User talk:Paradoctor

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

WP:G1

Hi there, you were right to tag the page for speedy deletion, but not as G1. I deleted it as G3 (vandalism). If you can comprehend the words, it's not G1. -- asilvering (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MBC TV (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on MBC TV (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I have no idea why I created this one. Paradoctor (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I quickly ask why your mass changing links from i (newspaper) to i (British newspaper) when the former link is WP:NOTBROKEN and isn't in need of disambiguation? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cakelot1: Would you please look again? i (newspaper) is ambiguous: i (Portuguese newspaper). Paradoctor (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't ambiguous because i (newspaper) and i (British newspaper) link to the same place. In almost all cases these are piped links meaning this is a purely a WP:COSMETIC edit that doesn't change the output HTML/reader experience. As WP:MEATBOT says Purely cosmetic changes performed by a human editor in a bot-like fashion may also be considered disruptive. So, with that in mind, is there a tangible non-cosmetic reason to make these edits? Are you thinking changing where i (newspaper) redirects? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSMETIC: a substantive edit is one that does change the output HTML

Which disambiguating links does. Paradoctor (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to the same place, there is no change from the point of view of the person clicking the link. The only difference is what the link looks like in wikitext which is effectively a Cosmetic edit. Your yet to articulate what benefit (to the reader) is gained by these edits. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only difference is what the link looks like in wikitext

That is dead wrong. The HTML contains a different link.

Not all edits are for the benefit of the reader. Will the British paper be the primary topic from here to eternity? Paradoctor (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the British paper be the primary topic from here to eternity? Will it not be? Do you have some reason to think that its going to change anytime soon? I can see no proposal or discussions of moving the redirect. Surely such changes can be left until there's an actual need, and not when nothing is broken and there's seemingly no indication that it will ever become broken. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As they both re-direct to The i Paper, why not by-pass the redirects entirely and pipe directly to that, as in: [[The i Paper|i]]? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Talk:Integer (computer science)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Integer (computer science)#Syntaxhighlighting one word code. Cedar101 (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]