![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi, I have reverted your edit to 2007–08 Middlesbrough F.C. season as it screwed up the links. This appears to have left lots of red links which were not there before. Keith D ( talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if this is a problem with AWB in general, but your edit summary at List of Icelanders was misleading because you didn't add the word Maryland in anywhere ... and thank goodness for that! :-) Graham 87 11:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Organum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plica ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey "Chris". I was curious, if you can enlighten me on why use the {lang|pt|...} format over the {lang-pt|...} in referencing the names in Portuguese. Its not a critic, I just wanted to see the debate as to one or another. The reason, why, is that the first does not indicate the language used, while the latter identifies the language-use in the text. Any incite would be helpful. ruben jc ZEORYMER ( talk) 21:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please read: WP:YEARLINK: "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Deb ( talk) 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Month-and-day linking
- Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date. For example, editors should not link the date (or year) in a sentence such as (from Sydney Opera House): "The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007", because little, if any, of the contents of either June 28 or 2007 are germane to either UNESCO, a World Heritage Site, or the Sydney Opera House.
- References to commemorative days (Saint Patrick's Day) are treated as for any other link. Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items.
I note also that day–month and year links still retain a privilege accorded to no other category of links: appearance on the main page, where they're exposed to millions of hits every day. The continuation of On this day is not supported by a majority of editors if the RfC last year is anything to go by, and it's only inertia that stops valuable real estate from being otherwise allocated on a page that is cluttered with far too much text. So Deb, one would be grateful, in your position, for having that continual exposure to day–month and year links, which runs like an automated factory production line with hardly any creative input nowadays ... a bit like an advert, in my view. I'm quite willing to support the retention of OTD (but I'd like it to be shorter and more reader-oriented, with less annual repetition). However, allowing this class of link-farms to remain in pre-2010 condition at Deb's behest is stretching the cohesiveness of en.WP, in my view.
While we're talking, there's another troubling issue I'll mention here: the creation and tending of a new set of articles: month–year. I cannot see how this is worth linking to ever, in thematic terms. Tony (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Margarita, Samar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobo ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Hi, I have reverted your edit to 2007–08 Middlesbrough F.C. season as it screwed up the links. This appears to have left lots of red links which were not there before. Keith D ( talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I don't know if this is a problem with AWB in general, but your edit summary at List of Icelanders was misleading because you didn't add the word Maryland in anywhere ... and thank goodness for that! :-) Graham 87 11:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Organum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plica ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey "Chris". I was curious, if you can enlighten me on why use the {lang|pt|...} format over the {lang-pt|...} in referencing the names in Portuguese. Its not a critic, I just wanted to see the debate as to one or another. The reason, why, is that the first does not indicate the language used, while the latter identifies the language-use in the text. Any incite would be helpful. ruben jc ZEORYMER ( talk) 21:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please read: WP:YEARLINK: "Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items." Deb ( talk) 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Month-and-day linking
- Month-and-day articles (e.g. February 24 and 10 July) should not be linked unless their content is relevant and appropriate to the subject. Such links should share an important connection with that subject other than that the events occurred on the same date. For example, editors should not link the date (or year) in a sentence such as (from Sydney Opera House): "The Sydney Opera House was made a UNESCO World Heritage Site on 28 June 2007", because little, if any, of the contents of either June 28 or 2007 are germane to either UNESCO, a World Heritage Site, or the Sydney Opera House.
- References to commemorative days (Saint Patrick's Day) are treated as for any other link. Intrinsically chronological articles (1789, January, and 1940s) may themselves contain linked chronological items.
I note also that day–month and year links still retain a privilege accorded to no other category of links: appearance on the main page, where they're exposed to millions of hits every day. The continuation of On this day is not supported by a majority of editors if the RfC last year is anything to go by, and it's only inertia that stops valuable real estate from being otherwise allocated on a page that is cluttered with far too much text. So Deb, one would be grateful, in your position, for having that continual exposure to day–month and year links, which runs like an automated factory production line with hardly any creative input nowadays ... a bit like an advert, in my view. I'm quite willing to support the retention of OTD (but I'd like it to be shorter and more reader-oriented, with less annual repetition). However, allowing this class of link-farms to remain in pre-2010 condition at Deb's behest is stretching the cohesiveness of en.WP, in my view.
While we're talking, there's another troubling issue I'll mention here: the creation and tending of a new set of articles: month–year. I cannot see how this is worth linking to ever, in thematic terms. Tony (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santa Margarita, Samar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bobo ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)