Talk:BCD
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Devon Fyson in topic Reverting edit removed useful content.
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Outtakes
edit- Birth control device, a contraceptive
- bolt circle diameter
Reverting edit removed useful content.
editWhat was the point of reverting that edit I made? You removed useful information in the name of making the page adhere slightly more to the Wikipedia:MOSDAB. Instead I feel like the proper course of action would be to either fix the problems without removing useful content, flag it for someone else to fix, or don't worry about it. The bolt circle diameter is an abstract concept but for which no specific page exists (yet), but there are at least multiple examples for which it relates such as a crankset or wheel rim. I changed the link so it at least references a page which mentions BCD with respect to rims. Devon (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- User:Devon Fyson My edit summary explains it all. Did you see it? I've reverted that edit (again). Moving this to the dab talk - reply there pls. Widefox; talk 09:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- They're both examples of the same thing, and we don't need all of them linked, but the second one has slightly more details so linked that. (as for the proper course of action, we go by consensus (and see WP:BRD why you should come here and Discuss when Reverted before redoing the edit) and WP:MOSDAB for formatting e,g, both edits I reverted have punctuation at the end, which my revert summary states. Widefox; talk 09:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate your intentions to cleanup pages and yes I saw and I agree what I had written didn't strictly follow the Wikipedia:MOSDAB guidelines, but that wasn't my point. My point was that you were removing useful content on Wikipedia in the name of trying to maintain strict adherence to the guidelines. See Wikipedia:MOSDAB#When to break Wikipedia rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". What you have there now is much more appropriate, although I feel like both articles should be wikilinked because both contain relevant information. So if someone comes to this page, how are they to know there is a section in crankset which also talks about the BCD? I for one would expect that if there was, it would also be linked, and now I have to copy/paste crankset into the search bar which completely defeats the philosophy behind why disambiguation pages exist in the first place. There is another more subtle yet import reason for leaving the two links there: It suggests there is redundant information within both pages; a universal concept explained for each application. Thus by leaving both links there it helps identify redundancies and have a higher chance of inspiring someone to create the page "bolt circle diameter", cleanup both pages and make the entry on this disambiguation page even better than it is now. Devon (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)