Jump to content

User talk:Niceguyedc

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

October Baseball WP Newsletter

฿ (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ฿ (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the ฿ (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Your Lord and Master (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Harbor edits

All those edits you made concerning the Los Angeles Harbor region, or area, should have gone to Los Angeles Harbor Region, not Port of Los Angeles. I wonder if you could change them accordingly. Thank you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should they really go to Los Angeles Harbor Region? I would agree that some of them could go there, but most of them could go to Port of Los Angeles as well, and that's where Los Angeles Harbor redirected to for over 8 years. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 08:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am no longer so sure. I think it depends on the context. So if you have better things to do, just go on and do them. Thanks for listening. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Nanjing Road (Shanghai)#Discussion. The move you recommend shouldn't be carried out until that finishes. Feel free to give your opinion in the discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the move os the The Engineer as you recommended. But see Talk:The Engineer for an old move discussion in which someone argued that The Engineer (magazine) was actually the primary topic. If you are impressed by this argument you might propose a further move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of your decisions. With Engineer (comics) moving to The Engineer (comics), there is some question as to which one is primary. As for Nanjing Road (Shanghai), I'll throw in my support for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argument. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 21:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Koreanosaurus, see my post at FunkMonk's talk. He is the last person to move one of the Koreanosaurus pages. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piping

You're doing a great job - I don't wish to discourage you, and I'm not complaining - but, I'm puzzled about your use of piping. There have been several examples, but [this one in particular] is particularly puzzling me. When you have a spare moment, could I bother you to explain your rationale to me? No hurry, and thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for that edit is because that link is an intentional link to a disambiguation page. What adding (disambiguation) does is lets everyone know that the link is intentional (per WP:INTDABLINK), which lets me (and everyone else) know that it doesn't need to be fixed. The bots that compile the lists of links to be disambiguated ignore those links as well. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand that bit. It's the piping bit I was asking about - i.e. You went to the effort of "lets everyone know", then you hide it away from humans by piping it. I'm guessing the answer is, "it's not hidden very deeply"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Lets everyone know' is referring to all of us at WP:DPL who go about fixing disambiguation links. There are definitely times where we keep (disambiguation) visible (usually in See Also lists), but most of the time its piped. The reader sees in the link the page that they actually go to. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Now I understand. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viper's Drag

I put the album in because it did not come up. The link went Red. Spelling is the same. So how does this happen? Please feel free to integrate whatever is different and usable, or point out how I can do that and I'll get to it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclevertwit (talkcontribs) 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're mentioning. I just disambiguated a few links. If you're talking about the tags ({{orphan}}, {{Expand section}}, etc.), those were placed by bots, not me. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now, looking at your talk page, I've figured it out. You created two pages for the same topic. The only difference was the apostrophe. In the one that's still there, the apostrophe is ('), in the one that was deleted, it was (’). They look similar, but are different characters. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki search seriously can't resolve the difference between a PC apostrophe and the standard Mac code? That sounds like something that needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theclevertwit (talkcontribs) 01:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The search code can figure it out (if you put Viper’s Drag into the search box, Viper's Drag is the first result), but the exact title is not a page, so it's a red link. To make navigation easier (even though, as you suggest, it shouldn't be necessary), the page Viper’s Drag can be created as a redirect to Viper's Drag, which will make sure that either apostrophe will get to the same article. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for all the copy edits, disambiguations and other improvements that you make to our encyclopedia! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

The Disambiguator's Barnstar
The Disambiguator's Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who are prolific disambiguators.
Well done for fixing 2188 ambiguous links over May 2013. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (babble) @ 18:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

Hello, Niceguyedc! I'm not intending to disturb you now, but be careful when editing, especially when using automated tools such as WPCleaner. In this edit you intended to link to Hammarby IF (disambiguation), but you forgot the last parenthesis. As a result, the link did not work. Make sure that you check your edits before submitting them, although such kinds of mistakes aren't rare.

Cheers, HeyMid (contribs) 23:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. That is an unusual typo for me. I've now linked the page properly to the disambiguation page, as there is no actual article on the sports club as a whole. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if all your good faith contributions to List of football stadiums in Norway were optimal. I spent a lot of time creating links that backed up every figure, but you replaced several of them with references that, in essence, provide no direct reference. Narssarssuaq (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually add or remove any references. A bunch of the references were identical, So they were consolidated into a single references in the list, with multiple appearances of each named reference. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. Narssarssuaq (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess WC disambiguation pages

What's the purpose of World Chess Championship 2000 (disambiguation) and World Chess Championship 2004 (disambiguation)? We already had World Chess Championship 2000 and World Chess Championship 2004 which were the disambiguation pages. Nothing links to your new pages and no one will ever look them up under those names. They seem pointless. Quale (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of those links (along with the link to Steinitz Variation (disambiguation)) is because the links are intentional links to disambiguation pages. When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) page per WP:INTDABLINK/WP:HOWTODAB. This is done so that the link to the disambiguation page is known to be intentional, and does not need to be fixed. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 02:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, that's actually a very good idea. Those disambiguation pages should not replace the actual pages in Index of chess articles. That page is used as a shared watchlist and it must point to the article pages that we actually edit rather than the disambiguation pages or else Special:RecentChangesLinked won't work. It is a reasonable question about whether the chess project should try to watch chess disambig pages as well. Currently we don't but for a very few exceptions. I don't think anyone has found it worth the effort to set up. Quale (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those (disambiguation) pages are just going to be redirects, so there's no reason to watch those. But you're right about Special:RecentChangesLinked, so linking to the disambiguation page won't work for that. To be honest, I'm not sure that the Index articles of this type (and there are tons of them) should be in mainspace. They could all be in Wikipedia space and perform the exact same function. It doesn't bother me enough to propose anything anywhere, but if I ever see it come up somewhere I'll probably chime in. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 03:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help on the pages for Timothy Kadavy and Donald Burdick. I keep meaning to figure out how to correctly configure duplicate references/footnotes, but I keep putting it off. I'll probably use those two pages as "go bys" to help me figure it out. Billmckern (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on ฿ (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

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 clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it was created, there was a disambiguation page at ฿. Since that is not the case anymore, I have no objection to the deletion. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 04:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation via redirects

I'm afraid I don't understand your edits at Amory (name), where you changed the link, to take just one, from [[Amaury]] to [[Amaury (disambiguation)|Amaury]], given that the disambiguation page is in fact at [[Amaury]]? I notice that you've made similar changes elsewhere - could you explain? Jsmith1000 (talk) 11:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. When intentionally linking to the disambiguation page, piping the link through the (disambiguation) page (per WP:INTDABLINK) lets those of us who fix disambiguation links (and the bots that compile the lists of disambiguation links) know that the link is intentional, and does not need to be fixed. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've not come across that before - thanks for making it clear. Jsmith1000 (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ï¿½ (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BD! I must have been typing a little too fast and put the (disambiguation) on that redirect. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 21:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of islands of Western Australia

Re: this edit, there are literally dozens of such situations on the pages:

For your information: I have created the page Sortable list of islands of Western Australia and am working my way through it - I have already identified, and "fixed" many such situations on that page. When I have completed that page, I will copy the correct data to the above pages. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I can leave those pages alone in the near future. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 17:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Thanks for your help. Please don't pipe links on Sortable list of islands of Western Australia - it makes it a lot more difficult to determine what has been disambiguated, and what needs to be disambiguated. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There are a lot more to fix than just Prince Island. In fact, 90% of the blue links that haven't been fixed seem to point to islands in the Antarctic, or the Canadian Artic. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I agree that most of the blue links go to Arctic/Antarctic islands. I'll ignore the Sortable list page altogether from now on. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Please don't do that. That would require me to duplicate your effort to get the same results that you have already achieved. As I said, your help is appreciated. I'm simply asking that you don't pipe the results of your discoveries. Cheers, and thanks for your efforts, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see what you mean. You just want me to replace them so the link looks like Prince Island (Western Australia) to the reader. I can do that. Incidentally, you have two Prince Island entries on your lists, but only one at the disambiguation page. That's why one of them is still pointing to the disambiguation page. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 11:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Sorry to be ambiguous.) And thanks on the Prince Island issue, too. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation in dab headers

I have been following your lead with dab headers. example
How does / should one respond to this: "(Undid revision 559379628 by Pdfpdf (talk) See WP:NAMB)"? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes aren't needed on articles that the reader can't get to without knowing where they are going {per WP:NAMB). Anyone going to the Laplace Island (Antarctica) article knows that they are at an article about an island in the Antarctic. If the Laplace Island (Antarctica) was actually at Laplace Island (as, for example, Australia is), then a hatnote going to the disambiguation page (for other uses) would be appropriate.
I know that you've done quite a bit of work moving articles around, but I would suggest making the article on the Western Australia island before making the disambiguation page and moving the non-WA island article, as it would not surprise me if other editors moved to delete the disambiguation page and put the non-WA island back where it was, because the disambiguation page only has one blue link on it. I won't do it, but I don't want you to be surprised if some of the work you've been doing gets undone.
Thanks for the warning and suggestion. I will review my modus operandi. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for a response to the revert. There is no need for a response. That revert is valid per WP:NAMB. The hatnote is unnecessary. I haven't been adding hatnotes; I've just been changing the link on hatnotes that already exist to pipe through the (disambiguation) page. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 00:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I guess I mis-understood this edit (and some others I've seen). So I'm guessing the hatnote on that page should be removed? Pdfpdf (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that hatnote can be removed. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 01:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi nice guy. Thanks for helping to clean up the Harz mountains article. It's such a big table (translated from de.wiki) that it was getting hard to see the wood for the trees! Bermicourt (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There are still quite a few ambiguous links on that page, but if the table is on de.wiki, I might have a look over there to see what those links are supposed to point to. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Exotheology

An article that you have been involved in editing, Exotheology , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Srinivasasha (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]