Talk:Austerlitz

Bkonrad hi. Wikipedia is a huge platform. Honestly, are you stalking my edits? There is so much place for everyone to edit without constantly undoing other people's at least well-intended edits. The same people's, at that.

The place gave its name to the battle. Whoever comes here finds the battle in a second: the lead shows him the way, the heading, everything. This is an encyclopedia, things are dealt with systematically, not just by popularity. Your top concern (quick access to most popular item) is not harmed by my edits. There is nothing WRONG with my edits, and removing other people's work based on one's personal taste is not encouraged anywhere, including WP. (Btw, I have kept your edit re. the town, with a tiny rewording, which is always OK.)

See my edit summaries: all is explained, all is according to LOGIC and in the spirit of SYSTEMATIC presentation, without becoming too much or hiding the topic in masses of material - quite the opposite. I see no reason whatsoever in your bulk reversal (Kahlschlag) of my edits, and I firmly oppose that. Please don't go into this again, we've had enough such encounters. Unless you find some kind of joy and satisfaction in aggravating fellow editors for no other reason, which I admit you managed. I wish you a good and relaxed day, hoping for one myself, with your kind contribution. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if it feels like I'm stalking you. I have tens of thousands of pages on my watch list, many of them disambiguation pages; so any edits to them, regardless of whether by you or any other editor, might catch my attention. In terms of disambiguation, the battle is unquestionably the predominant usage. Page traffic statistics is clear -- the only reason the place name has been re-used is because of the battle -- without the battle the other places would have other names. And BTW, it was not a blanket reversion of your edits, only bringing into line with WP:MOSDAB. If you have an issue with that, I suggest you ask at WT:MOSDAB or WT:WikiProject Disambiguation about how well your edits fit the guidelines. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Update, actually, I did revert your last pair of edits which were essentially reversions of my edits. older ≠ wiser 12:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's like talking to a wall, we always end up here.

• You don't even read what I'm writing.
• You never go into a discussion, just block off with abbreviations & guidelines (fuck the guidelines and WP Newspeak lingo!)
• Don't accept even to consider that guidelines are NOT the only principle on WP, let alone in life. All starts & ends for you with a link to a guideline.
  

Again, one by one, maybe like this you will be able and willing to understand what I'm saying, and that it's more to it that the 5 or 500 "guidelines" according to which you're living your WP life - what I'm always writing to you, plus what I wrote in this concrete case:

1. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
2. If you are so skilled in using WP templates and rules: be CONSTRUCTIVE. You are not, but are editing in a mechanistic, bureaucratic manner instead, which harms the quality of the information. I give the origin of a term? Replace it with a Wiktionary link, if it's even remotely equivalent. I am using a logical A leads to B leads to C approach, and you know B is the most popular search term? Don't remove the logical chain, but place B first, with a link ("B called after A, and gave birth to C"). Or, if your religion prohibits that type of compromise: create an article stub, don't just remove useful info. Fact is, like here: there is a line of terms, one evolving from the previous, a fact which is of encyclopedic interest to users, but it doesn't perfectly fit the Procrustes iron bed formats of either WP article, or DAB. That's why we have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and each of us his own brain.
3. All encyclopedias were created to fulfill TWO purposes: 1) to educate, and 2) to help the user find explanations. You cannot ignore the first and keep an encyclopedia relevant. You diminish it to the level of a shallow social media facility, of an Alexa robot reacting according to a less-than-smart algorithm.
4. Logic, good structure, and well-intended, well-worded material presented in a way that facilitates quick orientation, and respects encyclopedic brevity, can only be good for the user. And there's no higher commandment in an encyclopedia than "be good for the user".
5. This DAB is called "Austerlitz", not "Battle of Austerlitz". Dealing with the term at hand must have priority.
6. The place gave name to the battle. Whoever comes here finds the battle in half a second: the lead shows him the way, the heading, everything. If you must, place "Battle of Austerlitz" in the lead with a link, although see previous point; but don't remove the chain "PLACE - BATTLE - DERIVATES of both" (P-B-D).
7. Encyclopedias, by definition, deal with topics systematically, not just by popularity. This, connected to #1, tells you how much some obscure guideline matters in the bigger picture.
8. Your first reflex is bulk reversal, whatever you might say.
9. I guess we both know about the battle, but do you know where Austerlitz is? I didn't, the name went out of use, and the P-B-D chain, while it only takes one sentence, clarifies it. And educates the user (and editor), which see #3.
10. Think of the Hippocratic Oath, as an impulse for bringing in line moral, intellectual, and professional principles: "first do no harm". By removing a useful, brief information, you're doing just that: harming the user. Info is either fully gone, or less user-friendly to access (one-look clarity).

Austerlitz on Wiktionary is not built in a way that serves the user of an encyclopedia according to the principle: root/cause - effect - further development of semantically related terms. It's not very helpful as a replacement for the information I had introduced (P-B-D).

But I see it coming: see WPIQX, combined with WPDMB in connection with WPSHT, therefore fuhgeddaboudit. Arminden (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah where to even begin. There is nothing WRONG with my edits, and removing other people's work based on one's personal taste is not encouraged anywhere -- sorry, but there was much "WRONG" about your edits -- and while we all (including you) might have some personal taste in how things are presented -- there is also fairly clear guidelines at WP:MOSDAB (oh sorry, are you confused by initialisms? try clicking the link).

It's like talking to a wall, we always end up here. -- The feeling is mutual.

fuck the guidelines -- OK, good to know where you are coming from.

If you are so skilled in using WP templates and rules: be CONSTRUCTIVE. You are not, but are editing in a mechanistic, bureaucratic manner instead, which harms the quality of the information -- -- or is this just your opinion? I don't have any idea what the remainder of rant in #2 is supposed to mean. WP:IAR is not justification to do whatever you like. Guidelines exist for a reason, and while there may be cases where the guidelines don't anticipate every eventuality, I don't think this is such a situation.

This is a disambiguation page, not an article. The primary purpose of such pages is to help readers locate the article they were looking for, not to forcibly educate them about what you deem "encyclopedic".

Yes, this dab is called Austerlitz rather than Battle of Austerlitz. And yet, the name is metonym (or some such similar rhetorical trope) for the battle. The place itself would be completely unnotable except for the battle, and none of the other uses would likely even exist were it not for the battle.

Yeah, I do want to put the needs of the reader before editor preferences -- and I do not see how your edits in any way help a reader with regards to disambiguation. The name is NOT primarily about any of the places, or about the family name -- how does mentioning them in opening line benefit anyone? older ≠ wiser 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)