User talk:Bkonrad/Archive 60

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TRF 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Regional Federal Courts]] {Portuguese: ''{{lang|pt|Tribunais Regionais Federais}}'',

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

In explicit violation of what guideline? Antonio el Nuevo Timbiriche Martin here 07:44, 6 January, 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, answer me this: what makes a White Arrow Trail in a mountain so much more notable than White Arrow Trucking that you do not oppose the trail being on the disambiguation page but you do the trucking company/ Antonio Teen Idol Martin dime 10:46, 9 January, 2014 (UTC)

@AntonioMartin: Simple, there is currently no article in Wikipedia that has verifiable information about the trucking company. The trail is mentioned in the Mount Monadnock article. The minimum requirement for disambiguation pages is that there has to be a blue link to an article that contains relevant information about the subject. older ≠ wiser 13:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok...Antonio Sonny Martin aloha 06:10, 10 January, 2014 (UTC)

hi, could i please ask why my entry was removed ? i feel it is a legitimate entry, as it is repeatedly mentioned in the film, therefore should anyone want to look up where it came from, would find it on wikipedia.

am happy to hear your thoughts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.239.227 (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The claimed usage is not supported by the linked article. older ≠ wiser 14:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

and how exactly am i supposed to support what you call my 'claim?' . i tried putting a reference which was then taken down, because disambiguation articles 'aren't supposed to have references'. may i suggest you check the reference yourself before taking it down ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.239.226 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The linked article should contain information relevant to the term being disambiguated. In this case, neither of the articles you linked to Silver Linings Playbook and Bradley Cooper make any mention of the term "Excelsior". Disambiguation pages are not indexes of trivia. older ≠ wiser 00:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

okay. if i add an explanation of the term to the linked article (of the film) and then add the original explanation on the excelsior page, would that suffice ? the above mottos seem trivia-like — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.239.226 (talk) 03:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's the basic idea. Of course, the usage in the movie should be significant enough and noted by third party sources, else other editors might remove it from that article as mere trivia. older ≠ wiser 03:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

okay, thanks, i'll do that. i do think it is significant enough, because if you search for 'excelsior' and the movies name, it comes up with a reasonable amount of articles. 'silver linings' is linked to that motto. also, trivia or not, i can imagine ppl hearing the phrase and wanting to look it up to see where it came from - so i do think it is useful having it as a reference here. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.239.235 (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove information from articles. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf Hoog (talk • contribs) 01:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh? older ≠ wiser 01:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yo, O&W! Have you noticed that redirects show text now? – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed. I'm not aware of what change brought this about though. older ≠ wiser 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out the bug report... T16323 (funny – I knew the report number by heart) I just did an edit request at Template talk:R with possibilities, where you had done one for me last October, and we had talked about this. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I put back as Blackout/All Clear as cannot have a redirect in the link, must be 'as is' un-redirected and unpiped unless to a subsection see MOS:DAB. OK about the episodes though. Ex nihil ^(talk) 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

What rule says you can't use redirects? Please see WP:DABREDIR.

Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:

1. the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and
2. the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section.

I think it is preferable in this case to link to the redirect as it is the actual title of the book. Blackout/All Clear is a manufactured title for the Wikipedia article on the subject of the two books. older ≠ wiser 11:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi older≠wiser, thanks, that's better. Also of interest is Template:Uw-dab , which is a challenge be concise. Widefox; talk 15:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Older/wiser,

I pinged Shmget too on Talk:OpenOffice. I expected he'd get back so I went and checked his contribs to see if he had been about ... he came out of semi-retirement to reply to that proposal. See also his contribs to Talk:OpenOffice.org last year.

There's something weird going on with these sets of articles. I've gone though the references relating to the transfer to Apache. Bizarre isn't even the word for it IMO. I've prepared a list of seemingly sourced statments that I don't believe are supported by the references given. I would not say the list is complete. Similar issues were raised last year.

Out of a desire to hear someone else opinion, what's your take?

Before jumping in, be warned: the pool is poisoned. Not for the fainthearted. --Tóraí (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Bkonrad,

On the Swimming (disambiguation) page, HCA is continuously removing my edit reading "

• "Swimming", an episode of the television series Zoboomafoo"

Is it the right thing for him to do to delete that? I'm not sure. Teletubbies is a very popular and well-known show, and Zoboomafoo is not so much, so I was asking for that reason. (Also notable that Zoboomafoo has its own article and its episodes are notable enough to have a page for its episode list) MadisonGrundtvig (talk | contribs) 20:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

But the individual episode is not, in and of itself, notable enough to have its own page. I'm not just doing this out of spite - if we allow something not notable enough for its own page to be in the list, suddenly there will be a basis for allowing any and every media source that has "swimming" in the title, no matter how tangentially it's mentioned and how little notability it has. Disambiguation pages are not meant to be comprehensive lists of everything to do with a word, especially a common word, but rather as an aid to navigation for common alternatives. HCA (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand. I don't know who is right or wrong, because this topic is actually debated. This user, Bkonrad, has protected my edits to disambiguation pages of Teletubbies episodes. For instance, my Hey Diddle Diddle (disambiguation) page was deleted, but he revived the page, brought back the "*"Hey Diddle Diddle", an episode of the television series Teletubbies" reference, as well as lots of other references to other media. Songs go in the same boat as well, not to mention. That's why I'm asking this user, because I don't know if he revived it because it is a well known, popular television series or because every episode is eligible. Try surfing disambiguation pages. I've seen so many, and there are tons of them that are not notable enough for their own articles. I personally believe that anything notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia should be in the disambiguation pages, but that's just my opinion, and rules are rules. That's why I'm asking about this here. MadisonGrundtvig (talk | contribs) 01:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

First, to be clear, I have not protected any page recently. I have restored entries that were improperly removed from disambiguation pages. WP:DABNOINCLUDE makes no reference of notability as a reason not to include an entry on a disambiguation page. WP:DABMENTION does pretty plainly state that a topic mentioned within another article is appropriate to include. older ≠ wiser 02:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there something in the style guide recommending that a TOC should be floated if a disambiguation page is longer than two pages? I assumed TOC placement was all about the height of the TOC itself. --McGeddon (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MOSDAB#Organizing long lists by subject sections: On longer lists, {{TOC right}} may be used to move the table of contents to the right hand side of the page. This reduces the amount of white space and may improve the readability of the page. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that talking about the height of the TOC, and the masses of right-hand whitespace that a lengthy TOC produces? I assume it's talking about how floating the TOC "reduces the amount of white space", irrespective of the length of the article. --McGeddon (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, sort of I guess. I think it applies to Alien regardless. Without TOC right, the TOC takes up most of the first screen on my display. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't most TOCs on Wikipedia take up that much of your screen, though? This one's only seven items long. --McGeddon (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

On a disambiguation page, it just means that much wasted white space to scroll through. The idea is to place as much useful content as possible readily at hand on the first screen. older ≠ wiser 12:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I always thought TOCrights had to be used sparingly, that (unless the TOC itself was enormous) tightening the page layout wasn't worth the slight reader confusion of having different layouts across different pages. Surely there are thousands of Wikipedia articles that have no picture in the lede and a middling-sized TOC, which could better use their first screen by putting the TOC in the top right, but (per MOS:LEDE's "avoid floating the table of contents if possible") don't? --McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not articles and have their own style guide. Use of {{TOC right}} is commonplace on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 13:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Huh, fair enough, I can you're right now that I click around some random disambiguation pages. Somehow I hadn't noticed it before. So is "always float TOCs on disambig pages" actually in the MOS anywhere, or just an unwritten consensus? --McGeddon (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB#Organizing long lists by subject sections. It is option for disambiguation pages with longer lists of entries. older ≠ wiser 13:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, had forgotten that original link was from the DAB style. Thanks! --McGeddon (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to having the ambiguity dealt with purely via a hatnote on Cliburn? There are only two other ambiguous terms and I do not like the current duplication of names. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

What, you'd want to list all three persons and the surname page as well as the disambiguation page in a hatnote? I think not. I've no objection to adding a link to the surname article to the hatnote, but would still object to removing the short list of surname-holders from the disambiguation page. A better solution would be to delete Cliburn (disambiguation), seeing as how the only really ambiguous use is the surname and the village (the former railway station serving the village is mentioned in proper context within the village article). older ≠ wiser 13:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That was my intention, so I'm going to just boldly redirect the dab page and do that. If it's reverted then I wont press the issue. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How about before deleting content, you do some research first. Research which would have taken about 10 seconds. Jinx is in fact a champion in the popular MOBA Game League of Legends.

As evidenced by this:

• Jinx's page at the League of Legends Wiki on Wikia.com (Widley praised for its accurate information about the game)
• Jinx's page at the North American version of the Official League of Legends site (THIS is the official site for the game for North America

Do your research next time. I've heard that people on Wikipedia delete content without doing any research. Now I see that I'm right. It took me longer to type up the information, then look at the websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.52.125 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

how about you do your work first before criticizing. The fundamental principle for disambiguation pages is that the term being disambiguated must be mentioned in the linked article. That is not the case with the LoL player. Disambiguation pages are a navigational tool for content within Wikipedia so whatever content might exist outside of Wikipedia is irrelevant. If the subject is notable enough, then update the relevant article in Wikipedia. older ≠ wiser 22:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that you have made a substantial number of reverts over the last few days at Coil (disambiguation). This in spite of two editors telling you that you are wrong. If you wish to continue edit warring in this manner, I will be only too happy to write up an ANI. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Do what you think necessary. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention to WP:3RR, but I am confident that I am correct with regards to how the disambiguation page should be formatted. older ≠ wiser 13:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I regret that we are going to to have to skip the ANI on this occassion. A look at the edit history shows that I may have taken my eye off the 3RR ball as well, so I suggest that we write it off to experience. I have moved the discussion from my talk page to the talk page. I suggest that we continue there and allow others to participate. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to GK 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * [[Society for Orthodontic Dental Technology]] (German: {{lang|de|Gesellschaft für Kieferorthopädische Zahntechnik}}, a professional body based in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sunstone (disambiguation) 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• (comics)|''Sunstone'' (comics)]], an LGBT and BDSM related Webcomic published on deviantArt]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ars nova (disambiguation) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *''Arpeggio of Blue Steel -Ars Nova-'', the television adaptation of the ''[[[[Arpeggio of Blue Steel#Anime|Arpeggio of Blue Steel]]'' manga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the full name of FATS here on Eurostat web site: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-RA-12-016/EN/KS-RA-12-016-EN.PDF

And the definition here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2006:317E:0169:0173:EN:PDF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgy23 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you should update the article. The disambiguation page should not present information that is not supported by the linked article, where FATS is currently presented as being Foreign affiliate trade statistics. Foreign affiliates statistics is at present a redlink. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Latin peoples is nominated for deletion. I'm notifying everyone involved in the related merge discussion. Diego (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)