This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Can you specify on the talk page what's needed, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

No need: User:JHunterJ has taken a WP:BOLD step and fixed it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bkonrad. Thanks for the fix. Not sure I understand from the wiki-jargon where the error was. If you have a spare minute, could you outline it for me so that I avoid doing it again. Much appreciated. Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, see WP:DABNAME. The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. It is only if there is a primary topic that the disambiguation page has "(disambiguation)" appended to it. older ≠ wiser 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) So much to retain... Best wishes. --Haruth (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't add user talk pages to my watchlist. I prefer if you let responses on my talk page this way I will respond on yours.

I noticed you have voted twice. You do understand that nominating an article for deletion is your vote deletion? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 11:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Heh, no I forgot that I had nominated it -- I'll blame it on the prescription cough syrup. older ≠ wiser 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Older&Wiser: A heads up. Someone is systematically nominating the source lists for lighthouses for deletion. Discussion is here.

IMHO, this is wrong-headed, and anybody who would help in opposing this would be apprecaied. Obviously, I would like to keep the Lighthouse resources and I replied to all of them like this>

• Strong Keep These are useful and important lists of sources. There was a lot off work that went into these lists, and they are not miscellaneous lists of books, but are a considered and well researched compendium of resources, including links. For anybody who is seriously researching lighthouses in the United States and the affected areas, this are very useful. For anybody to argue that lists should be deleted without regard to their utility is to disregard the needs of our readers and potential readers.

Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Stan

You need a life, fool. Stop stalking ORTONVILLE. Those facts were ACCURATE and we are extremely disturbed that you undermined the honesty of those statements. Fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.32.59 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to monitor the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2010 article to stop an edit war. 68.41.62.240 (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Mea culpa, you're absolutely right. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem at all. older ≠ wiser 22:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but... Can you point me to the specific place in WP:MOSDAB that you were referring to when you undid my edit to Mole thus? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:PIPING. In general, links on disambiguation pages should not be piped, and especially should not be piped to conceal the disambiguating phrase. Piping is specifically allowed in order to apply formatting such as italics to titles of works or ship names. older ≠ wiser 14:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see what you're getting at, and I was also looking at that instruction. But I felt that in this case there was no concealment (or at least no more concealment) in the simpler form that I used, because the link leads to a redirect. Whichever way you do it, you "conceal" the actual target to the same extent. That was my thinking, anyway - not that I'm going to fight over it! Maybe the answer is that one fine day there might be a standalone page at The Mole (Happy Tree Friends) - and if so I can certainly see that the longer form is preferable. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, that suggests another solution: don't use the redirect in the first position of the entry and instead use a piped link in the description. If there is little likelihood of there ever being a separate article, there is little value to using the redirect (at least that's my opinion, I know other dabbers prefer always using a redirect in such cases). older ≠ wiser 16:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hi;

i;m not clear why we keep going back & forth on this, surely it is better to have the link in the word "boke"?

Lx 121 (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:MOSDAB. Piped section links should not go in the first position of the entry. older ≠ wiser 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion of Confederate Monument disambiguation page just now was far from meeting criteria for speedy deletion under the reason you gave: "Uncontroversial maintenance, such as temporarily deleting a page to merge page histories, deleting dated maintenance categories, deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages, or performing uncontroversial page moves. If no special tag like {{db-move}} can be used and the reason for deletion is not self-evident, a reason for deletion should be supplied on the talk page or in the edit summary."

There has been discussion at several pages now, starting at User talk:Orlady about this.

I would abide by a consensus process decision in a requested move process, but Orlady has been following a campaign of following me and verging on, if not fully meeting, criteria of wp:harassment. I gave her list-article version the edit history as a concession, while in fact the better treatment is to restore the disambiguation page's original history at the dab page, and copy material to the list-article.

Your constructive intervention is actually welcomed by me, if you will bring about orderly discussion and decision. --doncram (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the discussion and i think you are way way off on this. older ≠ wiser

You were way off on calling it uncontroversial to justify a speedy delete of a dab page. But, okay, can we discuss the proper treatment here, or where. I do welcome the constructive involvement of someone with knowledge of SIA / dab policy and practices. --doncram (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. There are numerous articles that have title ambiguous with "Confederate Monument". In such cases either a set index or disambiguation page might be appropriate. As there is considerable content beyond what might go on a disambiguation page, a set index seems obvious. older ≠ wiser 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am way off about what? I set up a disambiguation page. Orlady, who has been actively following me and disrupting my work, began conversion of it to a sia page. There is room for a list-article / sia, yes. But, there is room / justification need for a disambiguation page as well, for the places named exactly that. The sia/dab guidelines allow for such cases of sia and dab pages coexisting. I suggested at Orlady's talk page that the correct title for sia/list-article would be List of Confederate monuments and i think that was never questioned. Orlady resumed recreating the sia/list at the dab page name. I recently resumed moving the sia/list to the list article name.

I am open to coming to some better understanding about when it is appropriate or not to have both a SIA/list and a disambiguation page. It is not likely i would reach such understanding in chatting just with Orlady, however. Your brief remarks so far seemed to indicate some support for this being disambiguation, which is how i set it up, to be strictly disambiguation, without extra information that is inappropriate for a dab page. Having a list-article is okay, i am not disputing that.

But if the SIA/list does not provide all the disambiguation provided by the dab page version, then a paired dab page seems necessary. Note in the details, for example, that Orlady has chosen to use an alternative name for one place, "Portsmouth Confederate Monument" for one of those named exactly "Confederate Monument" in the National Register (Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia)). The version of SIA which she last edited lost display of that name. It seems beneficial to me to have a short dab page showing places of exactly the name, and linking to a list-article showing many others (where the exact name for the Portsmouth one will not show, apparently, if Orlady's editing preferences prevail. I don't want to edit war with her in that list-article about that. My first and main purpose is to set up adequate disambiguation. --doncram (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Would you please restore a copy of the deleted article to my userspace, so that i may reference it.--doncram (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning. How does the SIA not "provide all the disambiguation provided by the dab page version"? The SIA contains a large number of entities with titles that are ambiguous with Confederate Monument. All of these require disambiguation, which is what is required by DAB guidelines. The NRIS is only one source. I do not think it is necessary that an article about an NHRP must be named exactly as the site is listed in the NRIS. Other reliable sources might use different forms of the name and on Wikipedia the common name as supported by reliable sources is generally preferred for the title of articles. There is no value to having a arbitrarily truncated list where there are many other articles that are also ambiguous. I will see what I can do about moving the dab page to your userspace. older ≠ wiser 15:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any deleted edit history beyond one edit where you created the dab page after moving the list article, so there is little point to moving the page. I've copied the content to User:Doncram/Confederate Monument. older ≠ wiser 16:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that copy, that's fine.--doncram (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) To clear some possible/emerging misunderstandings: I also "do not think it is necessary that an article about an NHRP must be named exactly as the site is listed in the NRIS." I agree that yes "Other reliable sources might use different forms of the name and on Wikipedia the common name as supported by reliable sources is generally preferred for the title of articles."

The NRIS name of a place is, however, a substantial name that deserves disambiguation. The NRIS names of places appear in multiple places on the internet, including http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and http://www.archiplanet.com, because the NRIS database is public domain and is provided freely, so private mirror sites use the NRIS names. Also, the National Park Service uses the NRIS names in its webpages and search interfaces, such as here. Therefore, in general there will be some arriving readers looking for information about the place using the NRIS-based name. Readers typing in exactly "Confederate Monument" will be more likely to be looking for the Portsmouth and the other one, than they are likely to be looking for others not named exactly that in NRIS.

I had noticed already that Orlady had renamed the Portsmouth one from the NRIS-based "Confederate Monument" name to "Portsmouth Confederate Monument" with support of a source that uses the latter name. She has repeatedly shown what seems to me to be proud and weird preference NOT to use National Register-based information, consistent where her seemingly priding herself on not using National Register nomination documents and proclaiming that she does not use the convenient and accurate NRHP infobox generator provided by User:Elkman. And, in a weird, long-running wikihounding type saga, she is making a point to find petty differences from how i have done something to do it a different way. There's no way that i can talk anything out with her, as far as I can tell. So, anyhow, this is a likely point of contention. I don't particularly care what the common name is, and if the common name is different than the NRIS one i would be happy for that to be used in the article. It just happens that the correct name to use will likely not be found by her and me discussing it rationally. She has recently stated "strong dislike" for me, etc., etc. There is nasty and long history, which is relevant to mention as it is coloring her and my editing both.

But, it could come to pass that the Portsmouth article gets moved from the NRIS-based name "Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia)". And, Orlady will likely again remove it from the List of confederate monuments article, which has no requirement, not being a disambiguation page, to perpetually provide disambiguation-type information to readers. I don't think it is feasible to consider putting some editing restriction on the list-article that it must show the Confederate Monument name for the Portsmouth one forever.

It just seems easier to have a disambiguation page listing places named exactly "Confederate Monument" and pointing also to the list-article for others, avoiding need for perpetual conflict within editing the list-article to have it keep showing that as an alternate name for the Portsmouth one. Of course if the Portsmouth article name is changed, the entry for it in the disambiguation page changes from something like:

• Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia)

to

• Portsmouth Confederate Monument, also known as Confederate Monument, in Portsmouth, Virginia, or
• Confederate Monument, also known as Portsmouth Confederate Monument

in order to continue to indicate that there is a place which is partly known by this name, though the wikipedia article name is now different. (Currently Portsmouth Confederate Monument is a red-link, and there has not been satisfactory-to-me evidence provided that it is a name ever used. But in very similar cases argued by Orlady in previous disputes, my guess is that she would argue it is, if that served her purposes. Now, with all this said, she might turn to not argue it, just to prove me wrong for predicting she might make the argument.

The avoidance of predictable conflict, anyhow, and need to provide disambiguation for a name that is not highlighted for readers in the list-article, already seems to me to be enough and good reason to keep a separate disambiguation page. What do you think would be best? --doncram (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether one item in the list is presented one way or another. The issue is that most of the items on the list are ambiguous with the title "Confederate Monument". It is purely speculation that Readers typing in exactly "Confederate Monument" will be more likely to be looking for the Portsmouth and the other one, than they are likely to be looking for others not named exactly that in NRIS. If there were to be a separate disambiguation page, it should list ALL of the articles (or likely articles) that are ambiguous. And that would duplicate a large portion of the SIA, which makes the value of having a separate disambiguation questionable.

Yes, Portsmouth Confederate Monument should either be the title of the article or a redirect to Confederate Monument (Portsmouth, Virginia). I just made it a redirect. The former is more of a natural language construction, but I've no special interest in what the actual title is. A quick Google search for "Portsmouth Confederate Monument" indicates the formulation is not uncommon; Google Books shows a number of usages in print; whether it is the most common usage to warrant moving the article is another question, but it is pretty referring to the monument as the "Portsmouth Confederate Monument" is not unusual. Editors should feel free to use either form in other articles. Although in a list of NHRP-listed properties, the NRHP name should be used.

I have little interest in whatever passes between you and Orlady (and others). However, at a quick glance I don't see that Orlady has done anything that out of the ordinary. Editors with intersecting interests and who dialog with some of the same editors are bound to notice things that the other editor is doing without necessarily going out of their way. And in online discourse it is exceedingly easy to misconstrue intentions. Don't assume that another editor is out to get you just because they happen to take an interest in some of the pages you edit and have a substantive disagreement with you over how best to do things. older ≠ wiser 21:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I have responded here: User talk:MishMich#rail links and disambiguation pages. Which page did I edit that you have a problem with? Oh, thanks for 'clearing up' after me - I'd have done this myself once you mentioned it. Mish (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)