User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2015/Jun

This page 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.

Redirects

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Didnt want to revert your changes again with an explanation about Boeing customer numbers, it is unlikely that non-notable Boeing customer numbers will ever be mentioned in aircraft articles so the chances of an internal redirect are zero, the same goes with Airbus aircraft with engine designators. I will change them back to more sensible targets soon, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why change them? The cost of a redirect is negligible, and a redirect means that piping isn't needed in any other article that mentions that plane, and it benefits anyone entering that model number in the search box. WP:R#NOTBROKEN is clear on the reasons for not 'fixing' redirects. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You do a good job, Chris, but I'm so glad you stop posting errors every single day which you could fix yourself before they appeared on the main page. Keep focusing on the things you currently do, and pay no heed to MilborneOne, if more suitable targets are created in the future, brilliant. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I recall suggesting more than once that, since the problems I was pointing out are easy to spot, by using readily available tools that colour code redirects and disambigs, anyone - such as the creators of the Main Page entries - could easily do that ahead of time. It is not my responsibility. You seems to think that if I choose not to take on that task, that I relinquish my right to point out problems as I see them. You made it clear that my comments were not welcome - I certainly never received any thanks, only grudging compliance - so I've ceased pointing out problems I see on the Main Page (and I do see problems most days). Why you choose to reemphasise that here now, I don't know, considering that I've made no comments about the Main Page for months. Are your interpersonal skills in need of a refresh, or are you actually trying to drive me away from Wikipedia? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. If you have the tools and the ability to make the changes, make the changes. Other editors don't use the tools or colour-coding scripts that you use, why should they? Your comments were helpful, but instead of taking so much time out to wait for items to appear on the main page, you could identify and fix the problems beforehand. Your reluctance to do so is beyond odd. And in actuality, if you read my comments objectively, you'll realise I am appreciative of your efforts, and also grateful that you've stopped waiting for every error to appear on the main page. It's very straightforward. If you don't like that, than I'm afraid that's down to you. As for driving you away from Wikipedia, if you're so sensitively inclined to even suggest that, I'd suggest that you take a break. Wikipedia is a harsh place, and if this mild debate is causing you reason to think someone is driving you away, perhaps this isn't the place for you, which would be a shame as, to reiterate the point I made already, you do a decent job of clearing up bits and pieces. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear the problem with these redirects for aircraft customer and engine fit designations is they it is they would never be translated into internal links in the target article, so creating a redirect to go to the target of the original link is just a waste of time and effort. MilborneOne (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The necessary redirects either already existed or I've created them. Why is it a problem that some of them don't go to internal links? A redirect to the top of the target article is just as valid, and costs almost nothing, and has the benefits I listed above. (Plus an additional benefit I failed to mention, that another editor linking that model number doesn't need to know about the structure of the target article; he can just trust the redirect to take users to the best possible place - which may change if the target article is revised.) Colonies Chris (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Problem with internal links is because that is what you said was your reason for using these redirects, all I am trying to tell you is that Boeing for example has hundreds of customer codes which are never mentioned in the aircraft articles. So I still dont understand why a redirect to the "top" of the page is any different then a direct link so I just cant see why the effort. MilborneOne (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not just about internal links. The same advantages of redirects apply to links to the top of the article. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Just in case anyone ever doubted it, Chris is responsible for a huge of amount of article improvement and maintenance that usually goes under the radar. I don't know all of our gnomes, but he must surely be among our most valuable. And he just keeps going, week after week, year after year. I hope he persists with main-page-related improvements. BTW, if there were a "Logical and reasoned thinking" barnstar, I'd give him one. Tony (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I dont doubt the motives of Colonies Chris and his good work but I cant understand what the difference between a direct link to an article and a redirect to the top of the article, which is the improvement that is being applied ? MilborneOne (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already described the reasons, and they're listed at WP:REDIRECT and WP:R#NOTBROKEN.

A redirect eliminates the need for piping the same model number if it appears on several pages (and this would be probable for the model numbers in the article in question, as they are likely to appear at least three times: in the list of accidents, and in the article about the location of the incident, and in the article about that model of plane).
This means that if the target article is renamed or reorganised, all that's neeeded is to change a few redirects, instead of changing multiple piped links in numerous articles.
Anyone making a link to that model does not need to know anything about the plane and how the plane is documented in Wikipedia articles (e.g. they don't need to know that a Convair CV-440-62 is documented in Wikipedia in the article Convair CV-240 family) because that knowledge has been encoded into the redirect by someone with an understanding of that relationship. They can just link the entire number and the redirect will take them to the right place. And if in the future someone writes an article specifically about the Convair CV-440, only the redirects need to change, not the piping in the source articles. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

OK I am clearly not going to convince you that Boeing customer numbers and the like are not notable and in most articles they are likely to be removed except for one instance describing the aircraft (they should not be used in infoboxes for example). Also these customer numbers never used and are unlikely to ever appear in the related articles. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example. The article records that JAL 123, Boeing 747SR-46, crashed on 12 Aug 1985. The redirect has a target of Boeing 747#747SR. That same model number appears in Japan Airlines Flight 123, where it's piped to Boeing 747SR, which in turn redirects to Boeing 747#747SR. It also appears in a different form as Boeing 747-146SR, which is piped directly to Boeing 747#747SR, and as Boeing 747SR-46 (a redirect). How much simpler for them all just to redirect to Boeing 747#747SR without piping at all? And I'd add, that you are familiar with Boeing's use of customer numbers, but most editors aren't, and don't need to be, provided your expertise has been embodied in suitable redirects. Then they can just link the whole thing and trust that the redirect will send the reader to the right location. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Paul Kelly (Australian musician) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.