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.

I note that you removed the link to Damon Knight. Ironically, the only article which already linked to "WRB" was "Off Center", a 1965 collection by guess who. DS (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-10T22:32:00.000Z","author":"DragonflySixtyseven","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DragonflySixtyseven-2016-07-10T22:32:00.000Z-WRB","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-07-10T23:08:00.000Z-DragonflySixtyseven-2016-07-10T22:32:00.000Z"],"displayName":"DS"}}-->

Ah, I hadn't noticed that, only that the Damon Knight article had no mention of it. older ≠ wiser 23:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-10T23:08:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-07-10T23:08:00.000Z-DragonflySixtyseven-2016-07-10T22:32:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"older"}}-->

Hello! Thanks for help on Urusov articles. Still I question the move from a disambiguation page to a list of surnames, as both the princely house is listed, and perhaps most importantly, a place name. This doesn't fit into a template of surnames.--Simen113 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-14T15:58:00.000Z","author":"Simen113","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Simen113-2016-07-14T15:58:00.000Z-Urusov","replies":[]}}-->

You don't seem to have signed this edit - I think it would be clearer if you did. Andrewa (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-19T05:29:00.000Z","author":"Andrewa","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Andrewa-2016-07-19T05:29:00.000Z-Unsigned","replies":[]}}-->

Redirecting cancel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.140.84 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-23T14:41:00.000Z","author":"122.168.140.84","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-122.168.140.84-2016-07-23T14:41:00.000Z-Redirecting_Cancel","replies":[]}}-->

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads. Since you had some involvement with the United States House Committee on Post Office and Post Roads redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-25T01:43:00.000Z","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-2016-07-25T01:43:00.000Z-United_States_House_Committee_on_Post_Office_and_Post_Roads_listed_at_Redirects","replies":[]}}-->

Hi Bkonrad. In case you didn't my ping on WP:VPT, I just wanted to let you know that I've made User:Evad37/Custom GeoHack replacement.js which can do what you want - Evad37 [talk] 08:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-07-30T08:06:00.000Z","author":"Evad37","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Evad37-2016-07-30T08:06:00.000Z-Lightweight_geohack","replies":[],"displayName":"Evad"}}-->

Hi Bkonrad,

You have deleted the disambiguation page Euclides (disambiguation) without a prior discussion which I have requested of you, as follows:

(Deletion log); 00:11 . . Bkonrad (talk | contribs) deleted page Euclides (disambiguation) ‎(This entire page is unnecessary duplication of Euclid (disambiguation))

As a philosopher, I have just researched Euclides of Megara. Based on the vast majority of many references, I discovered that the Wikipedia entries were obsolete, still following 1911 conventions. After I've corrected the mistake, now you have decided without discussion that you know better than all the philosophy books written on Ancient Greek History, and deleted the needed disambiguation page.

Please Explain! ~~ BlueMist (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z","author":"Blue Mist 1","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z-Euclides_(disambiguation)","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T04:38:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z","c-PamD-2016-08-08T07:51:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z"],"displayName":"BlueMist"}}-->

See the edit summary of the deletion. older ≠ wiser 04:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T04:38:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T04:38:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:01:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T04:38:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

You don't seem to understand, that is why I ask you for a more detailed explanation.

According to published references, Euclid needs to be "Euclid", and Euclides needs to be "Euclides". In current English usage they have been disambiguated by the scholars to be Euclid the mathematician and Euclides the philosopher.

Euclid is looked for by math students, Euclides is sought by students of ancient Greek philosophy. They are two very different people who need their independent sets of pages (including disambiguation) according to the standard English spelling of their names. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T05:01:00.000Z","author":"Blue Mist 1","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:01:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T04:38:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:08:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:01:00.000Z"],"displayName":"BlueMist"}}-->

No, I don't understand why a separate disambiguation page is needed when Euclid disambiguation) already exists and contains the same entries. If you perhaps are proposing that the entries for "Euclides" should be removed from that page to their own page, that likely needs more discussion than the two of us. As it is though I see no need for a redundant disambiguation page with a subset of entries. older ≠ wiser 05:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T05:08:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:08:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:01:00.000Z","replies":["c-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:25:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:08:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

Have you looked at the Euclid disambiguation page? It has the same 'other' people, but the page is about the famed Euclid, as in Euclid Avenue, Euclid, Ohio, Euclid, the computer app.

Look, this is not your empire. Wikipedia is run by editor consensus. You cannot just rewrite a public encyclopedia according to your own personal whims. Without another editor's agreement, you must restore this page according to Wikipedia conflict guidelines. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 05:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T05:25:00.000Z","author":"Blue Mist 1","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:25:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:08:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:46:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:25:00.000Z"],"displayName":"BlueMist"}}-->

Well point of fact, you started all this by making undiscussed changes to the long-standing order of things, so don't get off on some high and holy reprimands. You don't seem to understand how disambiguation works on Wikipedia. You created Euclides (disambiguation) which I happened to notice from watching Category:Disambiguation pages. At that point, Euclides was a redirect Euclid and I figured ithat disambiguation page was fine as an alternate spelling or transliteration. I even asked what seemed to be a missing hatnote on Euclid. You then changed Euclides to redirect to Euclides (disambiguation), making it a WP:malplaced disambiguation page. It was at this point I realized the page merely duplicated content from the existing disambiguation page. There is no need to duplicate the information. older ≠ wiser 05:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T05:46:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-08T05:46:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T05:25:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"older"}}-->

• (talk page watcher)@BlueMist: I had a look at this out of curiosity, and now find that BlueMist made a cut-and-paste page move to change the philosopher's article title from Euclid of Megara to Euclides of Megara. That's not the way to do it, as by pasting the previous content to a new location we lose all the history of who wrote what in the article over the years. The way to move an article is by using "Move", or if that can't be done then making a formal Move Request. I'll see whether I can unpick this damage, but might have to get an admin to help. PamD 07:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T07:51:00.000Z","author":"PamD","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-PamD-2016-08-08T07:51:00.000Z-Blue_Mist_1-2016-08-08T04:34:00.000Z","replies":["c-PamD-2016-08-08T08:08:00.000Z-PamD-2016-08-08T07:51:00.000Z"],"displayName":"Pam"}}-->

Right, I've reverted the cut-and-paste page moves and set up a formal move request at Talk:Euclid_of_Megara#Requested_move_8_August_2016. Please discuss it there. PamD 08:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-08T08:08:00.000Z","author":"PamD","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-PamD-2016-08-08T08:08:00.000Z-PamD-2016-08-08T07:51:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Pam"}}-->

Greetings, Bkonrad. I've started a discussion about "Bo Diddley (song)". Feel free to join the party, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Bo Diddley (song). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-13T04:32:00.000Z","author":"Mudwater","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mudwater-2016-08-13T04:32:00.000Z-Bo_Diddley_(song)","replies":[]}}-->

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alcoholate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydroxy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-15T09:01:00.000Z","author":"DPL bot","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DPL_bot-2016-08-15T09:01:00.000Z-Disambiguation_link_notification_for_August_15","replies":[],"displayName":"opt-out instructions"}}-->

Dear Bkonrad,
somehas has turned Void (punk band) into a redirect to Void (hardcore punk band) which was created by C&P, thus deleting the entire history. Would it be possible for you to look into this?
Thanks a lot and kind regards, Grueslayer Let's talk. 06:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-16T06:17:00.000Z","author":"Grueslayer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Grueslayer-2016-08-16T06:17:00.000Z-Void","replies":[]}}-->

Dear Bkonrad,

Chetana is a renounced and very significant Theatre group of India. I was trying to create a article about this group.

But then I noticed that you deleted the article. from the blelow link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chetana If I did something wrong Please let me know what to do now so that I can create the article. Bluishshadow (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)bluishshadow__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-16T17:47:00.000Z","author":"Bluishshadow","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bluishshadow-2016-08-16T17:47:00.000Z-You_have_deleted_article_Chetana","replies":[]}}-->

I believe that for the purposes of linking, anthroponymy pages are considered dab pages, even if they have different style guidance: a link to Alphonse James is definitely ambiguous, and it should be indicated that that ambiguity is intentional—that's what "Title (disambiguation)" links are supposed to be there for. I'd appreciate if you'd restore those redirects, and the links to them on Alphonse. If "disambiguation" really rubs you the wrong way, then please move the anthroponomy pages to "Title (name)" and link to them there. Either way, its important to indicate that the ambiguous links are intentional. Thanks! —swpb^T 19:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z","author":"Swpb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Swpb-2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z-Alphonse","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-23T20:39:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z","c-PamD-2016-08-24T14:48:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z"]}}-->

Set indexes are not disambiguation pages and I don't think muddying the already fuzzy distinctions between them makes it clearer for anything. If projects want to use some sort of set index page instead of disambiguation pages, that's fine. But if they are to be used like disambiguation pages, then they should simply be disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-23T20:39:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-23T20:39:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z","replies":["c-Swpb-2016-08-24T12:39:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-23T20:39:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

They aren't set index pages, they are anthroponymy pages. They are not the same thing. —swpb^T 12:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T12:39:00.000Z","author":"Swpb","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Swpb-2016-08-24T12:39:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-23T20:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T12:59:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T12:39:00.000Z"]}}-->

{{given name}} and {{surname}} both sort into Category:All set index articles and the templates themselves are in Category:Set index article templates and use of the templates are described at Wikipedia:Set index articles. There is some confusion on Wikipedia:Disambiguation and WP:MOSDAB as to what these are. WP:NAMELIST says very few sources would refer to the waltz composer Harry J. Lincoln by an unqualified "Lincoln", so he is only listed at the Lincoln (surname) anthroponymy article. WP:FURTHERDAB says Links from set indexes: Laing (surname) contains a link to Laing (disambiguation). MOS:DABNAME describes them as list articles. It seems that even if they are not set index articles, I don't think there is agreement that such articles should be considered as disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 12:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T12:59:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T12:59:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T12:39:00.000Z","replies":["c-Swpb-2016-08-24T13:31:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T12:59:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

Well, then there are several tens of thousands of cases in Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages that you'll be wanting to change. Leaving (or creating) ambiguous links that don't indicate intentionality is definitely not a solution. On the idea that anthro pages are their own unique thing, I've created {{R to anthroponymy page}} and the attendant category. If you want to go about creating all those "Name (anthroponymy)" redirects and changing all those links to point to them, feel free. —swpb^T 13:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T13:31:00.000Z","author":"Swpb","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Swpb-2016-08-24T13:31:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T12:59:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T14:15:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T13:31:00.000Z"]}}-->

Actually, I have been working through Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages. In many such cases, the intent of the redirect is not really that clear since ostensibly these articles were created to allow inclusion of information about the name as a name rather than simple disambiguation. I've no objection to using {{R to anthroponymy page}}, though I'm not going to go out of my way to create such redirects. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T14:15:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T14:15:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T13:31:00.000Z","replies":["c-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:29:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T14:15:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

Well whatever you do, please leave a bot-discernable indication when links to anthro pages are intentional, because, as with dab pages, many are not. With dab pages, the redirects make it easy to sort the intentional links from the mistakes; it needs to be equally easy to do so for anthro pages. If you have a better way to do that than with "Name (anthroponymy)" redirects, I'd like to hear it. Simply changing all the links from "Name (disambiguation)" to "Name" and removing the redirect does more harm than good, and would very definitely require a consensus on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, since thousands of those will be mistakes. —swpb^T 15:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T15:29:00.000Z","author":"Swpb","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:29:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T14:15:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T15:52:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:29:00.000Z"]}}-->

Well, actually I think the converse is true, that there needs to be a clearer understanding of what precisely these anthroponymy pages are and how they relate to disambiguation. My understanding is that they have been split off from disambiguation pages because in most cases these are unambiguous partial title matches (and entities known by the sole name should in most cases be included on the disambiguation page, where one exists separate from the name page). If there is some desire to devise a mechanism for distinguishing intentional links for these name pages, I'm not sure it has much if anything to do with the disambiguation project. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T15:52:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T15:52:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:29:00.000Z","replies":["c-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:56:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T15:52:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

I think we disagree that "in most cases these are unambiguous partial title matches". I agree that they're not ambiguous with the non-anthro dab titles, but that's not the point: the entries within an anthro page are often ambiguous w/r/t each other, and there are certainly many links to anthro pages that should really point to one of those entries (i.e., they need to be disambiguated, which is why I think it's a matter for WP:DAB to weigh in on). I started the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Links_to_anthroponymy_pages and alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy about it, if there's any question of venue. I'm sorry in advance if that discussion causes work you've already done to be invalidated, but I see no way this question can go without larger-scale input. —swpb^T 15:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T15:56:00.000Z","author":"Swpb","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Swpb-2016-08-24T15:56:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-24T15:52:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->

• (talk page watcher) The above discussion led me to have a look at Alphonse and I've commented at Talk:Alphonse. It's a bit of a mess, to my mind. PamD 14:48, 24 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-24T14:48:00.000Z","author":"PamD","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-PamD-2016-08-24T14:48:00.000Z-Swpb-2016-08-23T19:56:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"Pam"}}-->

Hello Bkonrad, I saw that you reverted two of my edits to pages that had "U.S." in them (here and here). How come you did this? As far as I can see your rationale is that "U.S." ≠ United States. However, in both instances, it does refer to the United States (unless you know of another state of Michigan that is in another country). I look forward to discussing this with you. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 10:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-25T10:46:00.000Z","author":"MorbidEntree","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T10:46:00.000Z-You_reverting_my_edits","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T10:57:00.000Z-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T10:46:00.000Z"]}}-->

MorbidEntreeYou're edits claimed WP:NOTUSA as justification, but U.S. is not USA. There is nothing wrong with U.S., especially in repeated references. Also this edit introduced a grammatical error. older ≠ wiser 10:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-25T10:57:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T10:57:00.000Z-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T10:46:00.000Z","replies":["c-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T11:08:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T10:57:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

In WP:NOTUSA it specifically says that "U.S." is deprecated. And I do know that it says to substitute it for "US," but I figured that changing it to "United States" would be clearer to the average reader. And regarding this edit, what grammatical error is there? As far as I know having a full name of a country next to the word "state" isn't bad grammar (and it sounds natural when I say it out loud). --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 11:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-25T11:08:00.000Z","author":"MorbidEntree","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T11:08:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T10:57:00.000Z","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T11:24:00.000Z-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T11:08:00.000Z"]}}-->

MorbidEntree, It says is is deprecated now in the Chicago MoS -- i.e., it is providing a summary of current guidance from outside authorities. The crucial guidance for Wikipedia is in following lines Use of periods for abbreviations and acronyms should be consistent within any given article and congruent with the variety of English used by that article. BTW, "United States state" definitely sounds weird in most contexts to my ear. Point is, WP:NOTUSA is not justification for replacing U.S. with United States. older ≠ wiser 11:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-25T11:24:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-25T11:24:00.000Z-MorbidEntree-2016-08-25T11:08:00.000Z","replies":[],"displayName":"older"}}-->

Does this look like enough of a justification to at least call him FBI in the WRAL-FM article? I didn't have any more sources that I could easily access, and I guess I was premature on the disambiguation page if I didn't feel comfortable doing it in the article.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-26T19:30:00.000Z","author":"Vchimpanzee","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Vchimpanzee-2016-08-26T19:30:00.000Z-Famous_Bob_Inskeep","replies":["c-Bkonrad-2016-08-26T19:52:00.000Z-Vchimpanzee-2016-08-26T19:30:00.000Z"]}}-->

Not really my bailiwick. Might want to check on the talk page or with regulars on radio-related projects. older ≠ wiser 19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-26T19:52:00.000Z","author":"Bkonrad","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bkonrad-2016-08-26T19:52:00.000Z-Vchimpanzee-2016-08-26T19:30:00.000Z","replies":["c-Vchimpanzee-2016-08-26T20:19:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-26T19:52:00.000Z"],"displayName":"older"}}-->

I'll just leave it off the disambiguation page because I'm not sure how important the acronym was. I just know the source used it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-08-26T20:19:00.000Z","author":"Vchimpanzee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Vchimpanzee-2016-08-26T20:19:00.000Z-Bkonrad-2016-08-26T19:52:00.000Z","replies":[]}}-->