Wikipedia

User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 67

< User talk:Bkonrad
Latest comment: 9 years ago by WikiDan61 in topic Please join a discussion
Archive 60 ← Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70

Haisla dab

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just tried to revert your re-placement of the so-called "malplaced" disambiguation page; but unlike other listings on the move log, I don't see a "revert" switch. In case you hadn't noticed, dozens of the artificial and uncalled for/undiscussed moves to add "people" to these titles were overturned by RM after RM after RM per TITLE/CONCISENESS and MOSTCOMMON (as incoming links and viewstats would readily demonstrate the people/ethno article as the PRIMARYTOPIC). Whatever, it's not like you care, or know about the subject even. It was an unwarranted restoration of an unneeded dab page; Haisla Nation and Haisla language are derivatives of Haisla, and increasingly in Canadian usage the actual names of the language are used, not "+ language" e.g. Smalgy'ax vs Coast Tsimshian, Kwak'wala vs the very-wrong "Kwakiutl language", Haad Kil vs Haida language, and so on. As someone who works on a lot of articles using these terms, and know what is the most common way to link them/use them, it's irritating when you find someone has, without discussion, or knowledge, restored a dab page making more work for the editors who actually use the term in articles.Skookum1 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

NPOV Emergency

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please check the view history. I tried fixing the article myself, because I know naturopathy is NOT pseudoscience, but straight away several users that are not admins reverted my attempt to fix the article. Also, please remove the Naturopathy article from the pseudoscience template and the pseudoscience category, because this could lure people into using WP:PSCI on the wrong article. --67.80.218.118 (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

--NeilN talk to me 21:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Deleted Talk?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Why would you delete my comments on the Main Page Talk? That seems pretty aggressive and odd as comments are very rarely removed by others, so I am assuming it was a mistake. If it was, please revert your undo. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your deletion has been reverted by another editor, so no worries there. I still do hope it was an accident and not something I wrote as "complex dynamics" is pretty innocuous, I think. HullIntegrity\ talk / 13:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
@HullIntegrity: Yes, it was an error. A hazard of editing on a mobile device. I tried self reverting but someone beat me to it. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool. No worries. I just did not want to undo your undo of my comment because that usually gets weird. And thanks for the follow up. HullIntegrity\ talk / 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to thread the needle

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —and using the letter identification of subject phrases. A:, B:, C:, ... is just for discussion purposes.

D.1 The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.
D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, as well as B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.
D.3. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district, C: two commonwealths, D: three territories and E: other possessions in its national jurisdiction.

These can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.

D.1. The federal republic consists of A, B and C. or,
  • A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic -- or -- C is in a non-A-B status.

or

D.2. The federal republic consists of A, as well as B and C. or,
  • A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, B and C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic, -- or -- B and C are in a non-A status.

or

D.3. The federal republic consists of A, B, C, D and E. or,
  • A, B, C, D, E in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, E in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic, -- or -- E is in a non-A-B-C-D-E status.

Any thoughts in response to these items for redrafts, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

Regarding Stockholm

Latest comment: 9 years ago21 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Could you explain in what way Stockholm and Stockholm urban area are not the same? I have brought up the issue before at WP:Sweden where no one answered. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

One is a municipality and the other is a statistical area. older ≠ wiser 00:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
How? Both are urban areas, also localities (or "tätorter" in Swedish). --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how else to explain it. Try reading municipality. Or if you understand Swedish try explaining why the two have separate articles in the Swedish wp.older ≠ wiser 00:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what a municipality is and this is not about that. It is about urban areas. I have written in the Swedish Wikipedia, where some thought that Stockholm is an exceptional case, while others disagreed, but the scope of the article Stockholm urban area in this (English) Wikipedia is the same as Stockholm. There are nearly 2,000 urban areas in Sweden. What makes these three different? See List of urban areas in Sweden. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Which three? Why should the Stockholm urban area be treated any differently from all the other urban area articles? older ≠ wiser 01:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Gothenburg urban area and Malmö urban area are the other two. I said I don't think they should be treated differently, which is why I redirected them to have it like it is with the nearly 2,000 other urban areas in Sweden. Maybe I am missing something, which is why I asked from the beginning and I have not yet seen how Stockholm urban area is different from Stockholm. Peter Isotalo seems familiar with this topic so I will ask him too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused. There appear to be separate articles for most if not all of the urban areas, even when there is a municipality with the same name. Why should these three municipalities and urban areas be treated differently? older ≠ wiser 01:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
If you press the edit button at List of urban areas in Sweden and search (CTRL + F) for "urban area", you only find Stockholm urban area, Gothenburg urban area and Malmö urban area of the 1,956 urban areas. There is not a Lund and Lund urban area, a Umeå and Umeå urban area, a Visby and Visby urban area etc. --IRISZOOM (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Those are title choices presumably because the municipalities are considered the primary topic for that name and the urban area requires disambiguation. Consider Alvesta and Alvesta Municipality or Aneby and Aneby Municipality among others. And while i haven't looked closely at the other two yet, the population for the Stockholm municipality and urban area are different. older ≠ wiser 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with IRISZOOM on this one. Separating the statistical areas from the main articles about the cities isn't helpful to readers. The information in Stockholm urban area is pretty much duplicated in Stockholm#Demographics, and this is where I would expect to find this type of content.
Articles like Gothenburg and Malmö are for all intents and purposes already covering the tätort. Keeping separate articles on just the statistical area seems way too detailed. If anyone wishes to elaborate on demographics in the future, they can create a sub-article, but this would be better off called demographics of Stockholm or something like it.
Peter Isotalo 07:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
We already have an article about the urban area (or city etc.) and one for the municipality, like Stockholm and Stockholm Municipality. The issue is that there is a third article for just three urban areas, which is wrong as they are the same as the ones without "urban area" in their title. I think the one who created these three articles long time ago misunderstood. He also created other urban areas with "urban area" in their title but they were later redirected, like Ludvika urban area to Ludvika some years ago but these three are left. So I think those should also be redirected.
One thing that got me to certainly believe that they are duplicates was to look at the statistics on Stockholm and Stockholm urban area, including looking in older versions and searching on Google to compare, and saw they did cover the same thing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you still think they should be separate articles. If so, I will have to go forward in other venues. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess I don't care all that much. I csn see that the content of the statistical area articles is essentially duplicated within the base place name articles, so in that sense separate article aren't really needed. But I do not think the place and the statistical areas are identical in every respect. The redirect should probably point to the demographics section of the place articles. And I would not make blanket replacement of links for the statistical area with links to the generic place. If the context of the link is such that the statistical sense was intended, linking to the general place article may be confusing. older ≠ wiser 19:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
While the articles Stockholm urban area, Gothenburg urban area and Malmö urban area contains little info and much of that is statistics, I don't think they correspond to the demographic sections of the other article (Stockholm etc.) but rather the general place. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we are seeing different articles. It seems me that the point of the statistical areas is the demographic data. The statisticsl areas are not perfectly identical to the places. A link to the statistical area is likely to depend on the fine distinction and linking to the general places risks losing that. Besides, if these statistical areas are similar to U.S. census areas, the precise definition of the statistical areas are subject to adjustments. older ≠ wiser 19:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My argument is that those "statistical areas" are two of the same. There is nothing special with Stockholm urban area, Gothenburg urban area and Malmö urban area. They are just duplicates created long ago, along with other that later were redirected. So Stockholm is the same as Stockholm urban area. If you look at the statistics on Stockholm urban area, the source (Statistics Sweden) talks about "localities" and "tätort", which is what Stockholm is. On Stockholm urban area, the population is stated to be 1,372,565. That is the same figure used earlier at Stockholm. Same with the (urban) area given at 381.63 km². --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I cannot see the urban areas as being identical to the place. The article Stockholm is primarily about the city. The article also contain the demographic details of the urban area, but that does not make them the same. older ≠ wiser 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, then I will go forward with this because there is no point of repeating the same arguments. I have said many times that Stockholm urban area is about the city, which are called "urban areas", "localities" or "tätorter". See Urban areas in Sweden. There are nearly 2,000 of them but only three (those for Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg) are presented as special. So what I am saying is that Stockholm is about the city as much as Stockholm urban area is.
If the statistics that are given are the same, how can the places not be identical? --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
But the statistics are not the same. Both articles have language describing the difference. And if they are in fact identical, then why does the Swedish Wikipedia have separate articles for them? older ≠ wiser 00:17, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you take a look at for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stockholm&oldid=585561659, which I linked before? 1,372,565 are given as population figure and 381.63 km² as the area regarding the urban area?
I answered it before: "I have written in the Swedish Wikipedia, where some thought that Stockholm is an exceptional case, while others disagreed, but the scope of the article Stockholm urban area in this (English) Wikipedia is the same as Stockholm". So based on how it is presented here on English Wikipedia, I can't see any differences and that is why I brought it up to discuss.
I think the issue will be much clearer if you tell me if Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg are special and therefore differnt from the rest of the 1,956 urban areas? Because this is what makes me wonder as I only see three cities in Sweden (or urban areas, localities etc.) having both an article stating just that in the title and another with "urban area" in their name. There were some other articles that were the same but they were redirected long ago, like Ludvika urban area to Ludvika. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

 

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Magneto (generator). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Biscuittin (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yale—Cariboo

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed you moved the page Yale—Cariboo to Yale en-dash Cariboo. This runs contrary to Canadian federal convention and WP:MOSCAN#Ridings, which stipulates that federal ridings should use em-dashes. So this would be a variant of English that uses the em-dash in this way. FUNgus guy (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating. I wonder where the electoral commission learned to abuse punctuation like that. I'll move it back. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it has to do with French place names using hyphens (e.g. Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine) and the old-school use of a double-hyphen to differentiate (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine). *shrugs* Who knows what they were thinking. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding recent reversion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding the recent reversion of a misplaced reference which is flagged as a 'minor edit' and lacks an explanation in the edit summary. Whazzup? With the 'how', not the 'what'. Removing a misplaced reference is sensible—not questioning that. But it seems clearly outside the bounds of 'minor edit' guidelines. And a quick "misplaced reference" comment—or some such—in the summary would be a courtesy to fellow editors. If this is an 'automated tools' thing—as it's posting under your name and reflecting on you—please petition the maintainers to adapt it so as to conform to the same standards asked of humans. Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

AFD

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, Thanks for noticing this rather weird cock up [1], Keyboard's not working well for some reason so it seems everything is going wrong today  ,
I will say however it should've been obvious I had an issue and it wasn't intentional?, Anyway nonetheless thanks for noticing. –Davey2010Talk 20:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Congo

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for that edit; I totally missed that I duplicated the map. It was a sloppy reversion that I performed, and I prefer your version. Thanks. Red Slash 21:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Desiderata (disambiguation) 13 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When I found a page with a new (to me) definition of Desiderata, I thought it belonged in the desiderata disambiguation page with refs and links. You deleted it without comment. Did I do it wrong or do you object to including the additional/novel definition? rosebud (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are navigational aides for finding existing content within Wikipedia. As such, they are not an index of general web content and should not contain external links. See WP:DDD for a short version or WP:MOSDAB for more detailed description of disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Are redirects not considered piping for disambiguation pages?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, recently you reverted my removal of a redirect from Defense. I removed the entry on the grounds that disambiguation page's policy is "do not pipe entry names" and the MOS policy on piping considers redirects a form of piping. So my question is, are redirects not considered piping for disambiguation pages? Thanks for your time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

They are discussed in the same section of MOSDAB, but they are not the same thing. The redirect from defense (military) is warranted as a nation's military forces is a very common synonym for defense and that use is clearly described in the article. older ≠ wiser 10:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Please join a discussion

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Bkonrad. You have new messages at Talk:Throwback Thursday.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_67&oldid=1125488363"