User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 45

__NOINDEX__

The Signpost: 4 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

PRN
Where is PRN mentioned in Premiere Radio Networks? 86.148.30.69 (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you've just added it. Pity you didn't mention that in your last PRN edit summary. 86.148.30.69 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:Title
Hi. The change involves no change to the policy itself. However, it does allow demonstrating that the editing of that section is now just as seamless when the criteria is in a transcluded subpage as it is when it's physically part of the main page. This has been the main objection, and we need to be able to demonstrate that it has been addressed which we can't do if you keep reverting to the original way. The only other objection (by one editor) is the loss of the watch list, but Arthur has explained how that can be addressed, which we should do once we establish consensus support (which, again, we can't really do if it's back at the version that does not demonstrate the seamless editing of the transcluded subpage). Hope that make sense. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I think the objections are more substantial than you portray them. I agree with the objections raised on the discussion page. To paraphrase Noetica, just because you dismiss the objections does not necessarily mean the objections have been satisfactorily addressed. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your apparent inability to state the objection in your own words, is duly noted.  Not very helpful, I might add.  At the talk page all you said was, "this is a significant change to how an important policy page is organized and maintained".  It's a change.  Is it significant?  How so? It's a minor technical detail.   --Born2cycle (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't see introducing unwarranted complexity into a policy page as anything other than significant. older ≠ wiser 02:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, do you not realize how broad and meaningless your statements are, or do you do it on purpose? We agree "introducing unwarranted complexity into a policy page as anything other than significant". We disagree on whether adding WP:TRANSCLUSION qualifies as "complexity", or whether being able to transclude that list elsewhere is "unwarranted".  --Born2cycle (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how irritatingly condescending your statements are? I agree that we disagree on what is complexity and significant. older ≠ wiser 03:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Spring Hill edits
Please undo. You've removed the links to the information necessary to create the eventual articles. Thanks. JimScott (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The redlink entries fail the criteria at WP:DABRL in that there are no other articles that use the links (i.e., click on the redlink, and then in the blank editing  page, click on "What links here" under Toolbox on the left sidebar). Second, the redlink subjects do not seem to even be mentioned in any other article that might provide a supporting link (i.e., as described at MOS:DABENTRY, each entry on a dab page should have at least one navigable blue link to an existing wikipedia article). Third, link to external web sites are not allowed on disambiguation pages (i.e., disambiguation pages help readers navigate Wikipedia and are not an index to the Internet). I suggest that you Write the article first, even a WP:stub, and you might also want to incorporate mentions of the the places in some appropriate articles, such as the county or township article that include the place. older ≠ wiser 09:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and watch
Hi Bknorad. Thanks for your help with the new user interested in the Mustang articles. If you could be so kind as to watchlist Mustang (horse) and perhaps ask one or two other admin sorts known for their calmness and diplomacy to also watchlist the article for a while, I would be grateful. The Mustang issue is extremely contentious, and at the moment the management of Mustangs is heating up in the public eye. While I welcome anyone who wants to improve that article, it is very important to keep the emotionality out of it. Having been the "lead editor" and the one who has been maintaining it for years (occasionally taking mini- runs at improvement, but it is FAR too complex a topic for my full attention at the moment), I happen to pride myself on having a very NPOV attitude on the actual controversies -- other than a POV to tone down the hysteria on both sides. But I also get very impatient with the tendentious sorts and the POV-pushers, and in my attempts to explain issues, I'm tending to piss them off more than calm them down, so I would be VERY grateful for others to help keep an eye on things and keep things cool. Thanks. Montanabw (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ToD edits
Regarding the Ticket on Departure edits you keep reverting:

I understand where you are coming from, as they did not follow the style guidelines to the letter. However, the goal of wikipedia is more to present information easily, and less to enforce guidelines (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Break_rules). If your goal is to edit what I wrote to make it more easily useable, the correct course of action would be to link it to the airline ticket article and attach the appropriate information there, not erase the information. I did not do this because I don't have the time at the moment to make sure that the updates I make to the ticket article are entirely correct.

In the interim, displaying the information is still better than not, so if you don't like the way it has been formatted, re-add the information in the style you so desire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.17.226.129 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages help readers navigate to wikipedia articles with relevant content (or to sister project Wiktionary for dictionary definitions). If there is no article on the subject, there is nothing to disambiguate on the dab page. older ≠ wiser 12:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Yar
You know, just trying to make the encyclopedia more useful and you're simply pissing on it for no particular reason. I hope you're pleased with your sorry self. Have it your way and may our paths never cross again. JBarta (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Template:See also
The change was controversal before you edited, as you knew. Looks like editprotect warring. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The talk page shows a history other editors trying to explain why a terminal period was not appropriate until you found one admin that wasn't paying attention. Adding a period at the end of a fragment does not magically turn the fragment into a complete sentence. older ≠ wiser 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Now it is a "fragment", in the es you wrote "not a grammatical sentence" (so it would be "incorrect"), the editors above only can come as far as "because it is not": all unsourced and probably untrue. The sentence even has a verb, but you might be put on the wrong foot because it is imperative mood. Or you might be confused with the rule for titles and captions, though a hatnote is neither. It is a message. The MOS-link you gave, which was to its talkpage btw, does not say a word about this. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a sentence and should not have terminal punctuation. Several others have pointed this out to you, but you persist in believing otherwise. If the style mavens at WT:MOS agree with you, then I'll forgo my objection. I deliberately gave a link to the talk page of the manual of style because that is where one goes to ask questions of those most knowledgeable about matters regarding style, including punctuation. older ≠ wiser 17:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Oops, I thought I was writing at the Template talk:See also - ending here). -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Letter-NumberCombination
Template:Letter-NumberCombination has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper
I saw you changed the protection level for Ojibwe people because of an currently blocked(207.210.33.3) IP hopping vandal. They also keep hitting Petroglyphs Provincial Park and Fort Ancient as 24.36.112.65. Would you mind protecting these 2 articles as well till they give up and go away?  He  iro 02:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I've added them to my watchlist. If the vandalism resumes, I protect the pages. older ≠ wiser 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Meet the Parents (disambiguation) and MOS:DAB
Hi!

Looking through MOS:DAB, I see this example of right and wrong piping to a subsection in an article:


 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%

Ten may refer to:
 * (correct) Ten or Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media ( Ten or Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media )
 * (incorrect) Ten or Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media ( Ten or Tien Shinhan, a character in Dragon Ball media )
 * }

which would seem to support my formatting as more transparent, ie not misleading the reader to think that they're going to the episode article page. Further in the above case, the title itself of the item being disambiguated is not blue-linked, the link is provided afterwards since there is no main article for the item.

I'm unable to find anything on a "functional redirect" in the guideline that would support such piping and blue linking of the item itself. I admit the possibility that I'm missing something, possibly even very obvious, so I'd appreciate some input on this.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:DABREDIR.


 * A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article. For example:
 * {| style="border: 1px solid black" width=100%


 * Delta may refer to:
 * (correct) Delta Quadrant, in the Star Trek universe ( Delta Quadrant, in the Star Trek universe )
 * (incorrect) Delta Quadrant, in the Star Trek universe ( Delta Quadrant, in the Star Trek universe )
 * }
 * }


 * The above technique should be used when the link is the subject of the line. For description sections, redirects or piped links may be used; follow the normal Redirect and Piped link guidelines.


 * The term functional redirect is meant only to describe a working redirect. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nick Dinsmore
A stage name does not stop also being a given name just because you really love some has-been/never-was wrestler. And even if you feel it does, then you should have also removed that entry from Eugene (given name) to be consistent.

If you feel the need, you can go through every entry on Eugene (given name) yourself, and break out those of them who don't fit your definition of "given name" (which you manufactured not for any good reason but to justify giving your hero more visibility) into a separate page. Nick Dinsmore isn't the only one who would fail your "given name" test (see for example Eugene (entertainer) and all of the fictional people). Yet he's the only one you insist on plugging into a page he clearly doesn't belong on.

A compromise that would require the least effort would be to rename Eugene (given name) to simply Eugene (name). That would make the distinction you draw between given name and stage name irrelevant and keep all real and fictional human beings on one page, and all inanimate objects and non-corporeal entities on the other page. Obviously that is better than one page of people named Eugene by their parents, another page of people who chose to rename themselves Eugene for purposes of their careers in show business, and a third page of ships and such. You can do that change yourself as well. EAE (Holla!) 17:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Disambiguation pages are meant to direct readers to articles that are ambiguous with titles. A person with the stage name that is exactly the term being disambiguated should be included on the page. A list of persons with a given name are at best partial title matches and are not really ambiguous entries. They are tolerated on disambiguation pages where the list is short, but are more often shifted to a separate page. As the stage name is also a type of given name, it should be included on the given name page. There is no requirement that the list of given names and the entries on the disambiguation page must be mutually exclusive. Some limited redundancy is actually helpful for readers. I honestly think most given name pages are pretty useless, so I really have no interest whatsoever in trying to improve them. I'm not sure I understand what renaming Eugene (given name) would accomplish. If it also covers people with Eugene as a surname, then perhaps that might be appropriate, but otherwise I don't see the point. Looking at the page though, I see there are several other entries besides the wrestler that should also be listed at the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 18:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Continual reverts of my changes
I have noticed that you are systematically reverting many changes which I have made to correctly link to the term "haystack" as being a pile of hay (the most common meaning), as stacked to prevent spoilage and deter fires from spontaneous combustion. I ask that you please stop, and explain your reasons below. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * For Haystack, I think it may be a good idea to have an article there instead of a disambiguation page. But a copy and paste move of the disambiguation page is not how to do it. I'd suggest creating the new article in your user space, such as at User:Wikid77/Haystack and then request a multi-move at WP:RM to move both the disambiguation page and the new article. Much of the same applies to Haycock with regards to copy and paste moving of the disambiguation page, except in this case I don't agree that the term should redirect to haystack. It should remain a disambiguation page and a link to the haystack article can be added to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Pembina
You are probably right that an etymology doesn't belong on a DAB page. But is this really a DAB? Look at the entries, they are not really ambiguous. They all run afoul of MOSDAB's rule that you not create Title City, Title University entries. Either all the entries should be deleted, or we should not treat it as a DAB page, but as a page like Name of Canada, that explains history and usage. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It certainly is a dab page. At the bare minimum, Pembina, North Dakota, Pembina (Edmonton), and Pembina Township, Mahnomen County, Minnesota ambiguous. The other entries are also ambiguous to greater or lesser degrees. Unlike Canada and Name of Canada, there is no single "Pembina" entity to warrant a general article and an article about the word Pembina would likely run afoul of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. older ≠ wiser 19:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

MAD
Hi. I saw that you removed my addition on misuse of MAD.

I added the clarification as: I was reading an article where they misused MAD->then I search for MAD->The acronym in MAD page pointed me to the correct MAD, which is not what I was looking for->I had problems in finding the right page.

If you do not know the real acronym AAD, or full name, you will not be able to reach the page. Of course, it is not impossible but I think it is useful to have an hint at the entry point. With ref. to:details about the confusion should be covered in the article, do you mean AAD article? That can be done, but does not solve the problem above.

With this rational, do you still think it should not be there? --Mpaa (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the context, but I don't see how such misuse really is not the purview of a disambiguation page. While confusion between average and median is pretty common, it seems that the distinction needs to be explained in the context of the articles. I mean, if an article mis-uses the acronym, I really doubt that a brief blurb on a disambiguation page will help much -- better to simply direct readers to an article where the distinction can be explained in context. You say If you do not know the real acronym AAD, or full name, you will not be able to reach the page -- but if the MAD acronym is being misused, how is a reader supposed to divine that AAD is the correct meaning based on a brief blurb on the disambiguation page. The absolute deviation article already has a sub-section on both Average absolute deviation and Mean absolute deviation, but for the situation you describe, I'd expect an explanation of the distinction on Mean absolute deviation (or at least a pointer back to absolute deviation for more details about the distinction). older ≠ wiser 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure?
Hello. Are you sure you want to simultaneously revert my edits a 4th time AND insult me in the same time? As you just did at warp and at avatar (dab)? I ask you to please reconsider. - Nabla (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment wasn't intended for you, but you are welcome to assume that it is if you see fit to do so. We've both ignored WP:BRD and WP:3RR, so I don't see that you really want to be throwing stones. You improperly removed templates that are placed according to relevant guidelines. If you want to change the guidelines, please initiate that discussion rather than repeating knee-jerk reversions. older ≠ wiser 02:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The comment was obviously intended to me, and obviously written so that you can now say it was not. You reverted 4 times, I did it 3. I always stated the reason I was editing and reverting, thus sticking to BRD, while at some point you reverted without giving any reason (rollback!?). So you break 2 policies/guidelines (civility, 3RR)a a reasonably well establish procedure (BRD), and then point at me for not sticking to the MOS? Note that it does not demand the use of such link, it only allows them, so the articles still complied to the MoS after my edits. As a sign of good faith I will not edit those two articles for now. I usually stick to a 1RR, my apologies for escalating. Am apology from you for calling me stupid would be greatly welcome. - Nabla (talk) 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You blithely dismiss the spirit of both WP:3RR and WP:BRD and assume I was referring to you when I was not, so no apology will be forthcoming. If you want to escalate, do whatever your inner wiki tells you. The comment was not intended for you. It was referring to those editors who helpfully add all manner of partial title matches to disambiguation pages. The Intitle and Lookfrom templates are intended precisely to address those editors who think a disambiguation page needs to include any page that contains the term. The templates in see also are unobtrusive and help to address the concerns of those editors. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You revert 4 times and gave no reason in one of them, and it is me ignoring the spirit of 3RR and BRD? Right... Explanation/'not-an-apology" accepted, as your current explanation makes some sense; even if I disagree with it - if editors add useless links then remove them, do not add useless template/links yourself - I can understand the reasoning. - Nabla (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, I often find the templates useful -- in two types of instances. When fixing incoming links to a disambiguation page and the link intended from a particular page is not listed, the templates are conveniently placed at the bottom and easily accessible after scanning the page. Similarly, when doing a major cleanup of a dab page, such template links make it easier to review whether there are any other articles that should be included. But as for "explanations" -- your edit summaries amounted to little more than I DON'T LIKE IT. As you had posted at Template talk:Intitle, I thought that you were at least aware there is some rationale behind the templates. older ≠ wiser 03:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't like it?! "user can find those from the menus", "no need to zap readers with tons of unrelated pages. Users know how to search and use menus (or should learn)", "it is cluttering pages", "use the search box", "users are not stupid". All of them reasons, none a "I don't like". You don't agree with me? Fine. I don't agree with you either. Not a problem. But would be much more useful and even a pleasure if you would discuss in a serious way; but unfortunately you either can't or won't. - Nabla (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are opinions, not reasons and not based in guidelines. Discussion goes both ways -- that's the essence of WP:BRD -- you were bold, I reverted, ideally discussion would have ensued. But we both chose to use cramped edit summaries and faulty assumptions to continue to revert. older ≠ wiser 03:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My reasons are opinions, your opinions are reasons. Right. Got it. Bye. - Nabla (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Page Deletion
How can I discuss the deletion of this page.

While I understand your ability to delete this I am concerned as I can provide and direct you to at least a dozen artists who are Seay's peers that have very similar articles here. None of them are being targeted for deletion. In fact, any of these artists will vouch for a Seay's career in this genre over a 10 year span I am happy to have Sirius XM music directors verify this is a bone fide music artist with global airplay and sales. I can also have several magazines and music reviewers do the same. Also distributed national by a major brick and mortar distributor etc etc. Please help me understand the process and provide responses to any of your concerns.

Respectfully submitted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seay_(musician)

similar pages about her peers not targeted for deletion. Help me understand your reasoning and how to correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aomusic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Arkenstone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Oster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_(band) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_Stockley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidente123 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Why are you asking me? Did I delete that page? I don't recall it. But it appears that it was deleted per the discussion at Articles for deletion/Melissa Seay Harshaw, primarily because lacked references in reliable sources to establish notability as described by Notability (music). You might read up at Article Incubator about how to develop an article that might not be ready for inclusion yet. older ≠ wiser 18:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Spoilers
Of course you're right about extra links on disambiguation pages. Never quite understood why that is, though. Anyway, thanks for putting it right. The five film versions of that story with their stellar casts and the odd fact that it abruptly stopped being remade after the '50s has always intrigued me. Upsmiler (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania townships
I realize that category talk pages are not the usual place for discussions, but I think this is the best place for this discussion. It covers all of the townships in Pennsylvania. There has been much discussion lately about how township names in Pennsylvania should be titled. Some go for X Township, Pennsylvania. Others want X Township, Y County, Pennsylvania. Of course there are many Washington Townships in Pennsylvania so they and others like it will need to include the county name in the title. The townships in question are the unique ones like Horton Township and Plunketts Creek Township. I think it is best to limit this discussion to Pennsylvania. If other wikiprojects want to do it differently that is fine. The status of townships vary greatly from state to state.
 * The original place the subject came up is Talk:Horton Township, Elk County, Pennsylvania
 * A broader discussion of the topic is here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
 * The Category talk:Townships in Pennsylvania by county link. Gerry D (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixing my bizarre edits
Thanks for fixing the edits I left behind (like this). I'm not sure what happened so I left a note for User:Dispenser, he is the author of the dabfix tool I was using. Tassedethe (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. The issue was caused by an edit to the refer template. older ≠ wiser 18:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)