User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 68

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70 → Archive 75

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Olympia Page Edit

Hi, Have you edited the Olympia page and removed the fact and truth with your foolish knowledge. Don't think we are writing some jokes in your page. Please ask someone from ground zero before editing. At last for your information people seen building with name olympia on July 7 2014 in Chennai region where usually used to be a park and it got disappeared within minutes. And we currently have the same old park in the area. May be if you have some good friends in adyar region ask them and then remove someone else comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.66.170 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request

Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#People_section

FYI, if you'd like to add your 2¢. —Swpbtalk 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Straw_poll_results - please correct as needed. —Swpbtalk 19:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of the geodis template

Hello, I'd appreciate your opinion on this discussion which I've started. --Midas02 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

FD

[Thank you.] Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

Precious

older≠wiser
Thank you, veteran editor, for quality articles, starting with Albion College and Kalamazoo River, for places and people in Michigan and New Zealand, for improving Cherry Wilder, for your gnomish engagement in disambiguation, for pointing out where precision is a mistake, and for a great signature, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Question

Could you at least give a reason why you would revert my edit? I accidently typed 2011 but I meant 2009. As can be read here on the German Wiki. Why should this song not be named here, even though it is a perfectly fine song given out under the name Superstar in 2009? Kennyannydenny (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no article linked in the entry. Providing navigation to ambiguous topics with existing content in Wikipedia is really the only purpose of disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah that explains a lot. Must be a different rule from the Wikipedia's I'm used to be working on ^^ Thanks for the explanation! Kennyannydenny (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary hatnotes on Michigan township articles

Though these hatnotes have existed for almost a decade, they are unnecessary per WP:NAMB, and in my opinion, excessive. All of their "NAME Township" and "NAME Township, Michigan" variants either target a disambiguation page or are a disambiguation page. If the reader arrives at the page with full disambiguation ("NAME Township, NAME County, Michigan"), then they arrived at WP:PRECISE-ly what they are looking for. Steel1943 (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That presumes readers have local knowledge about counties. As someone who lived in Michigan for many years and had some familiarity with the subjects, I found these confusing. WP:NAMB is a contested guideline and even explicitly states The presence or absence of hatnotes in articles with disambiguated titles has been a contentious issue, and this guideline doesn't prescribe one way or the other. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As someone who once upon a time lived somewhere nearby (this is the first time I've ever revealed what continent I live on, so I better add a userbox), I have to disagree that confusion can happen with townships in any state (except for Louisiana, of course, because that state chose to be different) if there is proper county disambiguation and they are in different counties. To me, seeing these hatnotes actually makes me second guess myself in a way which an encyclopedia should not. If I were confused, I'd immediately look up an ambiguous term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Deadline

What was the problem with adding Deadline comics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.18.145 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

NPS

Please stop making unhelpful edits at this article. Thank you. 86.186.14.124 (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you stop re-adding 1) an entry that makes no mention of the ambiguous term and 2) unnecessary markup which also incorrectly places ftext between the TOC and the first section heading. older ≠ wiser 18:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The layout is broken in IE. My edit fixes this. The correctness of the newly added term is trivially verfiable. Obviously you do not understand either of these points. If you continue with your disruption I will report you to the dispute resolution process. 86.186.14.124 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page is clear. The linked article must support the claimed usage. As for the latter, that it's not any reason for using non standard markup. It mIght be a reason for switching to a standard compliant browser though. older ≠ wiser 20:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Intervention_requested. 86.152.163.183 (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
See further on my talk page. PamD 14:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PamD. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hounding?

Hi. Do you have a program checking ALL changes to disamb. pages on English WP that "does its thing" automatically, or are you hounding me around "by hand"? For now just using the technical term as such, nothing more.Arminden (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Uh oh, you're on to me. After all, there's nothing I like better than to interact with an irritating nit who has a tenuous, though remarkably self-righteous, understanding of editing disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 00:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

So that's a YES. I'll only take it to a point. Get your hobbies, topics, kicks and general satisfaction elsewhere. Logic and manners are too much to ask for. There's enough space on WP for more than one "style". The old, tenuous, irritating nit, thank you very much.

Sadly, no, you misunderstand. I edit a lot of disambiguation pages and have many on my watchlist. When I notice an editor making irregular edits to a page on my watchlist, I often check their recent contributions for other similarly irregular edits to disambiguation pages. It's nothing at all about you. older ≠ wiser 11:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What's "legitimate" about song titles?

Why did you rv my removal of song titles from disambiguation pages? I removed these titles if they didn't refer to an actual article about a song title. Do you think every song title is entitled to be on a disambiguation page? You would quickly load down these pages with song titles if you allowed that. Some of these are just to obscure to belong on disambig pages. I think Wikipedia could do a better job of decided what belongs on these pages. They are just loaded down with trivia.Chisme (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:DABMENTION provides the criteria for inclusion. I wouldn't go out of my way to systematically add song titles, but it is wrong to remove them. What is or is not trivial is subjective. older ≠ wiser 23:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You're a fellow with a lot of time on your hands, aren't you? Chisme (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
twenty-four hours in any given day, same as anyone else. older ≠ wiser 23:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AW = Athletics West

Please don't be a jerk. I gave you a reference showing the abbreviation in usage. Those are the easiest results to pull up from that era, but its common. The Olympic Trials are the highest level of domestic meet in the USA. You have now removed a sourced piece of information. Read first, revert later if its a fraud. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, so I'll expect you to be replacing the content you deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

dont revert me

Please unrevert my exit to end of the world 107.77.70.114 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm the same person as that IP 107.107.62.167 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

3RR

You have violated 3RR and are edit warring on James Jackson. Try discussing on the talk page instead of reverting. Very, very pathetic. Bgwhite (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been discussing on the talk page. It might pay to check before making baseless accusations (and making edits that ignore established guidelines). Pathetic my foot you ass. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Civil too I see. I forgot why people call you little Eric. I saw three people discussing on the talk page. You and two against you. I see you reverting mulptiple people. That is not consensus. Bgwhite (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about. I'm not aware of anyone ever calling me little Eric. I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean. I returned your incivility with an appropros response, so don't go calling the kettle black Mr. Pot. The discussion has been fractured across various forums, and FWIW, read the discussion carefully and I think you will seen that Willondon was not exactly agreeing or disagreeing with either me or with EauZenCashHaveIt. Don't make stupid assumptions about things you are too lazy to bother looking into carefully. older ≠ wiser 02:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It is pathetic to violate 3RR. Doesn't matter the reason. I wasn't calling you pathetic, only your action. You started name calling, and now I'm an ass, lazy and stupid. You have reverted three people (EauZen, Willondon and me) on the page while "talking". You did violate 3RR. You did shout in an edit summary. I did read the talk page discussion which is why I asked a BD2412 for their comment. The discussion seemed to go nowhere and no one side "prevailing". I thought a 3rd, neutral party was best. Yup, I'm a stupid lazy ass for asking a 3rd party. Next time I'll SHOUT, revert and resort to name calling. I'm done. Bgwhite (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Um, whatever. And don't bother trying to explain whatever you meant by your snide comments about Little Eric or about living up to my "reputation for a change". Whatever respect I might have had for you in the past has unfortunately dissipated in this exchange. older ≠ wiser 03:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Blood Moon

The next time you revert something, learn your science!

Basically the general definition of a 'blood moon' is when the moon appears reddish because of how light can appear. Lunar eclipses are not the only cause. Notice the following:

There are few situations that can cause a red moon. The most common way to see the Moon turn red is when the Moon is low in the sky, just after moonrise or before it’s about to set below the horizon. Just like the Sun, light from the Moon has to pass through a larger amount of atmosphere when it’s down near the horizon, compared to when it’s overhead. The Earth’s atmosphere can scatter sunlight, and since moonlight is just scattered sunlight, it can scatter that too. Red light can pass through the atmosphere and not get scattered much, while light at the blue end of the spectrum is more easily scattered. When you see a red moon, you’re seeing the red light that wasn’t scattered, but the blue and green light have been scattered away. That’s why the Moon looks red. Pocketthis (talk) 21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but it's irrelevant for the purposes of a disambiguation page, which are nothing more than navigational aides that direct readers to articles with information about a subject. They do not contain citations and they do not contain external links. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please, please consider redacting

You are involved in a discussion at WT:Disambiguation in the thread "A disambiguation of disambiguation pages". In this thread you had to be guided by another editor, in an edit at 18:07, 27 June 2015, to "understand" the argument that I had actually presented and then, with no justification provided, you accused me of being "obtuse". You now claim "Ignoring the condescensions," and yet WP:ASSERT again without reasoned substantiation that "(my) claim that article titles such as John Blair Smith ... do not require disambiguation is utterly unfounded and is little more than a fantasy." You then present an assertion regarding your claim of my "frankly bizarre interpretations". Please also see WP:YESPOV. IMO you are way off track if you consider that you are avoiding condescension. I am again extending an olive branch this time on a personal basis with intention to reduce WP:Drama and ask you to please respect this. The John Blair Smith as an initially appearing example in a extensive list of "* John * Smith *" examples and any of them can be used to present similar points to those that I have already presented. GregKaye 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

No. I find your presentation incoherent and your claims that there are no "reasoned substantiation" regarding your claim is nothing more that you not agreeing with the reasons -- not that there are none. I'm not trying to avoid condescension, only pointing out yours. older ≠ wiser 19:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Bkonrad, another editor even stepped in to say, "I don't think it is accurate to say "you presume John Blair Smith should not be under John Smith."" Please provide any quote from my text that gave any suggestion to indicate that this was in any way what I was saying. GregKaye 05:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps that goes to show the extent to which whatever it is you actually meant to propose in indecipherable. How about your statement: The content at John Smith also presents 96 subjects with titles that may not have needed any disambiguation at all and these include titles such as:
  • John Blair Smith (1764–1799), president of Union College, New York
  • John Augustine Smith (1782–1865), president of the College of William and Mary, 1814–1826 and
  • John Smith's Brewery, a brewery founded in 1758 by John Smith at Tadcaster in North Yorkshire, England
Again for many such titles no disambiguation will have been IN ANY SENSE required and, in connection to these articles, a categorisation as "disambiguation" is incorrect. What is the implication of this statement if not that these entries do not belong on the John Smith disambiguation page? And nowhere have you demonstrated an understanding that these entries ARE disambiguated using natural disambiguation. And that you cannot exclude likelihood that a reader might search for them under John Smith, thus rendering the subject ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Bkonrad please familiarise yourself with WP:NATURAL. This p / g presents:
"Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names.
Example: The word "English" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles, English language and English people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein, mechanical fan and hand fan are preferable to fan (mechanical) and fan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in the variety of English used; for instance, Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, so we choose elevator as the name of the lifting device."
WP:NATURAL in no way relates to a title that is already presented in its WP:COMMONNAME form.
In this clear p/g context the text of my thread OP presented:
"On the topic of helping the reader I also think that it would be to the benefit of readers if we moved towards the use of "navigation" based terminologies and this is an issue that was previously raised in the thread Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation/Archive 43#Disambiguation pages are navigation pages. In web searches:
That's a ratio of 1060:1 in relation to the raw data results.
My interpretation is that "disambiguation" is a necessary editor concern in relation to the differentiation and frequent dissection of terminologies so as to fit mainly technical article address requirements. Reader concern however is, arguably, navigation of content and, in effect and even though it has its advantages, a title such as "Foo (disambiguation)" fails WP:UCRN. The main thing that this format of title achieves is a non commonname disambiguation from "Foo""
My argument has been and continues to be that we should also apply Wikipedia's commonname ideal to our various navigation pages that we currently and in many cases erroneously call disambiguation pages.
GregKaye 05:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Your discussion of examples such as John Blair Smith is about as clear as mud. I remain thoroughly unconvinced that this is not disambiguation. I suspect most Wikipedians would not agree with you either. As to whether there is any benefit to labeling disambiguation pages differently, that might be worth some consideration, though to be honest, your convoluted arguments really don't make the best case. older ≠ wiser 10:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Bkonrad, again the problem as I see it is that you have, WP:ASSERTed without reasoned substantiation that "(my) claim that article titles such as John Blair Smith ... do not require disambiguation is utterly unfounded and is little more than a fantasy." You have claimed that I had indicated that I wanted the entries of such articles to be removed from navigation pages even though the final text of my OP made it abundantly clear that I was proposing a name change.
Which text and what wording regarding John Blair Smith did you find unclear? If there are things I can do better I am happy to learn. GregKaye 15:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have already indicated precisely what text you wrote that quite clearly as far as I'm concerned indicates that you do not think the title John Blair Smith requires disambiguation. I'm not sure what else to say about it other than that I disagree with your interpretation of what disambiguation is and is not. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Bkonrad, please. Re: "you do not think the title John Blair Smith requires disambiguation." How many John Blair Smiths are there? Which John Blair Smith needs to be disambiguated from which John Blair Smith? Again, "Which text and what wording regarding John Blair Smith did you find unclear?" GregKaye 19:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Can you honestly say, without sneering condescension, that John Blair Smith was never known as John Smith or that no one would look for the person under that name? The SUBJECT is ambiguous, regardless of the name chosen for the article. This has been explained repeatedly, but you choose not to hear. older ≠ wiser 22:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Bkonrad are you now insinuating "sneering condescension"? If so please justify. Please state what I have said that in any way justifies this view.
"John Blair Smith" is predominantly known as "John Blair Smith". "James Clark Maxwell" is predominantly known as "James Clark Maxwell". The list goes on. "John Blair Smith" was just chosen as a first relevant result on the navigation page listings and I do not have any prior knowledge of other uses which also carries into his younger days. I certainly think that it may even be likely that in an environment such as school he may have been known simply as "John Smith" if, that is, the school did not make simple use of first name only. Then again, for all I know, they may have used "Blair Smith" in such a situation. In another case, I do not have personal knowledge as to whether Paul McCartney was ever known as James McCartney but, from the actual content of the "disambiguation" page, I suspect that such use would, if anything, not have been greatly notable.
Re: "The SUBJECT is ambiguous". Which subject are you claiming to be ambiguous of what? how? GregKaye 05:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
We seem to be repeating ourselves and getting no where. I will not reply to any further inquiries from you here and would appreciate it if you would not continue to post here. The ambiguous term is John Smith. You cannot establish with certainty that John Blair Smith is never referenced as simply John Smith. That is the fundamental ambiguity. You might resist understanding, but John Blair Smith is a disambiguated name. The addition of Blair is intended to distinguish the person from all the other John Smiths (that this addition has been done outside of Wikipedia and for some time now is validation of the ambiguity). older ≠ wiser 13:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bkonrad/Archive_68&oldid=1074750046"