User talk:Cnbrb/Archive/2007

year links: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
''If the date does not contain both a month and a day, date preferences do not apply: linking or not linking the date will make no difference to the text that the reader sees. So when considering whether such a date should be linked or not, editors should take into account the usual considerations about links, including the recommendations of Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context.

''There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.''

That is the usual reason I unlink years, unless the event was major, year links generally provide little context to the articles they are linked from. Full dates with month and day I always link (unless it's part of a title or something such), because otherwise date preferences don't apply. Circeus 14:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a time when year links were considered normal, but nowadays they are not. Of course, the considerable variation in date linking isn't helping. Circeus 15:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture
Hello and welcome to the wikiproject - here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page, otherwise, it automatically updates. Please give me or one of the other project members a shout if you need any help. Kind regards --Joopercoopers 14:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Azione_Capital
Ncknight 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Hello there,

I was notified that the abovementioned page is written like an advertisement. The article has made multiple clear references to news articles on its existence and its importance in the Interactive Digital Media community in Singapore. If there are any "advertising" trigger words on this article, it would be appreciated if you can edit them out accordingly. The user Accounting4Taste has also reviewed the content and is ok with it. Please review and revert.

Ncknight 15:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Hello there,

Thank you for your response. I will do what needs to be done to clean up the article and would appreciate more observations from you so as to better write future articles; I am writing up another few more pages and will be uploading them in the coming weeks and would appreciate guidance.


 * I've given this Azione Capital article an edit and tried to make it more impersonal, and taken out quite a bit of what I felt was unnecessary detail. My feeling is that someone would come to this article looking to find out what Azione Capital did in a general sense, that most of the fine detail and history was not necessary and, if the reader wanted to know more, they could go to the website which is listed as an external link.  I'm not sure precisely what the author meant when he said I was "ok with it" -- I originally tagged it as non-notable, based on a less fleshed-out version, and removed my own tag when notability was demonstrated to my satisfaction.  I've tried to work with this author to make a Wikipedia-style article.  If you still have concerns about this being spammy, please bring them to me and I'll work with you until you're satisfied.  Accounting4Taste 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ncknight 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Hi there,

I have to admit, short is good; I certainly have a lot to learn from you on the area of writing! I will be upping a few more articles in the coming weeks that are in reference to the original article (particularly on the project senso non-profit piece) and I would love to have your input on them to making them clean and concise. Much appreciated!

London Overground
The map linked was the one TfL released to accompany the launch of the Overground brand last year - something put together to inform journos what the Overground and East London Line look like - and not necessarily indicative of other changes. Linking it so prominently in the way it was didn't make sense. --82.45.163.4 15:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Category redirect
I see that Category:Kilburn is a redirect to the Category:Brent. The problem with this is that the district of Kilburn in London is actually split between two London boroughs, London Borough of Brent and the London Borough of Camden. Is it acceptable to put two redirects into a category, or is this good grounds to start Category:Kilburn as a cat in its own right?

--Cnbrb 23:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold and start the category! It's either that, or listing all articles about Kilburn in both categories. Bjelleklang -  talk Bug Me 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Category on British Waterways
I've reverted your change to British Waterways to remove Category:Transport authorities in London, as the organisation covers the whole UK, not just London, and this would just end up with it being categorised as a Transport authority for every large town in the UK! I notice that another editor removed Category:Water transport in London yesterday.

Categorising a national organisation with London cats doesn't seem to be a good idea to at least two of us. If you disagree, could you discuss on Talk:British Waterways rather than just adding the categories?

Many thanks

Mayalld 11:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)