User talk:The Banner/Archives/2024/February

Seasonality
Good Morning, There is a user claiming (And calling me a vandal ?!) on Belgrade Airport and other airport sites that routes that are operated for only 9 months of the year are year-round. His argumentation is that as they do operate partly in winter season, they should be year-round. But I thought that these flights should always be marked seasonal as they indeed do not operate from January until March. As per Oxford, year-round significates "during the whole of the year", which is not the case here. I would be happy to hear your opinion. Best regards, Der HON (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

✅

MOS:NOPIPE:

''As per WP:NOTBROKEN and § Link specificity above, do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text. ''

WP:NOTBROKEN:

''There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. However, changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases. Piping links solely to avoid redirects is generally a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental.''

"As far as I know, there is nothing in the way of replacing a redirect by a direct link."

WP:NOTBROKEN says:

''That is, editors should not change, for instance,  to   or    to "fix a redirect". However, it is perfectly acceptable to change it to  if for some reason it is preferred that "Franklin D. Roosevelt" actually appear in the visible text.''

So the advice is quite clear: the choice of link should be driven by the choice of text. If a direct link corresponds to the best text, use a direct link. If a redirect works better, use that. Pipe the link only if necessary. The problem is that by making "bypass redirects" your motto, you often make the displayed text worse by distorting it to jam in an unsuitable direct link. I'll give you some examples.

At "The Who Sell Out" (again, a page that you edited for the first time just after I'd edited it) you made some unhelpful alterations to the displayed text in order to cram in direct links that didn't really fit. First, you changed  to   in a compact list of studios in the infobox, where the other items had been piped to remove the redundant word "studios". Changing to a direct link made the text redundant and less compact. Next, you changed  to. The capital "S" is incorrect, and the terms are synonymous, "ID" being a very common abbreviation. Your edit made the prose bulkier, and incorrectly capitalised. Next, you changed  to. The latter version is the correct title of the act, but the odd wording and punctuation, and the redundant appended date make it a poor choice in written prose, which is why we have alternative, shorter versions. This link was actually the reason I edited the page. It was edited here last November, by an odd, block-evading sockpuppet, and I was cleaning up some of the mess he'd left on dozens of pages.

At "Pictish language" you made a number of similarly poor choices, just to cram direct links into contexts where they didn't really work.

→

→

→

→

As a non-native speaker, perhaps you're not aware of how clumsy some of those constructions are. All those bad changes were quickly reverted by a third party, and rightly so.

The changes you made at "John Gummer" were relatively benign. The first is clearly contrary to WP:NOPIPE:

❌

✅

The other two changes were, I think, fairly inoffensive. The name "Committee on Climate Change" was changed to "Climate Change Committee" in 2020, but since Gummer chaired the committee from 2012 to 2023, the more modern title is acceptable in the context. I hope you checked before making that edit. What bothers me more is that you popped up at that page - a page you'd never edited before - just 36 minutes after I'd edited it, and following the discussion here. You then insist that I'm following you.

I think it must be quite clear to you by now that your edits contravene several guidelines and are increasingly against consensus. Please do yourself a favour: go back and reread the discussions here and here, and the three guidelines WP:NOPIPE, MOS:NOPIPE, and WP:NOTBROKEN, not with the intention of finding loopholes that will let you keep on imposing your preference, but with a view to understanding what those guidelines are saying and why, and what other editors are telling you. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that you get upset when people have a different opinion about your useless, invisible edits. NOPIPE is by no means mandatory, despite your bashing and harassing. So I request that you stay away from me. The Banner  talk 13:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to. Will you respond to the question that u|Mathglot put to you above:
 * "... several editors wish you would stop your pattern of violations of WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE, even if it is only a guideline, and with the understanding that you don't agree with the guideline and don't feel that it is mandatory to follow it. I'm asking if you would please follow it, anyway, in the spirit of collaboration. Would you?"  Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I want you to stop harassing me first. There is no need at all for your behaviour towards me. The Banner  talk 15:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to accept your mischaracterisation of my behaviour as harassment. I suggest you examine your own behaviour critically, and stop playing the victim. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Everybody please chill, and go back to your corners; this is becoming disruptive, and this thread is not going to result in any improvement. Let's just let it die. Mathglot (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will not revert any edits of Jean because by now I know that it massively upsets him. And that is as far as I go. The Banner  talk 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:TIES
Hi, the WP:TIES policy relates to English-speaking countries, not the whole of Europe. Neither British or American English tag should be used on this article as neither TIES nor MOS:RETAIN applies. AusLondonder (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please give evidence that American English is consistently used on articles about Hungarian subjects. Did you address the other editor too? The one that added the tag of American English? The Banner  talk 17:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would I give evidence American English is "consistently used" on Hungarian articles? My entire point is MOS:TIES does not apply to Hungarian articles. TIES does not apply to non-English speaking countries. As to the other editor, if you see someone make an inappropriate edit, revert it rather than make another inappropriate edit. AusLondonder (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it was an improvement. And why complain now, after nearly three weeks? The Banner  talk 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trenkwalder. Thank you. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your edits seem vandalism to disrupt the AfD. The Banner  talk 17:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's YOU who disrupted the AfD. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL. It is 23 February, not 1 April. The Banner  talk 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Trenkwalder shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I can return the favour after your last revert. The Banner  talk 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Hubert Trenkwalder
Hello The Banner, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Hubert Trenkwalder, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Hubert Trenkwalder.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Chris Troutman ( talk )  18:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As expected. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)