This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 16 August 2004 (Merge and redirect instead of VfD listings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:13, 16 August 2004 by Bishonen (talk | contribs) (Merge and redirect instead of VfD listings)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
Hello Ben, welcome to Misplaced Pages. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
Angela. 23:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Detroit
Thanks for the dates in the Detroit article - that method of listing voting years has always bugged me. Rmhermen 00:15, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
Law article disambiguations not needed
Please stop moving law articles to a US disambiguation unless you can prove that there are other laws with the same name in other countries. RickK 05:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, no problem. Didn't mean to step on any feet; I was unaware of the convention of not disambiguating law names. Could you point me to the relevant discussion? And if you want me to revert the few I've done so far, please let me know, I'm happy to fix them. --Benc 05:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Don't know of it being any relevant discussion, but it's certainly a bad precedent. We have who knows how many articles whose titles are the names of laws. Are we going to make every one of those disambiguate to the country of origin? I do know policy is not to disambiguate if it isn't necessary. Yeah, you should probably move them back so as to keep them standard. RickK 06:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Reverted. You're right, it makes more sense to do it that way. Thanks for catching it before I did all the Uniform Acts. :-) By the way, I kept the disambiguation on the Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (U.S.) because of the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act (Australia). The wording is not identical, but is close enough to warrant the disambig. --Benc 06:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Don't know of it being any relevant discussion, but it's certainly a bad precedent. We have who knows how many articles whose titles are the names of laws. Are we going to make every one of those disambiguate to the country of origin? I do know policy is not to disambiguate if it isn't necessary. Yeah, you should probably move them back so as to keep them standard. RickK 06:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
May-December romance
Thanks for the good job on the merge-redirect. I think it's important that "May-December romance" remain as a a redirect; while the new article is more solid, it is also less searchable. I've done a Google search for relevant famous May-December couples, and have not come up with very much outside of Hollywood, yet I know the Upper Class (whatever that may be) are also very much into marriages of convenience or arranged marriages, as are a number of other cultures. Seems no one on the net is talking about it though. Denni☯ 23:05, 2004 Aug 14 (UTC)
- I agree, "May-December romance" should remain a redirect. Thank you for writing most of the article's content. :-) • Benc • 23:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Image:Anarchy_symbol.png
I looked at your sandbox and saw that you were planning on doing a few things to the image, so I went ahead and did them. It should be good now. I also deleted Image:Anarchy_symbol.jpg because it was a degraded duplicate of the PNG version. It was a bit smaller, but the size wasn't worth the lack of quality. The latest version I uploaded is only 6.4 KB anyway. Guanaco 04:03, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Merge and redirect instead of VfD listings
Hi, Benc, thanks for your patience with my oldermenyoungerwomenolderwomenyoungermen confusion on VfD. (My defense would be that confusion was kind of appropriate.) I was very interested by the comment you made:
In fact, I don't think any of the three pages should've been listed on VfD... the nominator should've merged them and listed it for cleanup.
You can do that ...? I've never thought of being bold in just that way, but it would certainly save a lot of time for everybody. You're saying that if I see a clutch of substubs that belong together, I should just change them all to redirects, merge the text in a new article, and send it to Cleanup, (or clean it myself), without first consulting anybody? Wouldn't that outrage a lot of people, who want each information atom to have its own entry? There seem to be a lot of them around. Or am I supposed to start a whole thing on each of the stubs' talk pages first? That would make the procedure even more timewasting than VfD, I think. Not sure I understood your meaning, but I'm intrigued. Bishonen 10:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)