User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 77

__NOINDEX__

Proposed deletion of Willem Mulder (disambiguation)


The article Willem Mulder (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Hatnote suffices per WP:TWODABS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 24.205.24.240 (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:IMOS
Hello. I have reverted this edit of yours from 2014. Just to explain why, you state in your edit summary "(WP:IMOS states "any alternative name for the locale should be provided on the first line of the article (whether or not the name is widely used)", however as one of the chief architects of the WP:IMOS policy on this issue I must state that your reasoning is inherently wrong. Please see the bullet points of Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles which explains the protocol. As Gilford is in Northern Ireland and derives from English, not Irish, then the Irish and any other forms are to be included only in the infobox. Mabuska (talk) 23:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Super Mario
Hi, I have re-added Super Mario the wrestler to list, why did you remove it? Only one blue link is needed, wrestler does exist and wrestled in the USWA which at one time was the third biggest wrestling organization in the u.s., so that is what I have changed the blue link to. Though I think independent wrestling was fine though, shouldn't it be? You can check Wikia to find information on Super Mario.

Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The wrestler is not mentioned in the linked article. Mere existence is not sufficient for inclusion on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 10:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What linked article do you mean? Look up super mario in the link provided below. What kind of info is needed in order for it to be added to list? Is This link here is good enough to show that it should be added to list? http://www.cagematch.net/?id=2&nr=10915&page=4

Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The only linked article that matters is the Wikipedia article that is linked to on the disambiguation page. Whether the wrestler is mentioned elsewhere on the internet is irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 16:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if super mario was mentioned in the uswa linked article, then could super mario be added to the list? Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Luigi
Hi, I know they are instances of the primary topic but they are based upon real people playing those characters, so they should definitly be included Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * But the page is disambiguating things known as Luigi, these actors are not commonly known by that name and there is no indication (certainly not in the actors' articles) that these two characters are distinct from the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT)
Why did you delete my addition from the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:2AF2:5100:1D74:588:FCFE:3B1B (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because in the the entry you added none of the linked Wikipedia articles mention the initialism SPT and external links and references are not used on disambiguation pages -- a linked article must support the usage. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting my edits
Unfortunately, you have reverted my removal on a section of Chinese cartoons in Root (disambiguation), but the so called Chinese cartoon is irrelevant to the subject of plant roots. I would rather leave a comment than start an edit war, thankfully.

Facements (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Facements


 * Root (disambiguation) is not about the subject of plant roots. It lists topics that may be ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Woman Disambiguation page
Hi, would it be okay to add wonder Woman to the woman disambiguation page?

Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is she ever known as simply "woman"? older ≠ wiser 22:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm confused
Hi, I don't understand unambiguous partial title matches, why it that when I added the New York dolls to the doll page, it is not unambiguous partial title, but when I added spider woman and wonder woman to the woman page it is? Or why when I added the people playing Mario to the Mario page it was okay, but I couldn't do the same with the Luigi page? and why do you except red bull and not red robin? These things are kind of puzzling

Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:PTM. In brief, unless a subject is known by term (and the linked Wikipedia article supports claims regarding such usage, preferably based on reliable sources), the subject shouldn't be listed on the disambiguation page. I don't review every change you make and I don't anyone else does either. I mostly only notice changes to pages on my watchlist and even then I might miss some changes or I must not review every other entry on a page after undoing something I noticed from my watch list. Is "red bull" or "red robin" ever known as simply "red"? If not, they don't belong the red disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 11:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Please check out my recent edits
Hi Bonkrad, please check out the War (disambiguation) and trouble disambiguation pages and my recent edits. since MC Trouble, Bruno Troublé and The War Song are included on those pages I think my edits should be there too, what do you think?

Davidgoodheart (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This and this look to me like partial title matches to me. Are any of them known as simply "trouble" or "war"? older ≠ wiser 22:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I know, but are they going to be allowed to be kept? I see you haven't changed them, if you do change them are you going to things on the pages that might be partial as well?

Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * . Please don't start a new section when you are continuing discussion from previous section(s). Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Sometimes crap is "allowed" for so long as no one notices. But if edits are not aligned with current guidelines, there is good likelihood that the edits will be removed or corrected at some point (whether by me or other editors is irrelevant). I am not particularly interested in following you around with a pooper scooper to clean up after your edits. If I happen to notice them and I have the time and inclination to fix them, then I might do so. Or they might be "allowed" to be kept until some other editor notices and cleans them up. But it would be better for all concerned if you didn't make such edits to begin with. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
Hi! About this:, ,. I can't really agree with the deletion of the links. I personally need them as a reader. And as an editor. Cause after reading about something in another language I may want to create an Enwiki article for it. Now no one will see the pages in Spanish and Portuguese and no one will ever translate them. By the way, there is even a special template template for this,. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've just noticed you've already added the interlanguage link to the "List of films": ... (I went there to add it and it was already there.) But still, it's only one. There were two more and they were very convenient for readers. Think about it... What's best for Wikipedia? Poor links or no links at all? (I don't really think they are poor. It's just that you said it was not done like that for some reason. Could you please point me to the rule that says it is not done?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Why did you do this: ? Why are you edit warring about something unimportant like this? I simply forgot to add a description. Here, I fixed it:. By the way, there is a page for the album in Portuguese:, and now I can't link it. Would you please show me the rule that says not to add interlanguage links to disambuguation pages? --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can add a well-sourced mention of the album to the Rui Bandeira page, then you can replace the redlink to the album, accompanied by a blue link to that page (and you can link to the Portuguese article about the album from the mention on the artiste's page too). But not until then. English Wikipedia dab page entries exist to direct readers to articles in English Wikipedia, not to provide access to every Wikipedia in the world. Pam  D  16:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

(I've decided that I shouldn't waste my time on this cause I can't help every single page on Wikipedia.) By the way, the English Wikipedia is visited by people from all over the world. There are surely many people from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, etc. who would find such links to other languages convenient. But I personally I am going to forget about this cause if I wanted to do something about it, then I would have to start a discussion about the rule in question in order to attempt to change it and i would waste lots of my time discussing etc.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's too complicated... I mean, I would have to find a well-sourced mention, etc. (Actually, I've looked at MOS:DABRED already. Now I get it. I think it's a poor rule, but I get it.)

Red disambiguation
Hi Bkonrad, about the Red (disambiguation) page, what should go under people red and nickname red, should it be the exact same thing? Please check out my recent edits and see if there are correctly done, and if they are not done right please explain the correct format. Hi Bkonrad, please check out the Red disambiguation page.

death hatnote
Thanks for taking the time to review my edit and restore some of the information. I think it looks good now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edaham (talk • contribs) 03:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Bismarck and Jefferson
I am completely perplexed by your insistence on having Thomas Jefferson and Otto von Bismarck at the very top of these disambiguation pages, despite the patent fact that these two persons are not WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs. Why should we assume that readers are looking for the two men? If they both are really that likely to be the wanted page readers are looking for, they should merely be redirects. Having skimmed through WP:DAB, there is nothing condoning subjective opinion of editors wanting to place their selected primary topic on top of a disambiguation page without "(disambiguation)" in the title. If you really want these two statesmen at the top of their respective dabpages, then I suggest you open a move request at Talk:Jefferson and Talk:Bismarck. Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't get this at all. Thomas Jefferson isn't the established primary topic for Jefferson, so why should he gain precedence over all the other Jeffersons? This is nonsensical and extremely illogical. I can't get my head round this at all. I guess then I could go to the Trump disambiguation page and replace "Trump may refer to:" with "Trump often refers to Donald Trump, the president-elect of the United States." I can't make sense of this, I really can't.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * MOS:DABORDER says . One is a small number, and discussion on the respoective talk pages has clearly established that these topics are significantly more likely to be the topic sought by are reader looking for those terms. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Re Trump, yes a case could be made for restructuring that dab page. older ≠ wiser 23:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One is an egregiously small number. Of course one redirect can't redirect to more than one page, so for that, MOS:DABORDER is reasonable. But for only one page? It doesn't apply, unless for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. I have skimmed through the two talkpages and there is a lot of dissent against your viewpoint here, and there is next to nothing in favour of it at Talk:Jefferson apart from a single user over eight years ago. There are no consensuses whatsoever.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  You'd be hard pressed to make the case that Thomas Jefferson isn't the primary topic of Jefferson since almost all of the other listings on that DAB page were named after him.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Thomas Jefferson is not the primary topic for Jefferson (similar to how George Washington is not primary topic for Washington and Abraham Lincoln is not primary topic for Lincoln). However, MOS:DABORDER does allow us to place the most likely topics at the top of the page to help readers arriving at the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 23:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I might request a move if that is the case, like I did at Talk:Gladstone. Meanwhile we should refrain from subjectivity and treat Thomas Jefferson like all other entries. There is nothing approaching any sort of consensus at Talk:Jefferson that he should be treated differently.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please open a move discussion on whether Jefferson should be moved to ? Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that is for the best in this case (and usually the proposer is the one prepared to make the case that it should be moved). There's nothing preventing you from opening a RM. older ≠ wiser 19:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you support it?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure. It would depend on the evidence provided and how well the argument is made that the move overall benefits readers more than it costs in the creation of bad wikilinks (links that should be disambiguated, but aren't because of the primary topic or primary redirect -- that is the trade-off to be considered for IMO). older ≠ wiser 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Labour Party (Northern Ireland)
You've now removed the "disambiguation" template 5 times. Every time you do this, the article reappears in Cat:U and is there retagged as a dab page. Since this has now happened 5 times, please reach the obvious conclusion that you are not making your point adequately: rather than continuing, please just make whatever change you feel necessary, and save everybody's time. Eustachiusz (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Blue Room
Why did you revert my change to the Blue Room disambiguation page. Are you unaware that the link points back to the same page? What is the use of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgoldnyxnet (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But it didn't point to the same page: The Blue Room is not the same page as Blue Room. Sometimes titles with and without "The" share a dab page; other times they don't, but need links between the two dab pages as in this case. Hope that clarifies. Happy Editing! Pam  D  23:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah. I missed that distinction. Thank you. Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:D'Israeli
Hello Bkonrad. Please feel free to comment on the move discussion at Talk:D'Israeli. Thank-you.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)