Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:26, 12 February 2013

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

RULES:

1. If you post here, I will reply here.
2. If I post on your talk page, please reply there. However, if you move the dialogue here, it will continue here.
3. The following are not welcome to post here (or use the "e-mail user" function to communicate with me) and must communicate via an intermediaryor else face certain reversion via popups: HiLo48, N-HH, Chipmunkdavis, NULL

Why no links to county articles?

Thanks a lot for creating useful pages such as this: List of township-level divisions of Jiangsu! However, I wonder why this and other similar pages do not have the county and district names (Baixia District, Gulou District, Nanjing, Jiangning District .... Lishui County 等等) wikified? -- Vmenkov (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I kept the links in the headers while the lists were under construction, mainly for my benefit so I know which county and county-level city names are unique, but delinked the headers after completion due to MOS. I suggest adding, say {{Jiangsu}} to the list for Jiangsu, just below the TWP-LV division "sidebar". GotR 01:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that would do. But from my point of view, making each second-level header into a wikilink (i.e. ===]=== etc) would be highly convenient for navigation. Suppose a casual user was searching for "XXX township"; he found the appropriate "List of township-level divisions of YYY" page, then he found the "XXX" line in this page - but all he sees (as it is often the case) - is a see of red links. In some cases (so far) not a single blue link in sight! Even if all the county links are hidden in a {{Jiangsu}} template at the bottom of the (rather large!) page, the user probably won't know about it. This is why I think that making the county name into a (blue!) link would be helpful.

Anyway, you've designed these pages (and it's great that you've done it!), so I won't make haphazard changes myself, but rather would defer to your opinion. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that those divisions with less than perhaps 75% of the links being blue can have their headers linked, but for places like Shijiazhuang, Hebei and Dongguan, Guangdong the added benefit is reduced and not worth coming to odds with MOS. GotR 19:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Songshan

Don't use misleading edit summaries to restore your preferred version of the page. There is nothing "ungrammatical" other than the missing word "located" but its omission did not require you to go back to a version of the page you like better than the one the rest of us have been working on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CMD (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands

I know you have an issue on the terms "China" and "Taiwan" personally. I would point out I used China/Taiwan only as common names which bear no political implication; i.e., it does not mean I'm saying Taiwan is not part of China, etc. STSC (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you are courteous in addressing me on a long-belaboured issue, I take your word as it is. However, as far as I recall, even before I started caring as much as I do now about naming, this page, as far as I recall, used the full names, which I alluded to in my revert edit summary. GotR 05:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

By all means put back the "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" into the sentence but please keep the other neutral wording in my edit. STSC (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Overlinking to China

Why have you removed loads of links to China? Seems like POV-pushing to me. WP:OVERLINK is not a valid reason for these deletions. Bazonka (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have taken care to avoid doing so in Economy of Foo, Foreign relations of Foo, and Military of Foo articles. Otherwise, the links are indisputably common terms, and more often than not have zero relevance to their parent articles other than being mentioned. As a side, if I were truly intent on POV-pushing, I would have performed this in Sept/Oct 2011 or Mar 2012 soon after the moves of the PRC and ROC state articles, but that isn't the case.

And I ask you stop blanket-reverting at once, and go on a case-by-case basis; you are merely wasting your own time otherwise. GotR 19:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I also had the same feeling. Especially since they were removing out those links in the middle of sentences and none of the other countries in the same sentences. Country links are often very relevant in many types of articles and are not really the same thing as a common term. Especially in an article like Arab people were people are highly likely to want to go to links of those countries to see more info on them in relevance to the parent article. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not how linking works. If you continue to remove these links, then you will be reported to admins, and it may end in you being blocked. Bazonka (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That the links are removed in the middle of sentences is a problem of Twinkle and nothing else. And the burden of proof is on you—you need to provide evidence (in the form of traffic) on what other people are likely to do (you are not and have no right to speak for them). As it stands now, both of you have presented nothing but WP:IDESPISETHATBULLSHIT, and WP:OVERLINK criteria are all met. Besides, if people wish to read a state article, they can simply type it in the Search bar; their laziness is no excuse for us to make messes of articles. GotR 19:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A problem of Twinkle??? You're the one removing the links! Twinkle doesn't do it magically by itself. Please read WP:LINK. I'm going to report you now. Bazonka (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't done anything with Twinkle in these intervening minutes, so reporting me will do you no good. Take this to the Village Pump for a wider discussion on the seriously overlinked state of many articles, but do not continue to barrage me, or behave foolishly, here on my talk.

You have not demonstrated: 1) Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. 2) Articles with relevant information. 3) Articles explaining technical terms, jargon, or slang expressions. 4) Proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers. In case 4, with the possible exception of Caribbean/Pacific island nations/territories, any country/state name is familiar with readers. GotR 20:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually burden is on the person making the change, which would be you. -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Criterion 1 has not been met. Criterion 2 rarely, if ever, holds. Criterion 3: A country/state name is decisively not a jargon term. Criterion 4, see my response to Bazonka. GotR 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Your ANI removal of a topic

I am deeply concerned that you not only removed a thread on ANI, you removed a thread about your actions. I have requested on that (restored) thread that you respond to that concern. KillerChihuahua 20:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I why removed it at first was because both Djsasso and I believe Bazonka's escalation to AN/I is hot-headed. Since Bazonka and you, most especially you, have objected, then I can only let the discussion run. GotR 20:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you need to post your response on ANI. Not here. Secondly, you do realize I'm an admin, right? I'm not "objecting" I'm trying to resolve this. You did wrong with the mass removals, great you understand that. You now need to address the far more serious issue of removing that thread from ANI. KillerChihuahua 20:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Already did so. Strictly speaking, it is more a violation of Talk-Page Guidelines than it is an attempt to evade scrutiny; page histories and frequent administrative attention to AN make the latter almost impossible. That's why I have promised to desist in that regard. GotR 20:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it really, really isn't an issue of TPG, but as long as you never do it again, I'm not going to spend any more time on this. KillerChihuahua 21:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Hockey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Favonian (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)