User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2009/Jan

Canyon Diablo
I often use "standard" in the sense of "the way it's done", not necessarily "the way it's required to be done". Sorry to be confusing; I've confused people plenty of times this way, so I know I need to be more careful. We need this link to help give context: if we link the other parts of where it is, we need to link the country, as it's part of the [forgive me for not being able to think of the right word] "explanation" or "definition" or whatever we want to call the first sentence. Most people know what 2009 is, and they know what 6 January is, but we don't remove them from articles on dates because it's relevant to the context. In the same way, we need to link to United States, as it's a major part of the context. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, by the way, there is somewhat of a "standard" — see WP:USCITY. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nyttend, I'm curious as to how the reader's diversion to the article United States would help their understanding of almost all topics to do with the nation. Perhaps one might link to a section in that article occasionally, say, from the article Economy of the United States; but such a link does need to be geniunely, demonstrably useful. Likewise for "6 January" and "2009". Can you provide examples? Tony   (talk)  15:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

City-State
What is your reasoning for removing this that links to both the city and state and replacing it with one that just links to the city? 72.159.71.131 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't say which article you're talking about. But in general, where an article links to a city, it doesn't need to link to the state too; the state is just there either to disambiguate the city (e.g. Portland, Maine vs Portland, Oregon) or to provide context for a reader who might otherwise have no idea at all where the city is (e.g. Elko, Nevada). If a reader wants to know more about the state the city lies in, they can use the link in the city's article. The sort of convoluted construction that you see sometimes, along the lines of Des Moines, Iowa just adds complication without providing any significant benefit. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the thing that is like {{city-state then the city and state. Why does this thing exist then? 72.159.71.131 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be thinking of the {{city-state}} template. It generates separate city & state links, in the way I described above, but as linking that way isn't good practice, I converted to straightforward city, state links.Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah thats it. What do you mean it isn't good practice? It makes both links, thats not better? Why was it created in the first place? 69.136.60.6 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can create a template; some of them are a good idea, some not. When an article links to a city, that's what the link should do, link to the city. If you want to know more about the city, you can click on the link. If you then want to know about the state the city's in, you can use the link in the city article. The state's only there because most US city articles are named that way. Other cities around the world usually just have the city name alone e.g. if an article mentioned the English town of Cheltenham, it wouldn't usually mention that it's in the county of Gloucestershire, because English towns aren't usually identified that way. But the Cheltenham article would have a link to Gloucestershire. It's not necessarily better to have more links - what's important is to have links that people are likely to use. And if an article mentions a city, it's very unlikely that anyone would click on the link to the state that city's in - especially as you can't easily tell from the appearance of the link whether it's linking to city, state or city, state . Compare Des Moines, Iowa and Des Moines, Iowa for example - the only (barely) visible difference is the black or blue comma. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Iceberg (Fashion House)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Iceberg (Fashion House), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Iceberg (Fashion House) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Iceberg (Fashion House), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris. Yes, the page can be restored. It was actually deleted because it failed to establish any significance. It appears that the subject has not more than ten links here in Wiki, and its something. --Efe (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to improve it? If I restore the page now and nothing happens after, it will be speedy deleted again. --Efe (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Restored. I added a tag to alert other users its in the middle of a revamp. --Efe (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

List of extreme makeover episoes
Hi there,

i revert yoru awb because it messed up the location, state links i will not be doing the same to the invidual pages for each season as the information is on teh first page but i agree teh dates should be changed.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok fair enough i will remove the links manually then because the links where workign fine withut the way the awb made it so i will remove the state links which i was doing slowly and make sure the location links works--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They dates came back when i reverted, i am manually goign through it just now and fixing it manually i am also fixing a few other minor issues, ill leave a messae when i have finished it and if you can check it is fine then that will be it done :), but i am trying to understand why you need to have it location, state istead of location, state? and where there is other ones doing location, state as it looks better to me--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok i have manually done the removing of links if you can check and then fix anything that is still wrong then that page should techincally be complete :) sorry for the hassle --Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration
Just to make you aware I've named you as a party in this, I had intended to from the beginning but forgot you. You've already made a statement so you're obviously aware of it, but I wanted to leave a note making sure you know you'd been included as a party. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)