Jump to content

User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Jun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know why I undid your edit at Template:Portage County, Ohio in regards to cities and villages. The link City (Ohio) is a redirect to City#United States while Village (Ohio) redirects to Village (United States)#Ohio. Both of those direct links were already in the template so there really wasn't any reason or need to change them to redirects. Using redirects in place of direct links is actually the opposite of "tightening links". Direct links are always preferred over redirects. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Update on Lists of state leader by years?

Hey Chris. Over a month ago you started making a significant change to these pages - you had decided to remove the links to the Office that the state leaders held from those pages. I opposed this change but you went through with it anyway. I left the project alone since then because of that. Checking up on it now, i am rather annoyed to see that you have since then failed to follow through with these changes in a consistent manner. Infact, from what i can see (and correct me if im wrong), the only pages where you removed the links to the state office are the pages that i worked on. After editing those, you went one to edit other state leader pages, but you did NOT remove the links to offices on those pages. So in essence, you have caused the lists of state leaders to lose consistency by making a significant change to the way they are written, but then only implementing this change on a small part. I think that you should either remove offices link for ALL pages, or revert the ones you did change. Furthermore, even on the pages that you did remove the office links from, you did not do so in a consistent fashion, and a number of office links still remain on those pages, causing the pages themselves to become inconsistant (not to mention that because of the inconsistency in the wikipedia article titles of the rulers linked on those pages, the result is that even MORE consistency has been lost, as some ruler article titles list the full office, while others do not. The original state of those articles were as a result much more consistant then they are now).

Finally, if you REALLY want this change to be pushed through, you should start with the most recent Lists of State Leaders per years pages, such as List_of_state_leaders_in_2011 and List_of_state_leaders_in_2010, because those pages are watched and edited by plenty of people, so the changes you made will be noticed by them and then we can have some other people comment on wether they like your change or not. Omegastar (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I made extensive improvements to these pages (if they were the same as those you had worked on, that was entirely coincidental, probably because they were around the same time period), above and beyond the changes you objected to. As I stated at the time, I was only removing the link to the office where the title was implicit or explicit in the name of the state. I agree that this task is incomplete and these pages could still do with a lot more improvement. I will return to them to correct the remaining lines where the name of the state includes (implicitly or explicitly) the title of the ruler, and to make the state name more explicit where it is currently piped to a more generic term (e.g. [[Kingdom of Cyprus|Cyprus]]). Colonies Chris (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I assume that by removing only the office link where the "title is implicit or explicit in the name of the state", you will stay away from any recent pages because there the title of the state almost never implicates what office they hold. This creates only more problems, because there are still some countries that do imply. For example, if you look at the 2010 page, you can find a number of monarchies. Are you going to remove the office links of the Monarchs listed on that page? Because if you do, you will create alot of inconsistency, as all other state leaders do have their office linked. But if you do plan to do this, then do it now. Because like i said, if you want this change pushed through, you need to start with the pages that are most watched, so that other people can see your changes and give their opinion. Omegastar (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
As you say, most of the kingdoms, principalities, marches, etc. occur in the Middle Ages, not in modern times. I have no plans to extend the process into modern pages, where the number of changes would be too small to be worth the trouble. It's already a large task, and I don't plan to make it any larger. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
So basically you want to change the way these pages are written, but because the project encompasses so many pages, you are just gonna change the ones that are affected the most by your change, and ignore the rest. That is terribly inconsistent. That is no way to work. I want to hear other people's opinion on this. Omegastar (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
and please stop removing office links on those pages UNTIL someone else has voiced his/her opinion on this. I do support the other changes that you make, but pending on outside aproval, you should stop removing office links from those pages. Omegastar (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
{{{1}}}—User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to link to the third opinion on this matter. BTW, if the concern is whether Prime minister should be linked in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, MOSLINK says to try to avoid bunching up such links, and good advice it is. The article on Prime Minister, or PM of the UK or whatever, if piped, will be at the top of the article on Thatcher. It is better to focus readers on a specific link, not to blue-link more general links that can be found via the specific article anyway. Tony (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to put a link into it which the template does not accept. It displays correctly with the external link to a particular edit I used as an example was removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request (User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Jun#Update on Lists of state leader by years? On making a change to how pages falling under the Lists of state leaders by year project are written. (the discussion is actually longer, but im not sure if im supposed to link all parts of it). 18:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)):
There are generally three data entries, the person, the position, the entity. The person may be unknown or uncertain, or nothing significant may be known about them. In such cases they will not, as an individual, support an article. If so they should simply be named. There might be a link to a list of rulers of the entity or to an article about the [early] history of the entity. In some cases, such as Æscwine of Wessex, they may support a short article and contain information that they were probably not the only ruler, relevant for this discussion. We may know the position only in a generic sense, perhaps "king"; in that case there should be only the unlinked term. The role of kings vary widely, particularly in modern times, and if information is available to support a separate article there can be a link, even a red link, to an article such as "King of Wessex", or to "List of monarchs of Wessex" where presently King of Wessex redirects. However that article has no significant information about the role "kings" played in Wessex. Information about the role played by kings in Wessex is not broken out as a separate section in Wessex but several sections there contain information about them. Thus in the example chosen there is no clear better choice in terms of information useful to a reader. There should be a link to the correct historical entity. The guiding principles should be to create appropriate entries and links for each particular set of ruler, position, and entity while keeping the entry for each set of data simple, useful and transparent. Applying these principles to the instant conflict, what is appropriate for individual entries in different historical eras varies widely, thus broad rules specifying specific content are inappropriate. What is appropriate is careful attention to individual entries taking into consideration the amount and nature of the information available and its usefulness to readers.—User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but there are a number of concerns i have about this. To make my position clear, i do not object, and infact welcome, most of the edits that Chris is making to these pages. The only thing i have a problem with is the removal of the 'position' from these pages. Another thing i want to clear up: Chris is removing not just the links, but the 'position' part as a whole. Now, my concerns:

  1. In my opinion, providing links to 'Lists of monarchs' is useful, as not only does it show what title the person had, it also lets the reader access data relevant to both the context of the person and context of the entity with one click.
  2. There are cases where the person does not have a corresponding wikipedia page, causing a red link. However, in almost all of these cases that i have come across, there is a corresponding "List of Monarchs" in which the person is named. Thus the reader can still reach a page with some generic information about the context of the person. By removing the 'Position', the reader is left in the dark.
  3. There are cases where the position of the person is not clear without specification. The best example are regents. If the position is removed from the page, it is not possible to distuingish between ruler and regent.
  4. Chris has been inconsistent with removing 'positions'. For example: List of state leaders in 1016. Before Chris edited the page it had been consistent, with all entries showing entity, person and position. Now, some entries show position, others do not.
OK, he removed King of Burgundy which actually links to List of the kings of Burgundy. There is no Wikipedia article about the role the King of Burgundy played. Before he edited it it was just a place-holder. There is a link to Rudolph III of Burgundy which has another link on it which again redirects to the list. The thing is, there is no article about the position. Removed, left unlinked, or linked to a non-existent article which redirects to a list there is no article on King of Burgundy. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. Person pages are themselves not named consistently. For example, compare Godfrey II, Duke of Lower Lorraine and William III of Toulouse. This is fine however, if the linked page is simply modified, like Godfrey II, Duke of Lower Lorraine to Godfrey II. But Chris has removed this modification for SOME entries (thus displaying the full page name), while leaving others as they were. Thus, you get a mish-mash of entries that are very inconsistent with each other. This is also personally very annoying, because i had spent alot of time to create consistency in these pages by diligently adding and fixing entries to match each other. This consistency is now gone.
  2. While using different principles for different historical eras is a possible solution, it has so far not been mentioned i think. Such a system should be worked out and made official before it is implemented. And where do you draw the line? Are you going to edit all 2000+ pages belonging to the project? If not, which will you leave alone, where will you draw the line and why?
  3. But on the other hand, why make a change to a project in the first place when there have not been any complaints about it? Why initiate a change to a project encompassing over 2000 pages all by yourself? Why then fail to follow this change through. Why edit only some pages and not others?. And why edit those pages in such an inconsistent manner, leaving them unfinished and in a worse state then they were before you edited them. If you are gonna make a change to such a large amount of pages, some organising is obviously required. Omegastar (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
You seem to value consistency in form. My opinion is that each entry should be optimized for that set of data consider availability of information on the subject. That will result in inconsistency in form. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First, just to note: the first I knew about this Third Opinion thing is just now when all this stuff appeared on my talk page. Why did noone notify me that it had been requested?
Second, to clarify. The articles in question are called 'List of state leaders in year'. In general, each item shows the name of the state, the name of the leader, and (mostly) the leader's title, and occasionally some additional information. Any or all of these elements may be linked. My view of these articles is that they are in a very muddled and inconsistent state - I have spent a lot of time fixing various problems with them; what got me into them in the first place was noticing that the category keys were a total mess, so the Category:Lists of state leaders by year showed the articles in no useful or logical sequence at all. I fixed such problems in hundreds and hundreds of these articles. I will not accept being criticised for doing an incomplete job by a user who left things in that kind of mess. Fixing these articles is a very large task; it is quite wrong to complain about me doing a partial job. Here are some examples of the remaining problems I've been trying gradually to fix:

  • the name of the state is usually the modern state, whereas a more appropriate link would be to an article on the state as it existed at that time (e.g. Kingdom of France vs just France.
  • they are very cluttered with links; a link to the title doesn't really belong here at all as it's supposed to be simply a list of state leaders in any given year; information about the leader's title is generally available either through the leader's article or the state's article
  • the title links are frequently redundant anyway as the link to the leader's title is often piped straight back to the name of the state or (as noted in the opinion above) to a simple list of the leaders of the state, or ends up there via a redirect, which provides no more information than is already there in the list or from the leader's article or the state's article.
  • I have only removed the link to the title where the title is implied by the name of the state e.g.
    • [[Kingdom of England]], [[Henry I of England]], [[King of England]] --> [[Kingdom of England]], [[Henry I of England|Henry I]]
  • If there is no article about a specific leader, it would be entirely appropriate to create a redirect from that title to the 'list of kings of state' article (or to the article about the state itself). This is a much better way of addressing the concern about losing contextual information than creating thousands of redundant links to titles. It also allows for the possibility that someone could expand the redirect into a proper article in the future. In fact, the number of redlinks to leaders in these articles is extremely small, so it's hardly even an issue.
  • I've been gradually making these changes to hundreds of articles over a period of months and Omegastar is the only person who has complained, or commented at all. The project which nominally looks after these pages has been dormant since 2007.

Colonies Chris (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It must be uncomfortable to suddenly learn after the event that a "third opinion" has been asked for and provided. In my opinion, Chris's edits are very helpful to the articles, and based on the logic of reading (from our readers' perspective). Omegastar, could I suggest that if you want to retain a link, you put an explicit, unpiped link into the "See also" section, where it is more likely to be clicked on. Tony (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies Chris, ive never participated or invoked a third opinion before. I wasnt sure what to do. Omegastar (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
It was my first too, hope it was somewhat helpful. This is something I've never thought about much before; I am usually for more attention to the details of each entry which may involve departures from consistent form, as information and interest may vary. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Confectionary/Confectionery

You might want to slow down on those changes until you take a look at www.onelook.com, which lists 17 dictionaries that include "confectionary". I have removed the new rule from AWB/Typos. Better luck next time. Chris the speller yack 13:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Lon district

Hi. I noticed you've had a look at this article. Do you want to review it and take the header off? Nickm57 (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

West Virginia towns

It's too much trouble to restore the good area code and municipality links when you've made bad edits otherwise. As you know, policy is based on practice here at Wikipedia: hundreds of thousands of articles can't possibly be wrong, and you put these articles at variance with the rest of our US municipality articles. It's been standard practice to use "The population was spread out with" (and your wording is very much out of tone with the rest) and to link marriage. Moreover, delinking United States in this context is like delinking the years in June 12 — it's very much part of the context and thus needs to be linked. Nyttend (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

  • There's so much shit that needs cleaning-up required here on WP that "standard practice" doesn't mean it's good. More like "monkey see, monkey do" than a concerted attempt to draw up best practices. Does anyone not know what 'marriage' is to need to link to it? Towns don't get married, so what direct relevance to the town does marriage have? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
What you refer to as 'standard practice' is actually boilerplate text that was created many years ago by a bot that extracted census data to create this section for each US town. Precisely one human being - the bot operator, who is no longer active in WP - made that poor decision about how to phrase and link that section. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Colonies_Chris/Archive/2011/Jun&oldid=1141240877"