. I used to know how to put in the categories without them being blue links when I was a new editor. But then I just stopped putting them in my drafts altogether for awhile and adding them in after I moved the article to mainspace. However, this article may not be moved to mainspace for awhile for various reasons and I thought I would add the categories in the draft in this case. Could you give me an example please? I'll look at the most viewed articles list later. Thanks! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * dawnleelynn: My suggestion would be, do link to existing categories, but don't link to redlink categories. WP:REDNOT says, "A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category." I was looking for a more general category than Steer wrestling; I found Category:Animals in sport, but that doesn't seem appropriate for this article. I'm not sure what you want an example of. If you want an example of a draft article that has category links, here's a random example: Draft:Filmhub, which has various categories including Category:Video on demand services, all blue linked. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * No, I was talking about keeping the categories at the bottom in the article but not active. I tried to do it the way you said but they were blue when I tried to use one colon like you said. I don't need help picking categories. I just want the ones I did pick to be there but not be active as you are not allowed to have active categories in drafts. That is what that whole post I wrote was talking about. I added one colon to try to make them not active but it didn't work, and that's what the link to an older version was showing... and then I tried two colons to make them inactive and that worked, but it caused lint errors. So then I asked you how to make them inactive because what I am trying is obviously not working either with one or two colons, neither is working. But I know there is a way to make it work, you even said so. dawnleelynn(talk) 01:41, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * dawnleelynn: linking to a category by putting a colon in front means that the category is linked from the article, but the article is not in the category. See the example I just mentioned, Draft:Filmhub, which links to 4 categories, but if you click on those categories, you'll see that the article isn't in any of them. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation again. But maybe you aren't hearing me? I tried it again in the latest source, but it's still not working for me. I did it just like in the article you linked Filmhub. But only the first category doesn't link-it appears as a redlink, the rest of them link to categories. It's the exact same way I tried to do it in the that history version I linked earlier where that doesn't work right either. I put the colon in, but they still link to categories anyway. All but the first one link to categories. There is something weird going on. Take a look at the article for yourself, you'll see exactly what I mean. Obviously, I am not doing something right. I need these to not link. Or will simply remove the code around the categories again. Thanks. dawnleelynn(talk) 02:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * dawnleelynn: I still don't see the problem. In Draft:Filmhub, there are 4 category blue links, and clicking on them shows that the article isn't in any of those categories. In User:Dawnleelynn/Ty Erickson, there is 1 category red link (which I suggested before should be removed) and 4 category blue links, and clicking on them shows that the article isn't in any of those categories, which means you are doing it right. However, in Wikipedia, if an article is in a subcategory, we usually don't also put the article in the parent category. So, I would remove the link (destined to become a true category reference, when the article moves to article space) to Category:People from Helena, Montana, because the article already has a link to a subcategory of it. It says at SUBCAT: "Apart from certain exceptions (i.e. non-diffusing subcategories, see below), an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it. In other words, a page or category should rarely be placed in both a category and a subcategory or parent category (supercategory) of that category (unless the child category is non-diffusing – see below ..." —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. I get it now. I fixed the Steer Wresting category. It should be Steer Wrestlers. Also, I did not realize that the Sportspeople from town or county categories were including the People from town or county categories in them. Gosh, I feel silly. I know out there in all those rodeo categories I saw this being done, but I should have verified this for myself. Like I said, I hadn't done the categories in the drafts for a long time, probably a year, so I didn't know what behavior to expect from them, I had pre-conceived notions as to how they would behave that were incorrect--I thought they should not show up as blue links that I could clink, I didn't go as far as to check that the articles didn't actually show up in the categories. And you expected me to know this so it went back and forth a couple of times more than it should have. My bad, though. The article is fixed now, so many thanks. Have a good weekend. I'll ping you later about the citations. dawnleelynn(talk) 16:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I know it's been a long time, but I decided to follow your advice after much observation of other articles and stop putting web site urls in newspaper references. I just took them out here in this sandbox article for Erickson where we had a discussion back in April. I haven't really been using them for awhile now anyway. Thanks again for the help you gave me back then. Hope all is well with you! dawnleelynn(talk) 23:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)