User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Mar

Capidava
Hi! Thanks for cleanup work at Capidava. Any reason for removing links to certain years, centuries? Thanks and regards.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for clarifying. Left another note on my talk page.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

List of State Leaders per year
Hello Chris, ive been working on these lists alot lately, and i noticed today that you have removed alot of titles everywhere. I have two concerns with this and i would like to hear your rationale. You removed alot links to ruler titles, but there doesnt seem to be any pattern in it - you removed the 'List of Byzantine Emperors' link, but not the 'Tsar of Bulgaria' link, you removed the 'King of Georgia' link, but not the 'King of Armenia'. You removed the 'Duke of Saxony', 'Duke of Swabia', 'King of Hungary' links, but not the 'Count Palatinate of Lotharingia' or 'Duke of Upper Lotharingia' links. What is going on? Why are some titles removed and others are not?
 * First concern: your removal of links on these pages seems very very random to me. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_state_leaders_in_1000&action=historysubmit&diff=414254210&oldid=412770465
 * Second concern: The whole removal of those links is very bothersome in the first place. Those links make it easy to immediatly access a list of all rulers of a specific state. Furthermore, sometimes the links are simply required to denote what position the ruler had. For example: Regents often show up that rule alongside the actual rulers, and links are needed to distinguish between them. The links are partially there to make it clear what position the ruler had. If you remove them, it becomes very confusing. Was the ruler a king? duke? count? More recent state leader lists like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_leaders_in_2000 all show every ruler with his/her title linked. Why the changes here and not there? Lastly, there are still rulers that do not have a page yet on Wikipedia, but for obvious reasons can show up on lists like these. If you remove the title, you make it even more difficult to find any info about them, because you obviously cannot check their own pages. Omegastar (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your reply did not adress most of my concerns. By your logic, we could remove the dates aswell, because we could easily see the dates if we just went to the ruler's page. Or the state name, because we can find out which state they ruled if we go to their page. Ok, these examples are absurd, but i have never seen any complaints about those lists being cluttered. To you they might seem so, but to me they were nice and informative WITH the titles. I cant find anything about the decision to remove titles in the /Talk of the project. Can you show me where the decision was made to remove them? The removal of the titles makes it more confusing to me. Most of the issues i summed in my Second concern have not been answered yet. I do not agree with the title removal, so i ask that you stop it for now. Omegastar (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I myself have considered the question "'how might any reader actually use these lists?'. When i started working on these lists, the dates for a rulers' reign were also linked - i found that excessive because it is incredibly easy to reach that specific year without links. When the links were eventually removed this year, i wholeheartedly supported that idea.

But title-links on the other hand, i find very useful. I have to make a note here however, that it is not so much information about the title itself, as the list of rulers that is being linked. I do not think it is true people only reach these pages because they are looking for information on one specific year; i think most people are actually researching either a period or a specific region. In both cases, predecessors and successors of the ruler that is shown would also be relevant to that person's interest, therefore the link to a list of rulers of a specific territory is highly useful. Furthermore, there are still issues that you havent answered yet; there are often multiple rulers associated with a territory. Titles are simply required to make it clear what their actual positions are. The distinction between a Regent and an actual rulers specifically would be lost, causing confusion. The link to a ruler list also provides context for those rulers that do not have a page on wikipedia yet. By removing the title there, it becomes harder to find info about they have no pages of their own.

Also, the pattern you are following in which yyy, Duke of xxxx], [[Duke of xxxx becomes yyy, Duke of xxxx actually causes great inconsistency, because there is no consistency on the actual wikipedia pages on these rulers - some have their title included into their name, others do not.

Now, the WikiProject_Leaders_by_year CLEARLY states the following:

"Articles are to be formatted as follows. Continent "
 * Country -
 * President/Monarch - Name, Office (year began-year ended)
 * Prime Minister -
 * Name of first head of government in that year, Office (year began-year ended)
 * Name of second head of government in that year, Office (year began-year ended
 * Quasi-sovereign Subnational Entity - Name, Office (year began-year ended)

As you can see, the wikiproject for these pages itself says that Office should be included. You still have not told me where the decision was made to make this substantial alteration to the way these pages are written. This project is over 2000 pages large. You shouldnt suddenly introduce a significant change without discussing it. So i am asking you again, please stop removing titles from the pages for now. Omegastar (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)