User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 109
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 105 | ← | Archive 107 | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | → | Archive 115 |
Got off on the wrong foot
Sorry about the dispute, it had nothing to do with me being personally against you. After all, it's an encyclopedia, so I believe no grudges should be held. Take this kitten as a token of gratitude, just don't call me names again please. :P
China (disambiguation)
This issue is complicated. PRC in de facto and legally, only represents most of China, not all of it. A smaller part of it is controlled by ROC. So China should not be equal to PRC.
( Similar to how Soviet Union should not be succeeded by Russian Federation, but rather by Russian Federation, Ukraine, and remaining republics ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeLark64 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- OrangeLark64 The article China is about the PRC. That is all the disambiguation page needs to say. The disambiguation is not the place to attempt to describe the Cross-Strait relations of ROC and PRC. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the disambiguation page should reflect an unbiased condition of the jurisdiction, then that is to say, China is split into two in de facto and the page should not lean towards neither side. OrangeLark64 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. The article China is about the PRC. If you think that article should be something other than that, you'll need to start there, not on the disambiguation page.older ≠ wiser 10:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Bkonrad. Disambiguation pages are merely indexes. BD2412 T 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is Wikipedia in anyway, funded directly, or indirectly by the US government? OrangeLark64 (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Can there be a solution to be found as a compromise for the residents in Taiwan, since it is technically China but not PRC, regarding to the neutrality of this page? OrangeLark64 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I concur with Bkonrad. Disambiguation pages are merely indexes. BD2412 T 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. The article China is about the PRC. If you think that article should be something other than that, you'll need to start there, not on the disambiguation page.older ≠ wiser 10:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- With all due respect, the disambiguation page should reflect an unbiased condition of the jurisdiction, then that is to say, China is split into two in de facto and the page should not lean towards neither side. OrangeLark64 (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Accordance with the deletion of Suryakant।Yadav
That page needed to be deleted because it had no information in it, you did the correct thing, and all i did was notifying it as a stub when i didn't know an atricle with a similar name has been deleted just because i wasn't an administrator... But thanks for deleting it. VirtualizerExtreme (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
San Lorenzo
Thanks for Turning the page into a redirect that's what I was trying to do, could you please tell me how you did it? N1TH Music (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 March 2022
- From the Signpost team: How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
- News and notes: Of safety and anonymity
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Kharkiv, Ukraine: Countering Russian aggression with a camera
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Western Ukraine: Working with Wikipedia helps
- Disinformation report: The oligarchs' socks
- In the media: Ukraine, Russia, and even some other stuff
- Wikimedian perspective: My heroes from Russia, Ukraine & beyond
- Discussion report: Athletes are less notable now
- Technology report: 2022 Wikimedia Hackathon
- Arbitration report: Skeptics given heavenly judgement, whirlwind of Discord drama begins to spin for tropical cyclone editors
- Traffic report: War, what is it good for?
- Deletion report: Ukraine, werewolves, Ukraine, YouTube pundits, and Ukraine
- From the archives: Burn, baby burn
- Essay: Yes, the sky is blue
- Tips and tricks: Become a keyboard ninja
- On the bright side: The bright side of news
Page:Invidious changes reverted
Hello Bkonrad,
Recently, I updated the page, Invidious with information about the open source project under the same that that is hosted on GitHub. I made sure that the Wiktionary entry was linked. But my changes were reverted by you, I am wondering for what is the reason?
Thanks!
3kh0 | 3kh0.github.io (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Ekh0-1: Your stub had no sources and nothing to indicate any notability. older ≠ wiser 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- yeah, i was still trying to figure out how to add the not enough source message, i was still gathering sources Ekh0-1talk 00:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ekh0-1, it would be best to gather the sources first, and then start thinking about creating the article. But before all that you'd need to consider if the topic is notable in the first place. If it isn't, then the article is unlikely to survive. Maybe have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (the established community guideline) and at Wikipedia:Notability (software) (which is not a guideline but may, or may not, contain advice that people agree with). – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- yeah, i was still trying to figure out how to add the not enough source message, i was still gathering sources Ekh0-1talk 00:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Spirit
Hi, noticed your reverts to Spirit and 'spirit' links from various articles. Trying to fix problems with Spirit (animating force) while following MOS:LINK and MOS:DISAMBIG. Input appreciated on Talk:Spirit_(animating_force)#Requested move 7 April 2022. fiveby(zero) 15:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association.png
Thanks for uploading File:Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Rove disambiguation page
I have no idea what you are trying to achieve with your recent edits on Rove. If there were anything to differ over, it should surely be whether the link should go to Glossary of nautical terms (M-Z)#reeve - because that is where the actual explanation of the word is. Perhaps you have a different read of MOS:DAB than me. I am only at the point of curiosity as to what your thinking is - this is nothing like a big problem. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- MOS:DABPIPE:
Apart from the exceptions listed below, piping and redirects should generally not be used on disambiguation pages. This is to make it clear to the reader which topic is the subject of an article title.
- MOS:DABPIPING:
Piping may be used when the link is in the description
- MOS:DABMENTION:
If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. In this case, the link does not start the line, but it should still be the only blue wikilink.
...It is often useful to link to the relevant section of the target page using anchors and conceal that by making it a piped link
older ≠ wiser 19:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
New administrator activity requirement
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
- Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
- Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings! You reverted changes of mine and I do not understand why. I removed indirect links, e.g., Po (disambiguation) and Poo poo (disambiguation) redirect to Po and Poo poo. Are the changes to you reverted to desirable? Helen4780 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, per WP:INTDABLINK:
Links to disambiguation pages from mainspace are typically errors. In order to find and fix those errors, disambiguators generate reports of links needing to be checked and fixed. Because these reports cannot distinguish cases where an editor has made such a link with the intent to point to the disambiguation page, the community has adopted the standard of routing all intentional disambiguation links in mainspace through "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects. This makes it clear that such links are intended to point to the disambiguation page.
} older ≠ wiser 02:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The Signpost: 24 April 2022
- News and notes: Double trouble
- In the media: The battlegrounds outside and inside Wikipedia
- Special report: Ukrainian Wikimedians during the war
- Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary (Part 2)
- Technology report: 8-year-old attribution issues in Media Viewer
- Featured content: Wikipedia's best content from March
- Interview: On a war and a map
- Serendipity: Wikipedia loves photographs, but hates photographers
- Traffic report: Justice Jackson, the Smiths, and an invasion
- News from the WMF: How Smart is the SMART Copyright Act?
- Humour: Really huge message boxes
- From the archives: Wales resigned WMF board chair in 2006 reorganization
The WITCH companies are very commonly known by that name
Have you been following the IT scene, like, at all in the last few years? People talk about Wipro, Infosys, Tata Consulting, Cognizant, and HCL as a unit constantly. T3h 1337 b0y 16:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- That's swell. But the criteria for including on a disambiguation page is that the usage is mentioned in an existing Wikipedia article. older ≠ wiser 19:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I don't think there'll be much reason to include the acronym on any of the articles about those companies: the conceptual grouping doesn't have much salience for each individual company. See for example how CIVETS isn't mentioned in the articles about the linked countries. The core question is whether readers are likely to be seeking this acronym while searching for "witch" – that will be the case if the acronym is commonly used. Is it common? When I search on google for witch Wipro I get about 5 pages of results. Not a little, but not a lot either. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a article for CIVETS. So far as I can tell, there isn't any article that would satisfy WP: DABMENTION which is pretty much the minimum threshold for including on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 00:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point was that the individual company articles don't need to mention the WITCH acronym any more than the individual country articles need to mention CIVETS. DABMENTION requires the linked articles to have relevant content (Wipro obviously has relevant content on the company Wipro, etc.) – we don't necessarily need an article discussing the collectivity as long as the individual members are linked. The crucial question remains if the term for this collectivity is common enough. – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- There must be at least one existing article that supports claimed usage, else there is nothing to direct readers to. Recall the purpose of disambiguation pages is a navigational aide. Disambiguation pages are not a slang dictionary and are not a directory to general web content. We should not be directing readers to articles that do not have any mention whatsoever in support of the claimed usage. older ≠ wiser 15:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- For a more comparable example, see the entry for GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple) which links to Big Tech which does support the claimed usage. older ≠ wiser 16:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point was that the individual company articles don't need to mention the WITCH acronym any more than the individual country articles need to mention CIVETS. DABMENTION requires the linked articles to have relevant content (Wipro obviously has relevant content on the company Wipro, etc.) – we don't necessarily need an article discussing the collectivity as long as the individual members are linked. The crucial question remains if the term for this collectivity is common enough. – Uanfala (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a article for CIVETS. So far as I can tell, there isn't any article that would satisfy WP: DABMENTION which is pretty much the minimum threshold for including on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 00:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I don't think there'll be much reason to include the acronym on any of the articles about those companies: the conceptual grouping doesn't have much salience for each individual company. See for example how CIVETS isn't mentioned in the articles about the linked countries. The core question is whether readers are likely to be seeking this acronym while searching for "witch" – that will be the case if the acronym is commonly used. Is it common? When I search on google for witch Wipro I get about 5 pages of results. Not a little, but not a lot either. – Uanfala (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)