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.

Because of your work with the WikiProject Cities I'd like you to take a look at the Chicago article if you have the time & desire. It is currently up for Peer Review (see Chicago Talk) and I would enjoy hearing your feedback to help guide the growth of this article. No response is needed on my talk page. Jasenlee 01:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I agree that it's probably not necessary to add dablinks to places like Florence, Minnesota, but I don't think it hurts. My thought behind adding these was that someone browsing to Florence, Minnesota might like to know (if they didn't already) that there are other places named Florence in the world, including the major city in Italy. I've been systematically adding dablinks like these to place names in Japan, where it is not so obvious to me that someone following a google hit on, say, Ichinomiya, and arriving at the town Ichinomiya, Chiba wasn't really looking for the city Ichinomiya, Aichi. It seems the same sort of situation may well occur for nearly anything where there are numerous places/etc. that share the same name (perhaps a Japanese person or a first grader looking for the famous city of Florence arrives at Florence, Minnesota from a google hit). -- Rick Block 15:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a summary of this exchange at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation which I assume you've seen (which has eliciited no comments yet, which actually surprises me). -- Rick Block 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After reading the Disambiguation text on the CMU page, I've got a better understanding as to why you removed the link from the Central Michigan University page to the CMU page... thanks. The main purpose I had added it in was to avoid the potential re-addition of Carnegie Mellon information to the Central Michigan University page (after all, none of the other "MSU" schools are listed on Michigan State's page, so why should the Central article mention Carnegie Mellon?).

On the whole, I'm not even sure the Central Michigan University page even needs the mention that the university is often referred to as CMU, since most universities are known by their abbreviation in addition to their full name (and most university articles on the Wikipedia don't bother to mention the abbreviation). For the meantime, though, I'll leave the reference in and see what happens.

Thanks again.

You recently inserted the tag CatAZ into a large category. If you have the time and inclination, I would be grateful if you could visit the talk page Template talk:CatAZ and say which of two version you prefer: with a shaded box and the word Contents, or without the box and the word. --Henrygb 21:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listen, I am trying to have the best intentions for Wikipedia nowadays. I am a roadgeek, road historan and whatsoever. These stubs and substubs that I generated are not meant to annoy anyone, they are here for historical value and retroactive curiousity about freeway construction projects from the past. --GoofyGuy 03:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you suggested that link for I-75 construction in Michigan, we could merge all those stubs and some information from Interstate 75 into that article you suggested.

Hi Bkonrad, this is just to say thank you for voting for me for adminship. I really appreciate your support and the kind words. I'll do my best to live up to them! Best, SlimVirgin 03:20, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think pre-emptive redirects to non-existent articles add any value and as Cyrius points out there is a very serious negative side-effect in making the non-existent redirect look like it links to an article.

You have not answered my specific points about why certain kinds of pre-emptive redirects are valuable, and you have also neglected the fact that that negative side-effect can be averted by a bug fix.

Eastern Sudanic redirects to Eastern Sudanic languages, which does not yet exist. The value of that is something I would have considered obvious, but I'll explain it. Eastern Sudanic is an abbreviation in standard use for obvious reasons, but the non-abbreviated form is the appropriate article title. The pre-emptive redirect avoids the future creation of two disparate article by authors who cannot work together because they are unaware of each other's work, which would later need to get merged.

Similarly, complex societies redirects to complex society.

And a misnomer sometimes redirects to a correctly named article.

A software bug has been reported, which, if dealt with, will make a red link to appear when a link points to a pre-emptive redirect whose target does not yet exist. Michael Hardy 22:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Err, well I dismissed your specific points in their entirety. Sorry if you're not satisfied with that response. I still am not convinced by your arguments and feel that pre-emptive redirects to non-existent articles is a bad idea. older≠wiser 23:25, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

My "arguments", such as they are, appear in the section immediately preceding this one. I really don't make any argument per se, more like stating my opinion and agreeing with what others had said. My primary objections are 1) the red link problem which is quite serious and should not be defered upon the hope of a someday technical fix; 2) If you really think there should be an article with a specific name, then create a stub for it rather than simply creating a redirect to a non-existant topic; 3) Your rewording of the policy is Instruction creep. The criteria at present is pretty straightforward. Adding conditions to it only makes more difficult to administer. older≠wiser 03:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

That often cannot be done. For example, I know enough to know that Eastern Sudanic should redirect to Eastern Sudanic languages, but I could not posisbly write even a stub article about that. A Wikipedian could easily know, from having read a variety of instances, that coupled harmonic oscillator is not one of those phrases that are always plural, so the plural should redirect to the singular, but may not know whether the topic is physics or music or New-Age philosophy. Such a person could not possibly write a stub on that topic, but could easily write a valuable pre-emptive redirect. Michael Hardy 01:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have you noticed my statement that you and I were both wrong about what the policy says? It says redirects to non-existent targets may be speedily deleted, but lower it says "However, such redirects should not be deleted if ...." etc. One of the items below that says they should not be deleted if they may help prevent later creation of duplicate articles by redirecting a plural to a singular, or a misspelling to a correct spelling, or a misnomer to a correct term, etc. Michael Hardy 02:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

new facts for page move at Talk:Papua (Indonesian province), regards Tobias Conradi 05:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I copy-and-pasted some badly formatting texts to Wikisource. One thing i hate is articles linking to Project Gutenburg or some other site for source texts when we have our own project to use. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 03:39, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the current version of Template:Current U.S. Senators. Would you consider changing your vote? --DuKot 19:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am trying my best to solve that dipute about Pashuns tribes list in Pashtuns talk page with some logical and authentic refereces but couldn't find any positive result, now will you please visit Pashtun discussion page to make your decision? Thanks !

Haider 16:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that you attached {{welcome}} on a user talk page with an anonymous IP address instead of one belonging to a user name. For those situations, please use {{anon}} instead as it is specially designed to invite them to create an account. Thanks. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi - Per our conversation from some time ago, I've attempted to convene an official vote on a change to the wikipedia:disambiguation policy page. No one has commented or voted on this yet. Do you think posting something about this to WP:RFC might be appropriate? Thanks. -- Rick Block

Or announce it as a survey? I'm somewhat puzzled about the complete lack of response. Is this an issue that has been previously beaten to death in other forums? -- Rick Block 04:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surveys would probably be more appropriate than RFC, but probably no harm in adding it there. Maybe also on Village Pump (policy). I'm extremely busy with RL these days, and have relatively little time to spend on Wikipedia. I've said what I thought about the subject, and don't really have anything new to add at this time. Lack of comment is not at all unusual. It may be a matter of timing, or maybe making comments on related pages. older≠wiser 01:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clear - I wasn't puzzled so much by no response from you, but no response from anyone. I've posted something about this on the Village Pump (policy) page, which has apparently elicited a few responses. Thanks. -- Rick Block 02:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bkonrad - I understand your deep interest in Michigan and Midwestern affairs, and in the preservation of your Wiki edits on Michigan matters. Although I certainly do not possess your length or depth of experience on Wiki (and have chosen to remain an anonymous scrivener of sorts), I too have edited numerous pages on topics of local geography and interest, with which I am familiar.

I recently made a change to the page List of United States Representatives from Michigan (one of your 'babies'). I removed it from the category Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state.

My reasoning was creation of symmetry and consistency. All other 50 states, and the District of Columbia, have a single page in the category Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state. I believe that maintaining consistency among the states best serves casual users who are seeking information quickly, with a minimum of fuss and forethought.

While the listing of US Senators by state maintains dual lists, chronological and alphabetical, that has not been the case with the listing of Representatives.

While, again, I understand your concern for Michigan matters, I do not believe Michigan is entitled to separate treatment. Would you be willing to remove the alphabetical listing of Michigan's representatives from the catgory Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state?

Thank you for your many contributions to Wiki, and thank you for your consideration of this matter.

69.44.61.197 17:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. When I checked the category, Michigan was not unique. Ohio had a "list" article, while it's corresponding Congressional delegation article was not listed (although it exists). I think it belongs on that category. I don't find simplistic symmetry to be a very persuasive argument. If an article belongs to a category, it should be in that category. older≠wiser 21:51, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)