User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 100

Archive 95

←

Archive 98

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

Archive 105

weird cats

I noticed you had reverted Zi Jony as well and I cannot for the life of me figure out how this category applies to these articles. There are 206 instances of it and I'm not aware of any guideline that says we should add a cat of every network a show has ever appeared? Am I crazy or is this just incorrect? here are my comments on ZJ's talk. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Praxidicae:, I hadn't really considered the category itself. I reverted the addition of the article-space category to disambiguation pages which was clearly inappropriate. But yes, you are right that the addition of the category to many of the actual show articles is inappropriate. older ≠ wiser 14:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

A weird cat

SSB referring to sugar-sweetened beverage

Hi, multiple reliable sources use SSB to refer to sugar-sweetened beverages. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a reliable source for whether or not initialisms/acronyms are commonly used. See 2020 Annual Review article, Cochrane, and the CDC. Elysia (AR) (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Elysia (AR): Yes, but so far as disambiguation pages are concerned the linked article must support the claimed usage, else there is no way to distinguish legitimate from spurious entries. older ≠ wiser 19:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bkonrad, fair enough, I added the initialism to the article. Elysia (AR) (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Wire_(disambiguation) page

Hi!

Regarding your change to Wire_(disambiguation), with edit summary "cleanup":

(a) All the entries are songs yet this change makes some entries state "song" and others not. Since the section's title says "Songs", it seems redundant to say "song" beside each item.

(b) If you are trying to enforce a rule of displaying each link with no alt-text, why exempt the second item (Wire_(Third_Day_album))? And what would you do about the following entry which also breaks this rule? It appears in the "fictional entities" section:

"The Wire", a Doctor Who alien lifeform

It seems to me that this change reduces legibility because it makes the entries less tabular.
— Black Walnut ^talk 15:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC).

@Black Walnut: Please see WP:MOSDAB and in particular MOS:DABPIPE. In general we do not pipe entries on disambiguation pages. MOS:DABPIPING lists exceptions to the general rule. One exception is to apply formatting. That is why the entries for the songs are piped as for example [[Wire (song)|"Wire" (song)]] -- to put the song title in quotation marks and still display the full article title. Another exception concerns links in the description, where the article title is not ambiguous with the term being disambiguated. In such cases, the link can be piped for readability. older ≠ wiser 17:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I see. You are right -- the MOS clearly requires this. I do find this arrangement detrimental, on that page. But that is a discussion about changing the rule. Thank you for your help!
— Black Walnut ^talk 23:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC).

Talk:Macmillan

Hi. When I write "Let's discuss" I mean it Talk:Macmillan. SenoritaGomez (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

• Special report: Paid editing with political connections

• News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

• In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

• Featured content: Life finds a Way

• Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

• Traffic report: Is there no justice?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

BLP Vandalism

Could you take a look at chronic vandalism on Venmo? Looking through the edit history it looks like more of that Acronym Guy /DeepNikita vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacenacho (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Starry, Starry Night

Thanks for your reverts and fixes at Stroganoff (disambiguation). Can you double-check my edits at disambig page Starry, Starry Night, especially this one, which I was unsure of? Can't decide if those two entries belong there at all, or if maybe we should link to Starry Night (disambiguation) instead. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, Starry Starry Night looks fine. Yes, cross-linking in see also with Starry Night (disambiguation) would be quite reasonable. older ≠ wiser 00:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of the two that are in "See also" now, or in addition to them? Mathglot (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Jared Susa

Hi, you've just blocked the above user, thanks. Can you also block User:Lorry Hockett - making similar edits on similar articles. Regards, Denisarona (talk) 10:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for great work. Enjoy! Denisarona (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving Stargazer (single) to Stargazer (JO1 song)

Hi, I want to inform you that yes calling "Stargazer" as a single is a bit ambigous, but calling it a song is also wrong because there's no song titled "Stargazer" in the single. In Japan, a maxi-single consists of several songs. "Stargazer" is the name of the single, and listed as a single on Oricon charts. However, the lead song their promoted/promoted for the single titled "Oh-Eh-Oh" (as you can read on the article), So, can you please undo the move? --Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is not a song, the name is incorrectly formatted in the article. Song titles use quotation marks while titles of albums and EPS and similar works are italicized. I've moved it to Stargazer (JO1 EP) as that seems the closest fit. older ≠ wiser 10:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

--But it is not an EP/album/single album either because it's never been called/promoted/charted as anything other than a single whether by the artist or media. The consensus on Talk: JO1 also has decided to call their singles as a single. Other Japanese singles with same format as "Stargazer" is also called a single (for example, Ayumi Hamasaki's "Zutto.../Last Minute/Walk"), so I don't see why this has to be an exception.--Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm not particularly interested in the stylizations of j-pop fandom, but the use of quotation marks is used for songs. I don't think WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override broader Wikipedia style guides. Stargazer is unlike "Zutto.../Last Minute/Walk" in that that one actually contains songs with those three names. Such double (or in this case, triple) barrel names is uncommon, but not rare. But here there is a different title for the collection that is not the same as any of the individual pieces. older ≠ wiser 10:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It's not a fandom thing though because every reliable sources does see it as a single and it follows format of a single. So, just because their company (that is heavily influenced by K-pop releases) prefers to have a completely different title from the promoted song, it suddenly changes into an EP?? If that's the case then only Wikipedia that list it as an EP, and that will definitely make general people confused because this definitely affects how their whole discography is written here.--Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If you follow the linked discussion at Talk:JO1 to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 58#"Single Album", the consensus there appears to be to call them as "single albums" and to style them similar to albums. older ≠ wiser 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

After browsing through Wikipedia to look for a similar cases, I stumbled upon Ayumi Hamasaki's singles H. Judging from the talk page, the single is in the situation as Stargazer, and even though there's no consensus, the article is deemed as a good article and the same principle is applied to her other singles & and L, so I plan to apply it to JO1's discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yolo4A4Lo (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Arun verma khator

Thanks for your revert of the edit[1] by Arun verma khator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the dab page Arun.

This editor has repeatedly hijacked the article Arun Verma to post an autobiography.

I posted[2] about it at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Arun_verma_khator ... but no response so far.

Since you are an admin and around right now, please can you block this user per WP:NOTHERE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I think a duck is quacking. Jethalallive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is doing the same thing. – ².O.^Boxing 10:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Massena, New York (disambiguation)

The article Massena, New York (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There's a primary topic, so per WP:TWODABS, this can be better handled with hatnotes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Front man (disambiguation)

Take it to AfD; you can't PROD it more than once. If there's a policy, cite the policy--on matters of DAB legalistics I plead WP:IGNORANCE. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

... and why I think you shouldn't: [3] Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't care about the prod or whether it is deleted. I only reverted your edits as invalid for disambiguation pages. Try reading WP:Disambiguation or WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 23:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Read them yourself--neither article says that citations are invalid on a disambiguation page. It's pure invention on your part. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Try again. WP:DABREF and MOS:DABNOLINK 00:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. So you reverted all of it because there were references? Did you read it first, or no? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, not your PROD, just a sloppy revert. Apologies. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

SC East Bengal

Why are you constantly rolling back the changes without any proper explanation? Is it some kind of vandalism that you are doing? If so, please refrain from doing so. IAmPushpak (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)