This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bkonrad. 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.

where is that guidline written? what is the purpose? HeadsCanBeLargelyAkin2Wholes 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers distinguish between similarly named articles. Extra links beyond those leading to the pages being disambiguated do not help with that purpose. older ≠ wiser 22:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion regarding content dispute moved from user talk page to Talk:Tuscola Township, Michigan#Zip Codes. older ≠ wiser 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tuscola Township, Michigan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Spshu (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Such a classy fellow you are. Thanks for the dope slap. Duh. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I noted that you posted the image of Kinsley S. Bingham, 11th Governor of Michigan. I put together a geocache with a puzzle using images of certain governors of Michigan to make up the correct coordinates to hiding place of the geocache. Pure Michigan Geocache Page I had a geocacher who worked to solve the puzzle and contacted me because the image for Governor Bingham that he found in the Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries' Digital Archives appeared to be significantly different than the image in the Wikipedia page. Kinsley S. Bingham image Can you tell me the source of the image that you used? --Chelsean (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the image is from the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress [1], which credits the image to the Library of Congress. older ≠ wiser 11:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)

As well as this, you might want to search commons for other images of yours, and update/expand the sourcing details. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to Talk:Oracle#Hatnote in Oracle. older ≠ wiser 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Your incorrect information was reverted at Template:Surname/doc. Now, it so happens that I'm trying to convince folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy#Order of precedence (and other discussions) that all names should be removed from disambiguation pages. But the rampant disambiguators have removed the long-standing consensus from their guidelines that they should not interfere with the pages of other projects. So, you can understand that the folks there may not be too happy about cooperating with you, as you've been so uncooperative with them in the past....
-- watching here --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The information you reverted is not incorrect. The surname template is redundant and completely unnecessary on disambiguation pages that have a disambig template. I'm really not sure what you are going on about being uncooperative. I get along fairly well with most editors on the Anthroponymy project. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the article. Could you please also move the talk page to Talk:Udaipur? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again! Hekerui (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you be so nice and have a look on the article "Cranbrook Schools"? Another user constantly tries to change the article and I don´t know if he is right with doing that. Thanks very much in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.12.95 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I only started with defunct townships and then realized what a huge task it would be. The only reason I started it is because I noticed discrepancies. Some are listed township, county, state and others just township, state. It appears that in Michigan, these townships are subunits of the county. That seems to be the case with several defunct townships that now redirect to cities, since the township became a city. I agree on Pennsylvania since townships there are actually cities, rather than county sub units. I tend to agree that if the township is not a county unit, then township, state is appropriate otherwise township, county, state prevails. I don't plan on any more moves since I have a lot of other things on my plate right now. However, something needs to be done with Michigan, because there are two different article naming conventions going on even within the same county, and we should strive for some sort of consistency.DCmacnut<> 16:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Townships are not purely administrative units of counties in Michigan. In some cases, charter townships have powers that are nearly equivalent to cities. It is true that they are geographically sub-divisions of a county (i.e., a township will never span multiple counties as is possible for cities or villages). But township officials are elected and govern independently of the county government. The rule is the same basic rule for disambiguation in general -- to disambiguate only when necessary. Thus, if there is only one Eckford Township, Michigan, that is the name of the article. If there are multiple townships with the same name, for example Grant Township, Michigan, there is a disambiguation page and the county name is used to disambiguate the titles. older ≠ wiser 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, I'm not going to be doing any other work on this. I still believe it's appropriate to use the full township, county, state format regardless of disambiguation needs. It just seems cleaner. But I'm not going to make a big deal out of it.DCmacnut<> 19:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi pal, maybe now I have found a partner for a good card game. How about Lanterloo ?
  • The links in "Categories" are leading to another trick taking card game Category, different from the one listing many other games.
  • Although the game was widely played in England, it is a French card game. Read the article.
• Could you please correct the information for me pal ? Thanks ! Krenakarore (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted a see-also link to Disambiguation (disambiguation), and discussed why in some detail at User_talk:Cakedamber#WP refs in WP articles, including quotation of the edit summary of your related reversion.
--Jerzy•t 06:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On Deer Creek‎ and Deer Creek Township‎ why did you change the links to disambiguation pages to links to redirect pages? Gjs238 (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:INTDABLINK. It helps to make it more apparent when links to a disambiguation page are intentional rather than a mistaken link that needs to be fixed. older ≠ wiser 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. Wouldn't Deer Creek Township (disambiguation) serve the same purpose as Deer Creek Township (disambiguation), but avoid the redirect? Gjs238 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. By linking through the redirect, when you look at what links here for a page, links through the "(disambiguation)" are intentional. Links directly to the page are of uncertain status and would need to be checked out. older ≠ wiser 02:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Check out this editor User:Jakewayd as he states in his user page that he is running for Michigan State Representative. He seems to be overoptimistic. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's your fourth revert in 24 hours. Did you intend to self-revert it? Yworo (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. It's not a revert, but a modification. The previous three were indeed reverts as they perpetuated quite a lot of bad form. The last edit is an attempt to modify your last edit to be more compliant with WP:MOSDAB. There is a recommended format for disambiguation pages where there is no primary topic, and there is no strong reason to ignore it for this case. If you really feel that reporting such things helps to build an encyclopedia, then do what you see fit. older ≠ wiser 21:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I perceive it as edit warring. I see you've been blocked twice in the past for that. However, I reviewed the reverts and one appears to be reverting vandalism (though w/o an edit comment to that effect) so I see no reason to report anything just now. Of course, you know that somebody is going to move the philosophy down under the OS. When multiple things are named after a concept, that seems a common sense reason enough to make an exception to a guideline and define it first, in such a way that it is obviously not just another entry to be re-sorted if they don't appear in alpha order. Yworo (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Except of course, that is just a back-door way of asserting primary topicality. Considering relative page view statistics and Google hits and other typical measures of primary topicality, the operating system should be at Ubuntu and the disambiguation page at Unbuntu (disambiguation). But as that moving about has recently been the subject of some debate, I don't want to go there. So considering that Ubuntu is presently a disambiguation page with no primary topic, I see no reason it should imply that there is one. older ≠ wiser 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

But there is a difference between Wikipedia's definition of a "primary topic" and the primary or original meaning of a word. The OS named itself after the philosophy, not the other way around. Sometimes primary means first. Yworo (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not especially relevant for disambiguation pages, which are navigational aides to help readers find the articles they were intending to find when searching for an ambiguous term. The respective articles are the place to document any relationships/parentage between the terms, not the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 21:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I could understand that were only the OS were derived from the root word. However, in this case, it's not just the OS derived from it, but every other usage- a foundation, a cola, an educational fund, and a municipality. Although, if I read WP:DAB correctly, aren't we not supposed to list phrases just because they start with the word. How come the MoS sticklers aren't changing that? Yworo (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Ubuntu Foundation should not be listed on the dab page as it is unlikely to be referred to as simply "Ubuntu". The same is likely true of the Ubuntu Education Fund. But there is a reasonable case to be made that the other terms may is sometimes be known as simply "Ubuntu" and so should have a mention on the page. older ≠ wiser 21:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Yworo (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry if I got a litte snippy. It's really hard to tell where someone is coming from when they are trying to discuss mostly via edit comments. Conversing on talk pages is oh so much more pleasant and I understand where you are coming from much better now. Yworo (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why bother to have both Modern Man (disambiguation) and Modern man (disambiguation)? You seem to have created both, rather oddly.. -Silence (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a standard form for deliberate links to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 02:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It's standard to have every possible capitalization? -Silence (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(To clarify, the dab itself is at Modern man, so I was curious about what the need for a Modern Man (disambiguation) is, even if we do need a (disambiguation) counterpart at Modern man (disambiguation) for some reason. -Silence (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's that say it is not unusual to create redirects for various alternate spellings and capitalizations. If you look at what links here for Modern Man (disambiguation), there is at least one link to the page. Certainly that page could have been edited to adjust the link, but as the link was created at least once, it is an indication there is a fair likelihood other editors might try to uses the same link. To me, having a forest of redirects is a more sustainable long-term solution than trying to repair such links one at a time. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not unusual to create various redirects from alternate spellings for an article, but how can doing the same for a dab page possibly serve any function, when no ordinary reader will be searching for 'X (disambiguation)' manually anyway, and the only possible links one could expect to be searched for are Modern man (and the redirect Modern Man) in this case? The only reason a link to Modern Man (disambiguation) was created was because the dab page used to be malformed, back when it was placed at 'Modern Man (disambiguation)' instead of at 'Modern man'; it would have been far simpler in the long run to change the link than to create a page that can now continue to clutter up redirectspace, totally unused, for years to come.. -Silence (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems far simpler to me to create the redirect rather than fuss about whether someone will make a link to the disambiguation page with the other capitalization (as already happened, and not entirely unlikely to happen again). Besides, Redirects are cheap and there isn't any actual redirectspace in which to accumulate clutter. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; i tried Category:Disambiguation templates but gave up too easily. BTW, there've been 2 or 3 templates in Category:Disambiguation even since i started patrolling it (for Dab-pgs) earlier this year; do you think they should be moved as well?
--Jerzy•t 01:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the organization of that category and the subcategories is a little confusing, so it's no wonder things get misplaced. I agree the templates in the main cat should probably be recategorized. older ≠ wiser 11:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your redirect of First Battle of Passchendaele to Battle of Passchendaele. The article First Battle of Passchendaele is currently under development as a article that concerns the battle between the Battle of Poelcappelle and Second Battle of Passchendaele and is not duplicating material in Battle of Passchendaele.

Passchendaele is the English name for the Belgian town of Passendale. Just because the town shares the name of a battle does not mean that takes precedence. That would be like redirecting Jutland for the Battle of Jutland, it's just not done. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The battles are clearly confusing, but I will leave them be. Howver, Passchendaele should redirect to the battle. There is no real comparison with Jutland. Jutland is well-recognized apart from the battle (in fact , I'd never heard of the battle). But the name Passchendaele is primarily only known because of the battle. Of the many hundreds of links to the term, nearly all are for the battle. It is a disservice to readers to force them to an unintended article. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. I suspect the majority are in fact referring to the town or Passchendaele ridge. It may be in context of the battle but that still makes it an incorrect redirect as the intended location is in fact the town.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think your sucpicions are incorrect. A quick survey indicates that most are intended to refer to the battle. older ≠ wiser 19:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Most incorrect links I have found were related to battle honours and in those cases none of the links were directed towards the relating battle but rather to the shortened version (ie ARRAS, LOOS, SOMME, VIMY). I have nevertheless been making some correctionsbwhere needed so any issues should be soon resolved.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bkonrad,

It took me some time to understand your question about my Kurenai Tsubasa example here. It seems you understood me as presenting the advantage of a single redirect. I see now where the misunderstanding comes from: You are right that Kurenai Tsubasa is a single redirect to List of Ranma ½ characters#Tsubasa Kurenai. But that's only so now, after the bot "fixed" the redirect. Originally, it was like this:

• Kurenai Tsubasa → Tsubasa Kurenai → List of Ranma ½ characters#Tsubasa Kurenai

My point was that that would have been, while not perfect, still acceptable. But I see now how it can be distracting to use this as an example. I now wrote the following series to have a basis for discussion that is hopefully beyond the reach of the bots:

• User:SebastianHelm/Sandbox/X' → User:SebastianHelm/Sandbox/X → User:SebastianHelm/Sandbox/Y

I still disagree with you about the use of the word "broken": Few things in this world work exactly as we want, but we don't call them broken. Or else, all of Wikipedia would be broken.

But be that as it may, I think we can still find common ground; we don't have to agree on our choice of words. I'm sorry that I contributed to us going further off on a tangent by bringing up my own country's past, which has of course nothing to do with the question. I thought it would help if I wrote a bit about my background, but it didn't work out as I had hoped. How can we get back on track? Would it help if we deleted everything from "Maybe I'm a just bit more aware of what language can do to us ..."? — Sebastian 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. However, I don't agree that we alter the page to support making double-redirects knowing full-well that they do not work as intended. I can see there might be some usefulness to some double-redirects, but not to making dysfunctional redirects. Posing this as a hypothetical and assuming the bug holding up multi-redirects will be fixed eventually, there might be some value in discussing a framework of guidance for such redirect chains when they are implemented. But framing the discussion as allowing dysfunctional redirects now is a show-stopper for me. older ≠ wiser 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the discussion back on track! If you don't mind, I would like us to move your reply (from "I don't" on) and my reply below back to Wikipedia_talk:Double_redirects, maybe unindented.

Thank you for searching for a different term, and for seeing that at least some double redirects can be useful. Now, are you making a distinction between useful double-redirects and dysfunctional ones? Or are you saying that you currently regard all double redirects as dysfunctional, because of the software bug? I feel that would be like blaming the highway for the problem in your gear shift. We need to fix the software, so I just voted for the bug fix at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17888, and it would be great if others could do the same. — Sebastian 02:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I don't want to reheat the terminology discussion, but I'd like to tell you that when I just looked up dysfunction, it led me to the cute term "Malfunction Junction". That still blames the highway, but at least most people understand that some responsibility for driving lies with the driver, too. So that may be a good compromise term for our discussion. But if you don't like it, don't worry about it, I mainly posted this for some comic relief. — Sebastian 02:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: useful vs. dysfunctional -- my opinion has not changed. There is potential for some double-redirects to be useful, but at present all double-redirects are dysfunctional. It makes no difference to me if you want to move some portion of the discussion there here. older ≠ wiser 11:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)