User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 97

__NOINDEX__

The Signpost: 1 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

TM = Trade Mark not traceability matrix
Supplying that will require a source as none of the literature I've read uses the initialism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I work with them every day. Even a simple Google search provides ample evidence. If you really insist on having it sourced in the article, there are many choices to pick from. older ≠ wiser 19:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Me too, but not in those fields. I never assumed that one field would apply acronyms to something that other fields wouldn't pick-up. I will self-revert. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No need as you edit warred your way into the correct position. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

CES Disambiguation
Hi there,

I undid your edit for the disambiguation page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Social_Council, as I plan on creating a page on the red linked subject today (Economic and Social Council (Dominican Republic)) Stay tuned for more. macgirl (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Boomer
You'll need to provider a source to list a celeb's pet indicating how that pet is notable. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a criteria for including on dab pages. The linked article mentions the usage (could better referenced there, but it Boomer Lives is the name of Maron's production company as well as an episode o& his tv series). older ≠ wiser 00:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your point. I'm not too familiar with Maron, but it wasn't difficult to find sources discussing his thing with his cats. Good enough for me. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Doughboy $lim (disambiguation)
Hi Bkonrad,

Hope all is well, I seen you deleted/edited Doughboy $lim and was inquiring why and how I could correct this to prevent such in the future?

Ash Schwinn (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Ash Schwinn March 10, 2020 3:01AM

I see you responded to some entries after mine. Not sure if you decided to skip or just didn’t see but I just want  to get my question answered. Ash Schwinn (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Dictionary definition
According to this definition from a valid dictionary, my clarification was correct, so why revert?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/babe

Definition of babe 1a: INFANT, BABY bslang : GIRL, WOMAN cslang : a person and especially a young woman who is sexually attractive Rodericksilly (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How Bizarre
Will you please stop being such a busybody? Per this yet again revert for spurious reasoning... it is indeed brand new, short disambiguation pages that most benefit from these search tools. In fact, I found one entry directly as a result of it. If you think canned search is redundant or doesn't belong on disambiguation pages, then please take that up with the appropriate deletion forum. Until then, revert yourself and let it be. That template is used extensively - on about 1000 disambiguation pages... and this one in particular being newly created is most deserving of making use of it. -- Netoholic @ 13:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop being such a douche. It does nothing more than replicate the built-in search box. It is of dubious value on any dab page, but has zero utility on such a short page. The only real value to such redundancy is on very long dab pages where it may involve some effort to scroll back to the top of the page to get to the built-in search box. older ≠ wiser 13:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll give two major ways how it does not "replicate the built-in search box", and after giving them, I'll expect you to self-revert - even if it is not something YOU would use, perhaps you'll respect that others would. First, to use the built-in box, you have to type in (or copy-paste) the search term, so this template not only is faster, it does so with complete accuracy (no chance of a misspell). Second, when you type the phrase "How Bizarre" into the built-in box, it doesn't take to search results... it takes you to the article How Bizarre. Getting the search box to display full results requires extra steps. So this template is far more convenient in two major ways, and only uses a minimal amount of visible page space - really just empty whitespace that would be wasted anyway. You have no reasonable justification for denying editors and readers access to it. -- Netoholic @ 14:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see it. And what you describe is doubly redundant with the in title and search from template in any case. The additional redundancy for such minimal (and largely idiosyncratic) benefits aren't warranted. older ≠ wiser 14:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Idiosyncratic" such as your claim that it's only benefit is to save people scrolling in long pages? The other templates give vastly different results, and the benefits of canned search I described above are far more useful than saving scrolling. If you have issue with the template, your recourse is not to fight a lame and losing battle on a single page, but to submit it to a deletion discussion and show wider agreement with your view. Until then, you are being nothing but disrespectful to the readers and your fellow editors that value this tool. --Netoholic @ 20:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Um, right. Later, gator. I know of some bridges you might be interested in buying. older ≠ wiser 21:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello
I have actually creating the bio page MortaL who is a youtuber/streamer with 4 million subs. Could you give some time before the page has been accepted by wiki mods or whatever authority :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyVAC (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need to add entry to the disambiguation page before the article is created. older ≠ wiser 21:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism on wiki/Android
Hey Bkonrad! I don't know if this is the best way to resolve this but I noticed some vandalism on Android (disambiguation). Since you rolled the offending edit back the previous time this happened I thought I'd let you know. I hope this is the right place to do that :) Kind regards, Ubipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubipo (talk • contribs) 10:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Sofa (disambiguation)
Hi Bkonrad, I did not understand your last edit with the comment: "do not pipe links like this on dab pages". Is this a rule? I only know the rule to avoid double redirections.JoeHard (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For disambiguation pages, piped links are allowed only for very limited conditions; see MOS:DABPIPE and MOS:DABPIPING. And this was not a double redirect. It was a simple redirect. Double redirects are when the target of a redirect is another redirect. You might want to read up on when to fix or not fix redirects. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your explanation, greetings from Hamburg in Germany and stay healthy JoeHard (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Sanga (disambiguation)
I have included a direct and prominent link to sangha, a major concept in Hinduism, Sikhism & Jainism in the first line of the disambiguation page of sanga. By far the most common use of the phonetic /sanga/ or /saŋga/ is spelled "sangha" (referring to the community of monks & nuns in Buddhism). Insofar as I first heard the word in a Buddhist meditation for which I did not have the script, I made the mistake of typing "sanga" rather than "sangha" in order to search for it. It took quite some time scanning through a heap of unrelated uses in other language groups in order to reach the most likely use of the term. Could you please provide a clear policy-based reason for your edit-warring on the talk page. You've reverted twice without citing any policy to an inferior (less ergonomic/efficient) structure, which is made worse by the orange highlighting of disambiguation pages in the see also section. The best solution would be to include a link to the homophone sangha (disambiguation) in the lead of the disambiguation page to allow readers to see the roll-over pop-up straightaway. Thanks for thinking about this with an open mind, and sorry to have my feathers slightly ruffled by your authoritarian manner of dealing with proposed improvements.-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 22:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to make baseless accusations of authoritarianism. The are guidelines for how to address such cases. There is no need to deviate. older ≠ wiser 22:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not engaged on the talk page, nor have you provided a policy-based reason for your three (3) reversions, despite invitation to do so on the talk page. I proposed a compromise solution on the talk page (which though not ideal is better than the initial situation).  You did not chose to engage.  I would be interested to know which policy you think applies to force us to mention an obscure slang word for a sandwich in Australia ahead of a homonym that is culturally known to half a billion people.  Typical Wikipedia... --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The guideline is MOS:ALSO which clearly states: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body." Sro23 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. That suggests that there should be no "see also" section at all, but that the pĥonetic disambiguation should be in the lead only.  Not worth fighting over. I solved the problem, and I see Bkonrad disappeared the sandwich. ^^--  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 23:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was intrigued by the reference to a sandwich, investigated, and have reinstated the term in the dab page, with a link to the list in which it is discussed. Pam  D  08:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Colonel disambiguation
I am trying to take history into account in my presentation of my work. While I assume your edits are in good faith, we should also realize that the title of "colonel" was used longer in history to represent civilian persons in what is now known as the United States than it has been used as a military rank. It was used from 1607 until today in representation of a civilian honor. It has only been used officially in the US as a military rank since 1802 and as a rak for militias from 1765. The most recent change you made does not encompass its historical use for the Wiktionary either and is short sided since the edit goes there as well. I will appreciate reconsideration of my previous edit. Problemsmith (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages are navigational aides only and shouldn't generally contain content more appropriate for articles or wiktionary. The article colonel describes the military rank. That is all the initial line needs to say per WP:DABPRIMARY. Similarly there's no need for additional words when all that is needed is statement that Colonel may also refer to:. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Blue Monday
Hello Bkonrad, Thank you for all the work you do on Wikipedia. After your recent edit to Blue Monday, where you did not provide an edit summary, I did some research and discovered: WP:WHENNOTCITE. There is always something to learn on Wikipedia.BuffaloBob (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Riverside (disambiguation
Hello; I made a small change to the Riverside, California entry on the Riverside disambiguation page, and you reverted it. I was attempting to make it more consistent with the other city entries on the disambiguation page that mention the county they are in. I do understand that disambiguation pages should have brief entries, and I was trying to keep it brief. Can you let me know your thinking as to why Riverside, California should not mention the County while other city entries do? Thank you. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's hardly any consistency at all to speak with the entries on that page. Many could likely be trimmed a bit. The main difference though is that the California city is a rather large and relatively well-known place, unlike say Riverside, Iowa. older ≠ wiser 01:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That has some merit, but simply saying "a city" makes it sound as though Riverside, California is somehow less notable than many of the other cities, given most of the others have some type of additional information provided. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 03:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

General hospital
Some days I think I'll never stop laughing. Jbening (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

ACA DAB rollback edits
Hi Bkonrad; just curious why you rolled back my recent changes to to ACA? I'm fairly certain they moved the page closer to compliance with MOS:DAB.RAult (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad!

My apologies! I made an incorrect assumption about your previous edit.

Since MOS:DAB seems ambiguous regarding these sorts of entries, I've created a section on the talk page for the WikiProject Aviation style guide to try and sort this out.

RAult (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Soriano Results Edit
Hi I saw that you rolled back my edits for the Soriano search page whilst I was adding a new article on Marco, I'm not sure what was done incorrectly, maybe you can help me remedy this situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safiidesign (talk • contribs) 17:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple of points, first create the article for Marco A. Soriano before adding to the disambiguation page -- each entry must have a blue link to an existing article; second, for the The Soriano Group and Family Office entry, external links and references are not allowed on disambiguation pages -- again, each entry must have a blue link to existing article; finally, please sign posts on talk pages (but not articles) by adding four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your message. The system will then automatically append your user name (or a custom signature) and a date-time stamp. older ≠ wiser 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)