This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 22:16, 26 June 2008 (→Surname dabs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:16, 26 June 2008 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Surname dabs: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) If you leave a new message on this page, I will replyon this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere. 06:06 Friday 17 January 2025 - - - - WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE
Please click "New section" above to leave any new message, and please sign your message (just type ~~~~).
If you leave a message here, I will reply here unless you ask me to reply elsewhere, to make discussions easier to read.
If you reply to a message here, please indent it (start the line with ":") and sign your message.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
European parliament constituencies
Hi. I really think the link for European parliament constituencies should not go into the header of articles about EU countries. These links are supposed to link to other meanings users likely search and this one is pretty improbable. However, I suggest you add the link to the section of each article, where the EU parliament is discussed. Greetings. --Tone 08:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Tone, I think they are much better in a dab page... where this exists. But otherwise, someone looking for the Euroconstituency is faced with reading through a long article to pick out the mention of the constituency. So if there isn't a dab page, I think the hatnote is the only logical place to offer this useful link. Maybe we need to create dab pages for all the countries... there's a huge inconsistency in country dab pages as to what they include, as I'm finding now while adding Euroconstituencies to dab pages for Austria (disambiguation), Bulgaria (disambiguation) etc. PamD (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I support this idea. Requires some work but at the end we end with only one dab link in the header of each article, instead of possible several. --Tone 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right now the Slovakia hatnote points to a redlinked redirect - a disambiguation page is the best spot for the European Parliament constituency when it exists, but lacking that I don't think the hatnote is a terrible place to start linking - both are political and geographic entities with an identical name. At minimum I'd say a blue hatnote to the constituency is better than a redlink to a non-existent disambiguation page. Mind if I revert or were you creating the dab page? WLU (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK now - you caught a work in progress at just the wrong moment! All the country=Euroconstituencies now have dab pages, which seems more elegant than linking from the main country page. I don't think we really need the reverse links - people are probably pretty unlikely to find themselves at "Country (European Parliament constituency)" when they are looking for "Country". PamD (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right now the Slovakia hatnote points to a redlinked redirect - a disambiguation page is the best spot for the European Parliament constituency when it exists, but lacking that I don't think the hatnote is a terrible place to start linking - both are political and geographic entities with an identical name. At minimum I'd say a blue hatnote to the constituency is better than a redlink to a non-existent disambiguation page. Mind if I revert or were you creating the dab page? WLU (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I support this idea. Requires some work but at the end we end with only one dab link in the header of each article, instead of possible several. --Tone 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion
Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.
That discussion must produce a conclusion.
We originally asked "Should the addition of this box be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).
Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.
Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.
WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - May 2008
| The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 10:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Paley and Austin and Austin and Paley
These were not duplicate articles (was the wording the same?). They were different architectural firms in Lancaster, working at different times. OK Austin was the same but the Paleys were different - father and son. And these were the names under which the firms went (see the Pevsner series for confirmation). Paley and Austin comprised Edward Graham Paley and Hubert Austin. Austin and Paley comprised Hubert Austin and Henry Paley (was that not clear from the articles?). In fact for a while they traded as Paley, Austin and Paley. Would you like to undo the inappropriate changes you have made? Otherwise it messes up all the links to the different firms. Thank you. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies: I read the two articles but not carefully enough, and didn't notice that they were different Paleys. I've undone my edit to the A&P article to revert it to the previous text, and have added a {{Distinguish}} to each in the hope it'll prevent anyone else from making the same daft mistake! I think I found both the articles by searching on the two words Austin Paley looking for a link to make from Lancaster and Morecambe College, and it's duly linked. PamD (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It's all rather confusing and it took me some time to sort out the difference. Fortunately I acquired the relevant "Pevsner" which clarified it. Actually it is still open to confusion and at risk from other editors, so I think I will write an new article about the Lancaster firm, starting with Edmund Sharpe and going through to Henry Paley, merging and maybe expanding the existing articles, with links from other articles to subsections about each phase of the business (if you see what I mean). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hoping to prevent confusion I have written a page entitled Sharpe, Paley and Austin which contains details of all the combinations of partners in the practice and redirected "Paley and Austin" and "Austin and Paley" there. Hope this works. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting approach. (a) Are you going to list their buildings which have WP articles, under each name or firm? Otherwise, by piping the links, you lose the ability to see what "Paley and Austin" buildings are in Misplaced Pages (as opposed to buildings by any of the other names/firms/periods). (b) If you had redirects going from the different names it would be appropriate to bold those names within the article - my instinct would be to do so for the names from which you've got piped links, as the same purpose applies of showing the reader why they've got to the page they've reached. PamD (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- My immediate plan (which is subject to revision) is to write a list of works for each of the partnerships and create "see also" links. I have already done something like that for Edmund Sharpe, although it is (at present) incorporated into the article. Before I became involved with Sharpe, the Paleys and the Austins, the only WP article was Edward Graham Paley - and that has no inline citations. I hope I am making some progress. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting approach. (a) Are you going to list their buildings which have WP articles, under each name or firm? Otherwise, by piping the links, you lose the ability to see what "Paley and Austin" buildings are in Misplaced Pages (as opposed to buildings by any of the other names/firms/periods). (b) If you had redirects going from the different names it would be appropriate to bold those names within the article - my instinct would be to do so for the names from which you've got piped links, as the same purpose applies of showing the reader why they've got to the page they've reached. PamD (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hoping to prevent confusion I have written a page entitled Sharpe, Paley and Austin which contains details of all the combinations of partners in the practice and redirected "Paley and Austin" and "Austin and Paley" there. Hope this works. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It's all rather confusing and it took me some time to sort out the difference. Fortunately I acquired the relevant "Pevsner" which clarified it. Actually it is still open to confusion and at risk from other editors, so I think I will write an new article about the Lancaster firm, starting with Edmund Sharpe and going through to Henry Paley, merging and maybe expanding the existing articles, with links from other articles to subsections about each phase of the business (if you see what I mean). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cumbria Way
Hi, I've noticed that you've brought a couple of long distance footpath articles up to GA status (e.g. Leeds Country Way) and was hoping you might get a chance to have a look at Cumbria Way. I'm currently doing a major expansion on this article with the ultimate aim of achieving GA status so any thoughts would be most appreciated! Thanks, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Quick first reaction is that it's over-linked. Linking linear to a maths article doesn't contribute to understanding of the path: just because a word or phrase can be linked, it isn't necessarily a good link to add. Also any one link should only be made once per section, usually - this article has lots of repeated links. WP:overlink might be worth reading.
- The first few sentences also duplicate a lot of info and need straightening out.
- On your point about ext sources for notability: I think the various books would already be enough. Might be worth adding ELs to the Ramblers Assoc and LDWA sites, which presumably both have a section about the path.
- Units: be consistent about miles (km) or km (miles) - compare infobox to lead! See WP:MOSNUM re units, but basically you can choose whether the primary unit is miles or km as it's a UK-based topic.
- I'll try and have a more thorough look at it tomorrow sometime. Good luck with the quest for GA.PamD (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the comments. You're right, I did go a bit mad with the linking! I'll address that units issue and try and clean up that lead section. Thanks again, Nk.sheridan Talk 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Annie in Wonderland
Hi,
Thank you for your comment on my talk page in regard to remaining faithful to eccentric spellings. I'll be more careful in the future!
Webbbbbbber (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Blarg(g)
Hi KTC: Thanks for closing the RFD on Blargg. Would you like to close the RFD on Blarg with one g too, as its nomination has been withdrawn, so we can close the whole subject and remove RFD tag from that one too? Thanks! PamD (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not actually an admin, but I closed it anyway as you asked as it's just non-contentious cleaning up. :) KTC (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The Belvedere Academy
Hi - thanks for the advice on adding in references. Brigantia (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Fountains Fell
"It has a height of 668 metres (2,192 ft) and a relative height or topographic prominence of 243 metres (797 ft) and thus qualifies as a Marilyn" which is the source for this statement? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any source or not? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now thoroughly sourced and expanded. PamD (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Circus's
Thank you for the correct spelling. My old-fashioned education predates Samuel Johnson's dictionary, a book I have been meaning to buy these many years. Sincerest regards, Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry
Sorry to crash in when you were editing Lealholm, my IP server went down a couple of times this evening and in a panic I tried to rush to save some edits.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem - I think we managed to dodge round each other and edit alternately! PamD (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Fountains Fell
|
On 30 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fountains Fell, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Euphorbia
Back in late March, you changed Euphorbia poisonii to Euphorbia poissonii, on the grounds that this "appears to be the correct spelling". May I ask what is your source, especially since the extreme virulence of resiniferatoxin would seem to make "poisonii" far more apropos? DS (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- I must have come across the two spellings while working through Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Repeated letters/5, with one of them flagged up as a redlink which only differed by a double letter from an article name. They appeared to be referring to the same plant, and I may have Googled the two names to find the more common - today the Google hits are 781:436 in favour of poissonii, although I agree that the species seems to have more to do with toxicology than with fish. I see that the first of the two Sources shown (albeit on page 1 not page 7) has the one-n spelling (the 2nd source seems to be a dead link). Have moved the page back and corrected spelling. There will now be a redirect from the other spelling. PamD (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- But looking further, some of the "poisonnii" refs seem reliable sources too, so I've added a mention of the variant spelling with a ref. I'm not a botanist so don't know how to resolve the question of which is "the" spelling here! It could be that two different species are being described, but sounds unlikely (my ref for poisonnii mentions Resiniferatoxin). PamD (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
you may want to chime in at
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Unrealiable prodders". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have restored the Judith Blake PROD, it's OK to restore them if they were removed tendentiously. Black Kite 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks - was in the process of AfDing it, but PROD is more appropriate. PamD (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Yorkshire - June 2008 Newsletter
| The Yorkshire WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
stubsorting? what is stubsorting?
What is stubsorting? What is stubsorting listing?
You mentioned these terms here http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fxmastermind/sandbox1/Joe_Williams, but there is no WP entry for them.
I found the nowiki tag, but why is it used in that context?
I find many things about WIKIPEDIA confusing. When terms are used to explain an edit, and those terms are not even listed on WP, it doesn't make any sense at all. Is there anyplace this stuff is explained?FX (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
(edited) Damn it. I always forget to sign the user pages. FX (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that! There's a project called Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Stub sorting which looks at articles tagged as {{stub}} and aims to put them into one of the categories of stubs (eg {{paleo-reptile-stub}} or in this case {{US-basketball-bio-stub}}) so that people interested in that subject area can find stub articles in their area and help to improve them. So I and other people look regularly at the listing at Category:Stubs and aim to categorise, or "stub-sort", each of them and get them out of that general listing. Ideally the category is empty - once a month or so it gets to 1200 or so when some automatic programme is run which labels very short articles as stubs, and we work on getting it back to zero. Pages which are user subpages shouldn't be appearing in the listing, and "nowiki"-ing seemed the least intrusive way to get it out of the list.
- The "nowiki" is a useful way to leave stuff in an article as text while making the wikipedia software ignore it - so when I added it around the "stub" tag in your article on your userpage subpage, it meant that wikipedia wouldn't treat is as being a real article which had been tagged as a stub, so that it appeared in the Category:Stubs listing. (Similarly, I've added ":" in front of the word "Category" in that link, so that you can follow the link to the category but Misplaced Pages doesn't assign this page to that category as it otherwise would - it's a useful device when talking about categories. And I've added "tl|" in front of "stub" within the curly brackets above, which has the same effect - it allows us to talk about the stub tag "template" without it being interpreted as applying to this page. The "tl" stands for "template link".)
- Hope that helps - sorry to have been so cryptic! PamD (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think. There appears to be many things sort of running below the surface here, which I only find out about after the fact. Shouldn't the terms I asked about, as well as all other "wikipedia only" terms, have a definition/explanation page about them?
In this case a redirect would work, for stubsorting.FX (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm so over the jargon
But thanks for the heads up. Did you see I made a redirect for stubsorting? I am getting into redirects of late. FX (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Possible Worlds
I accidentally removed the disambig tag from Possible Worlds, it should of course still be a disambiguation page. I see you've already fixed it, so, problem solved! --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Surname disambiguations
Please see here. Would you know who else was active there and who might be interested in a restarting of that project? Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- You could look here and here and at similar pages, to see who was working on it. It's certainly an interesting project, trying to establish whether "John Bloggs (politician)" is or is not the same as "John A. Bloggs", and setting up links so that anyone looking up "John Bloggs" will get to both of them. I usually went beyond the terms of the project by searching for other "John Bloggs"es out there, to include them too in dab page or hatnote as appropriate. It's a satisfying bit of Wiki-Gnome work: helping readers find the article they're looking for, and helping prevent duplicate articles being created by making sure the potential creator of new article can easily find the existing one! PamD (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Renyi, surname template, Alaibot
No reason why it should, since {{surname}} doesn't appear to add any categories -- that article is still completely uncategorised. If it's intended to be in the style of {{hndis}} and {{disambig}}, it presumbly should have a category of some kind, as those do. (If a further response is sought, please reply to my page, rather than here on my bot's page. Thanks.) Alai (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Kingston upon Hull
Indeed it is a dangling modifier!
Thank you for catching my evening's mistakes! It's a good thing I don't just change things like that on my own, that would be especially foolish. Best, Epicadam (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
stubs all cleared!
Nice job! -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Partitive
Hi!
Check this out - talk:Partitive
Also, the bit on quantifiers needs to have some extra ones added...like "glass of water", for example(?). I'd love to do it but i'm a bit of a perfectionist and...not rite now, basically.
Feel up to it :-) x N. 62.176.111.68 (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Not really my territory - I sorted the stub to get it into the right category, but will leave it to the linguists now! PamD (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- that's fine - take care! 62.176.111.68 (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Stub sorting
Thanks for pointing out my incorrect positioning of stub tags on pages. I have been doing it wrong for quite awhile now, but no longer! StevePrutz (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
School
H School & T College,butithad nopage.Some Guy (Izzy259) (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Chordate genomics
Thank you for correcting the Wiki stub marker at the end of the new Misplaced Pages article, Chordate genomics, I created earlier today. I just put in what I could for now. I will enlarge it as I find time. I hope that others will take a hand.
Nick Beeson (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Surname dabs
Hey, I guess it's just us two for now, hey? :-) I still think they are surname pages, but better to get the pages done, I think. They can easily be standardised later. For what it is worth, I think George Washington (disambiguation) is an example of a disambiguation page, while surname pages don't actually have pages with the same names, if you see what I mean? One more thing, how long does it take you on average to do one of those. I find it depends, and can be anything from a few minutes to over 5 minutes if I find other things to tidy up, or lots of names to add. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)