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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
As we discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Quality control?, as an experimental trial audit I took a not-very-random sample of your two suggested edit summary query results and looked at each one. While I think it takes me less time to audit than it would have taken me to have done the actual editing action, it's nevertheless highly variable and this task took up most of an evening. The results are collapsed below.
Details
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend: (not grades!) A - completely agree B - generally agree C - proper WikiProject Disambiguation work, but not assessed as part of "Disambiguation Pages with Links" D - don't understand 1. This is pretty deep. "Agent (grammar)" and "Agent noun" both appear together under "Linguistics" on the "Agent" disambigutaion page. This "Agent (grammar)" page had a "See also" entry for "Agentive ending", which is one of a number of redirects that exist pointing to "Agent noun". I don't think I would have caught this nor would I be sure that a "Distinguish" hat note would be called for, since I don't see much chance for readers to have arrived at this "Agent (grammar)" page when they were looing for one of the various redirects for "Agent noun". 2. Yes, it makes sense to replace the link to the DAB page "Ladakhi", but "Ladahki people" is a redirect to "Ladakh", so I probably would have just used Ladakhi. 3. I think I see what happened here. If I'm looking at this correctly, Jasonaggie brought in a bunch of people with name Aida to the "Aida (disambiguation)" page. Yobot fixed some markup. There was an edit conflict as Uanfala extracted the newly added stuff in order to move it to the "Aida (given name)" page, so Yobot had to do it again. 4. It looks to me like there is some problematic phrasing. My interpretation is that Jasonaggie mistook something that said "<language1> is part of <language2>" as being more like "<language> of <place name1>, a part of <placename2>". Saying "is part of" makes more sense when talking about geographical areas and is harder to understand when talking about two languages. I believe I would have liked to have addressed this confusing language somehow so as to make the relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani clear to the average reader. 5. I see what was done here, but not the motivation. Chinka, Chinca, Xinca, Hinka? 6. How does this help anything? Ziarre hangs around with history containing the "Native American name" information, but redirects to something that is unrelated. Seems like an odd way to leave things. Why not hhave it redirect to Given name? 7. I understand removing the bit about English plural, but why then add the plural "shams" referring to decorative pillows, and linking to a different target Bedding than what appears on the "Sham (disambiguation)" page where it links to Pillow? 8. Would be A but I would have kept the same spelling of favor as was used in Syntaxis; note that I only corrected the subject-verb agreement, not the spelling. |
I learned quite a lot from watching you work and felt that my time was well spent. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
jmcgnh here are some replies (of sorts) to the points from your audit. I'd be happy to discuss any of these, and please let me know if I've missed or misunderstood anything.
Replies
|
---|
1. Agent (grammar) covers the primary linguistics meaning of agent, but there are occasional uses where agent could refer to the agent of an agent noun (for exmaple "the -er suffix derives an agent"). Now, a reader encountering a sentence like this might come to wikipedia looking for more info and, if they're a little bit familiar with the naming conventions, could type something like "agent (linguistics)" or "grammatical agent", which would take them to Agent (grammar). From that article there's no easy way to navigate to agent noun and that's what the hatnote is trying to address. Is it going to be used by many readers? Probably not. Is it going to be useful to some? Likely yes. A borderline case really. If I had to change it, I think I would try to word it in a way that makes it clear why it's there. 2. Ladakhi people is the only suitable target. We look at what a term refers to, and not to where it points to. The fact that it currently happens to be a redirect to Ladakh (an article about the place) is irrelevant (there's probably some useful info about that at WP:NOTBROKEN). An article is very likely to be created over that redirect at some point (ethnic groups like this are notable), and there's no reason to make that future article an orphan. Ideally, such redirects should be tagged with {{ R with possibilites}} or {{ R from subtopic}} so that people don't try to fix them. But most haven't been tagged yet. 3. Ooops, well spotted! 4. Well, the meaning would be clear to anyone who's read the beginning of the paragraph that the sentence appears in. The source of the confusion was the wording in a previous version of the dab page Hindustani which made it appear as though Hindustani could be used as a synonym for Hindustan (rather than a derived adjective). As for the expression "language X is part of language Y", you are right – it does seem infelicitous (and incidentally, in this phrase I was only removing overlinking. The phrase where the original misdabbing happened read something like "the dialect of Hindustani".) 5. I'm not sure I understand. This was simply moving an article that wasn't a primary topic to make room for a dab page. 6. This is a tricky one. Ziarre can't redirect to given name because there's no mention of it at the target (at the very least that would astonish readers) and because it's also a spelling variant of Ziyarat ( WP:XY). It coudldn't have been turned into a dab page either (the name fails WP:DABMENTION and that leaves only a single entry). An acceptable alternative would have been to wait for the prod to expire and then create a redirect (to Ziyarat). But in cases like this I prefer to keep the page history, which could provide useful hooks for the future editor who tries to make a dab page here. 7. I was simply moving the entry about pillows into a different section, without investigating it much. I don't have this meaning of the word in my variety of English, so I must have been following on from what I'd seen in the target article, and Bedding does define it in its plural form. Now I see that Sham lists the singular and points it at Pillow (where it is defined in the singular). Now that this has been brought up, I see both targets are suitable and I'm not sure if one is better over the other. In this case should we have both dabs point consistently to the same article? I don't think we need to. I'll have no objections either way. 8. Like the typo (thank you for fixing it!), this is an artefact of me copying the description by hand. Is there any reason to keep the spelling of the source? If it's consistency we're aiming for, then we would want it within articles, rather than across. |
In turn, I've had a look at your random sample and I'm pleased at what I saw: your edits have been thoughtful and you have provided lucid edit summaries. I agree with most of your disambiguations, and the cases where I have a different view all have to do with unlinking. We would want to keep links (even if they're red at present) about topics that are likely to have articles at some point. I think WP:REDLINK would be worth having a look at.
Details
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I've adopted your letter codes, adding X for "I have no competence to comment".
Notes
|
Do you think an exercise like the one we did could be viable as a general practice? Uanfala ( talk) 22:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Uanfala. I undid the note you added to the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. I don't think it is good advice. Some newly added dab pages maybe will be reverted, but that's certainly not true of all of them, or even most. I don't see any reason to advise editors generally to avoid fixing links to newly added dab pages. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Uanfala Thanks for editing my contribution. Do you have an idea how to change the article name from Parnkalla language to "Barngarla language"? The latter is how people refer to it in the 21st century. The same applied to Parnkalla people (it should be "Barngarla people"). As an example, you can see the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA: Croft on behalf of the Barngarla Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (2015, FCA 9), File number: SAD 6011 of 1998; John Mansfield (judge). Cheers. Native-title ( talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ryk72 Thank you. Native-title ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
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 Sesquipedalophobia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lourdes 15:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your partial revert of me, you're not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice because Twinkle is supposed to handle it all automatically. I'll file a bug report at their GitHub page – if there isn't one already – to add a newline between XfD notices and tables.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
02:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice. Given that the notice can be disruptive to articles, and there is a choice between displaying it as a block-level or inline element, or noincluding it, I think it's essential to see how the notice is going to affect the articles where the template is used. Uanfala ( talk) 06:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Changing the primary topic is contested, as both articles look weak, so the dab should be moved to the basename. Next time, if you do change the primary topic, then the dab needs updating too. Widefox; talk 04:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
highly disruptivefor doing neither? Uanfala ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't remove valid wiktionary links [3], do follow MOSDAB and WP:D, and engage on the talk page before edit waring over your preferred version. This is highly disruptive. While trying to find the redirects that you've changed back, I notice you've undone other's work, say at Tibetan language [4]. I agree with User:Paine Ellsworth, although it's a complex one involving a primary topic and a broadconcept. The creation of a dab or changing the primarytopic really needs consensus as this has flipped several times. I've restored what seems to be the default of a redirect to the primary topic. Further discussion about that dab/redirect should be on the talk there, but I want you to know I have concerns over the unilateral nature of all this reverting. Please slow down and seek consensus on the talk pages. Widefox; talk 15:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BESM (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) for further information regarding this nomination. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting you by mistake. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to see that you have become active in TFD; it's always nice to have more interested users. I have noticed, however, a rather disturbing trend over the last few weeks, namely that you are increasingly sniping against TFD (and, in particular, a certain editor) with offhand/backhanded comments regarding how it's run. Now, I obviously cannot stop you from feeling as you do or from making those comments, but it is getting rather distracting. I have seen multiple instances where your comments on someone else's !vote is simply "well, that's 'cause TFD sucks and it shouldn't exist" (some slight paraphrasing/exaggeration on my part).
My request, and again I can't force you to anything, would be to keep your comments at TFD related to the discussion itself. For example, arguing with other users about whether a template should have even been nominated is pointless; it's been done and you're welcome to your !vote; belaboring the nomination itself is just tiresome for a closer to read through.
TFD isn't perfect, and is probably the least-liked XFD I've seen so far (well, FFD is a bit odd sometimes), but it's here to stay and I hope the constant bickering between you and certain other editors can be... toned down? I'm happy to start a discussion (or not), but I felt that I should say something before all hell breaks loose (because honestly, that's the way it feels like it's going at the moment). Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.Is there a subtle distinction that I'm missing? Or do the listing instructions diverge from common practice? Shouldn't they be updated? Uanfala ( talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Komsa (disambiguation), Uanfala!
Wikipedia editor UNSC Luke 1021 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Perfectly fine! Thank you for contributing!
To reply, leave a comment on UNSC Luke 1021's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on Papua New Guinea! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
You might be interested in adding your entries to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge which I've recently started, it needs contributors!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Saraiki is language, 182.186.11.208 ( talk) 10:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Uanfala. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Khua, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. WebCite ( talk) 17:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Orthographic. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Orthographic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 02:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove the deletion template? An article that survived a deletion discussion 3 years ago may not now, and so it is eligible for deletion. Thanks, Red Panda 25 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Hindko dialect shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Shortly ago, I turned Dagar into a dab page. I guess it needs some clean-up. Please have a look at it. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Uanfala reported by User:Yoyi ling (Result: ). The filer of this complaint would normally be expected to notify you. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For coming up with a diagonal approach to the argument about the hatnote in Akanksha Sharma (singer and performer). Eight days now, and your solution seems to have taken! Problem solved at editor level (let us hope). Narky Blert ( talk) 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for your edit on Kohat district
Abused word were used about Bangash tribe
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (
Talk)
15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This disambiguation page contains the primary topic, mainly original articles. Your edit is not helpful Sir . LisaRoy ( talk) 15:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Primefac No no no itt isn't promotional. I am nort adding any business name. LisaRoy ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sir Can you start one. I am a new user. I will participate. LisaRoy ( talk) 01:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here we are. Just doing as you suggest and bringing our further discussion here to your talk page about this subject. I am truly sorry that you and I must be so sharply divided on this issue, especially since it's an issue that has no perceivable sharp divisions in either the science of linguistics nor on the more popular, yet usually reliable, scene of sources. We could both probably cite sources that support our views, but that would ultimately be shadowy, cloudy and not really truly conclusive, unless they were from some rather arbitrary view of a language speaker who wants their tongue upgraded to "language" or some other writer who wants a nearby tongue to stay a "dialect". Even those sources I've read that support Saraiki as presently a language say words like "until recently, Saraiki was considered a dialect". But they don't really go into it much more deeply. Leaves me with questions like, "When was 'recently'?", and "Considered a dialect by whom?" I'm really being honest with you when I say that, even when it may seem like OR, we must still be compelled to do the best we can with the tools we have, and one of the best tools when it comes to global gray areas is Wikipedia's own brand of consensus. We abide by consensus until we think it has, or may have, changed, and then we test it to see if it's changed. Consensus as defined by this project is really our best tool. It doesn't always work, and it definitely doesn't always work the way we want it to, or the way we think it should, and so on. At this point in time, consensus in the Saraiki dialect RM discussion has been determined to favor no title change. I say respect that, move on, and at some point in the future test it again to see if consensus has changed. Along this vein I have opened an " Addendum" section at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Paine u/ c 00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
...the various RMs and RfCs have been dominated by socks that have consistently misstated sources and obfuscated the discussion. In a sense, none of those discussions were really valid ones.
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 Naxuan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The stuff on your userpage was getting a bit excessive, so I've put in a request for temporary protection at RPP. Primefac ( talk) 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
PLZ DONOT REVERT MY EDITS IN ARTILE pUNJABI LANGUAGE,I AM EXPANDING . Shemaroo ( talk) 11:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits in this article, plz do not revert or change because i did not write extra any thing,i have just rearranged material already available on wikipedia like hotos etc and i have just wrote the matrial available in this article.plz donot revert Shemaroo ( talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
sir i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language.thanx in advance Shemaroo ( talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Uanfala. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think that this the Baluchistan Liberation Army is a declared terrrorist organisation is not relevant on a page of a Baloch militant leader, I believe you are mistaken. I will take this to wikipedia administrators. It is referenced to the UK Home Office department and has a fully attached PDF file, stating the "Baluchistan Liberation Army" was proscribed in 2006. It is relevant. ( Wiki id2 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
If you think there is more material to add, please add it. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
You,r Good work on the subject. Can you improve these few ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaRoy ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This user seems to be someone's sock. See this. Filpro ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please visit DRN to solve a content dispute between us. Please don't feel it personal. Dye heart respects AksheKumar ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Uanfala. Just wanted to give you a heads up: in this edit, you redirected Terk to Terk (disambiguation). But that's backwards; if one is to be a redirect to the other, the redirect should always be the page with "(disambiguation)" in its title. When it's reversed, like this pair, it's a "malplaced" dab page. Don't just copy-and-paste from one to the other (you didn't, but sometimes people do); read WP:MALPLACED to learn ways to deal with these. Often, they are a quick fix at WP:RMT. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
When you decide to move an article and make a dab, would you please resolve at least some of the links that now point to the dab page? There are over 200 of them! :-O — Gorthian ( talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Can Saroha be a valid DAB page? There are some people with this surname, although only one of them seem notable:
NitinMlk ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
SIR YOU JUST CAN NOT IGNRE SAYING THAT INDIAN ARE JUST SMALL EMIGRI POPULATION,IN INDIA SARAIKI (OR MULTANI) IS SPOKEN IN FAZILKA DISRICT NAD FEROZPUR DISTRIC,THEY ARE NOT EMMIGRINTS, BUT THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS PUNJABI SPEAKER,YOU CAN THRUST NEWLY BORN TERM SARAIKI ON ALL. Shemaroo ( talk) 11:36, 27 December 2016 (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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
As we discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation pages with links#Quality control?, as an experimental trial audit I took a not-very-random sample of your two suggested edit summary query results and looked at each one. While I think it takes me less time to audit than it would have taken me to have done the actual editing action, it's nevertheless highly variable and this task took up most of an evening. The results are collapsed below.
Details
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Legend: (not grades!) A - completely agree B - generally agree C - proper WikiProject Disambiguation work, but not assessed as part of "Disambiguation Pages with Links" D - don't understand 1. This is pretty deep. "Agent (grammar)" and "Agent noun" both appear together under "Linguistics" on the "Agent" disambigutaion page. This "Agent (grammar)" page had a "See also" entry for "Agentive ending", which is one of a number of redirects that exist pointing to "Agent noun". I don't think I would have caught this nor would I be sure that a "Distinguish" hat note would be called for, since I don't see much chance for readers to have arrived at this "Agent (grammar)" page when they were looing for one of the various redirects for "Agent noun". 2. Yes, it makes sense to replace the link to the DAB page "Ladakhi", but "Ladahki people" is a redirect to "Ladakh", so I probably would have just used Ladakhi. 3. I think I see what happened here. If I'm looking at this correctly, Jasonaggie brought in a bunch of people with name Aida to the "Aida (disambiguation)" page. Yobot fixed some markup. There was an edit conflict as Uanfala extracted the newly added stuff in order to move it to the "Aida (given name)" page, so Yobot had to do it again. 4. It looks to me like there is some problematic phrasing. My interpretation is that Jasonaggie mistook something that said "<language1> is part of <language2>" as being more like "<language> of <place name1>, a part of <placename2>". Saying "is part of" makes more sense when talking about geographical areas and is harder to understand when talking about two languages. I believe I would have liked to have addressed this confusing language somehow so as to make the relationship between Hindi, Urdu, and Hindustani clear to the average reader. 5. I see what was done here, but not the motivation. Chinka, Chinca, Xinca, Hinka? 6. How does this help anything? Ziarre hangs around with history containing the "Native American name" information, but redirects to something that is unrelated. Seems like an odd way to leave things. Why not hhave it redirect to Given name? 7. I understand removing the bit about English plural, but why then add the plural "shams" referring to decorative pillows, and linking to a different target Bedding than what appears on the "Sham (disambiguation)" page where it links to Pillow? 8. Would be A but I would have kept the same spelling of favor as was used in Syntaxis; note that I only corrected the subject-verb agreement, not the spelling. |
I learned quite a lot from watching you work and felt that my time was well spent. —jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 09:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
jmcgnh here are some replies (of sorts) to the points from your audit. I'd be happy to discuss any of these, and please let me know if I've missed or misunderstood anything.
Replies
|
---|
1. Agent (grammar) covers the primary linguistics meaning of agent, but there are occasional uses where agent could refer to the agent of an agent noun (for exmaple "the -er suffix derives an agent"). Now, a reader encountering a sentence like this might come to wikipedia looking for more info and, if they're a little bit familiar with the naming conventions, could type something like "agent (linguistics)" or "grammatical agent", which would take them to Agent (grammar). From that article there's no easy way to navigate to agent noun and that's what the hatnote is trying to address. Is it going to be used by many readers? Probably not. Is it going to be useful to some? Likely yes. A borderline case really. If I had to change it, I think I would try to word it in a way that makes it clear why it's there. 2. Ladakhi people is the only suitable target. We look at what a term refers to, and not to where it points to. The fact that it currently happens to be a redirect to Ladakh (an article about the place) is irrelevant (there's probably some useful info about that at WP:NOTBROKEN). An article is very likely to be created over that redirect at some point (ethnic groups like this are notable), and there's no reason to make that future article an orphan. Ideally, such redirects should be tagged with {{ R with possibilites}} or {{ R from subtopic}} so that people don't try to fix them. But most haven't been tagged yet. 3. Ooops, well spotted! 4. Well, the meaning would be clear to anyone who's read the beginning of the paragraph that the sentence appears in. The source of the confusion was the wording in a previous version of the dab page Hindustani which made it appear as though Hindustani could be used as a synonym for Hindustan (rather than a derived adjective). As for the expression "language X is part of language Y", you are right – it does seem infelicitous (and incidentally, in this phrase I was only removing overlinking. The phrase where the original misdabbing happened read something like "the dialect of Hindustani".) 5. I'm not sure I understand. This was simply moving an article that wasn't a primary topic to make room for a dab page. 6. This is a tricky one. Ziarre can't redirect to given name because there's no mention of it at the target (at the very least that would astonish readers) and because it's also a spelling variant of Ziyarat ( WP:XY). It coudldn't have been turned into a dab page either (the name fails WP:DABMENTION and that leaves only a single entry). An acceptable alternative would have been to wait for the prod to expire and then create a redirect (to Ziyarat). But in cases like this I prefer to keep the page history, which could provide useful hooks for the future editor who tries to make a dab page here. 7. I was simply moving the entry about pillows into a different section, without investigating it much. I don't have this meaning of the word in my variety of English, so I must have been following on from what I'd seen in the target article, and Bedding does define it in its plural form. Now I see that Sham lists the singular and points it at Pillow (where it is defined in the singular). Now that this has been brought up, I see both targets are suitable and I'm not sure if one is better over the other. In this case should we have both dabs point consistently to the same article? I don't think we need to. I'll have no objections either way. 8. Like the typo (thank you for fixing it!), this is an artefact of me copying the description by hand. Is there any reason to keep the spelling of the source? If it's consistency we're aiming for, then we would want it within articles, rather than across. |
In turn, I've had a look at your random sample and I'm pleased at what I saw: your edits have been thoughtful and you have provided lucid edit summaries. I agree with most of your disambiguations, and the cases where I have a different view all have to do with unlinking. We would want to keep links (even if they're red at present) about topics that are likely to have articles at some point. I think WP:REDLINK would be worth having a look at.
Details
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I've adopted your letter codes, adding X for "I have no competence to comment".
Notes
|
Do you think an exercise like the one we did could be viable as a general practice? Uanfala ( talk) 22:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Uanfala. I undid the note you added to the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig. I don't think it is good advice. Some newly added dab pages maybe will be reverted, but that's certainly not true of all of them, or even most. I don't see any reason to advise editors generally to avoid fixing links to newly added dab pages. -- R'n'B ( call me Russ) 11:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
User:Uanfala Thanks for editing my contribution. Do you have an idea how to change the article name from Parnkalla language to "Barngarla language"? The latter is how people refer to it in the 21st century. The same applied to Parnkalla people (it should be "Barngarla people"). As an example, you can see the FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA: Croft on behalf of the Barngarla Native Title Claim Group v State of South Australia (2015, FCA 9), File number: SAD 6011 of 1998; John Mansfield (judge). Cheers. Native-title ( talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Ryk72 Thank you. Native-title ( talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
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 Sesquipedalophobia, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lourdes 15:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your partial revert of me, you're not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice because Twinkle is supposed to handle it all automatically. I'll file a bug report at their GitHub page – if there isn't one already – to add a newline between XfD notices and tables.
Jc86035 (
talk) Use {{
re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
02:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
not actually supposed to care what the template looks like after the TfD notice. Given that the notice can be disruptive to articles, and there is a choice between displaying it as a block-level or inline element, or noincluding it, I think it's essential to see how the notice is going to affect the articles where the template is used. Uanfala ( talk) 06:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Changing the primary topic is contested, as both articles look weak, so the dab should be moved to the basename. Next time, if you do change the primary topic, then the dab needs updating too. Widefox; talk 04:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
highly disruptivefor doing neither? Uanfala ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please don't remove valid wiktionary links [3], do follow MOSDAB and WP:D, and engage on the talk page before edit waring over your preferred version. This is highly disruptive. While trying to find the redirects that you've changed back, I notice you've undone other's work, say at Tibetan language [4]. I agree with User:Paine Ellsworth, although it's a complex one involving a primary topic and a broadconcept. The creation of a dab or changing the primarytopic really needs consensus as this has flipped several times. I've restored what seems to be the default of a redirect to the primary topic. Further discussion about that dab/redirect should be on the talk there, but I want you to know I have concerns over the unilateral nature of all this reverting. Please slow down and seek consensus on the talk pages. Widefox; talk 15:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BESM (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BESM (disambiguation) for further information regarding this nomination. Thanks, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 03:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for reverting you by mistake. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 05:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I am glad to see that you have become active in TFD; it's always nice to have more interested users. I have noticed, however, a rather disturbing trend over the last few weeks, namely that you are increasingly sniping against TFD (and, in particular, a certain editor) with offhand/backhanded comments regarding how it's run. Now, I obviously cannot stop you from feeling as you do or from making those comments, but it is getting rather distracting. I have seen multiple instances where your comments on someone else's !vote is simply "well, that's 'cause TFD sucks and it shouldn't exist" (some slight paraphrasing/exaggeration on my part).
My request, and again I can't force you to anything, would be to keep your comments at TFD related to the discussion itself. For example, arguing with other users about whether a template should have even been nominated is pointless; it's been done and you're welcome to your !vote; belaboring the nomination itself is just tiresome for a closer to read through.
TFD isn't perfect, and is probably the least-liked XFD I've seen so far (well, FFD is a bit odd sometimes), but it's here to stay and I hope the constant bickering between you and certain other editors can be... toned down? I'm happy to start a discussion (or not), but I felt that I should say something before all hell breaks loose (because honestly, that's the way it feels like it's going at the moment). Cheers, Primefac ( talk) 03:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, such as the speedy deletion templates, cannot be listed at Tfd separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.Is there a subtle distinction that I'm missing? Or do the listing instructions diverge from common practice? Shouldn't they be updated? Uanfala ( talk) 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Komsa (disambiguation), Uanfala!
Wikipedia editor UNSC Luke 1021 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Perfectly fine! Thank you for contributing!
To reply, leave a comment on UNSC Luke 1021's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
The Original Barnstar | |
For your work on Papua New Guinea! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC) |
You might be interested in adding your entries to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge which I've recently started, it needs contributors!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Saraiki is language, 182.186.11.208 ( talk) 10:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Uanfala. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Khua, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. WebCite ( talk) 17:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Orthographic. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Orthographic redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 02:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove the deletion template? An article that survived a deletion discussion 3 years ago may not now, and so it is eligible for deletion. Thanks, Red Panda 25 14:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Hindko dialect shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Shortly ago, I turned Dagar into a dab page. I guess it needs some clean-up. Please have a look at it. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Uanfala reported by User:Yoyi ling (Result: ). The filer of this complaint would normally be expected to notify you. You can respond to the complaint if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar | ||
For coming up with a diagonal approach to the argument about the hatnote in Akanksha Sharma (singer and performer). Eight days now, and your solution seems to have taken! Problem solved at editor level (let us hope). Narky Blert ( talk) 01:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) |
Thanks for your edit on Kohat district
Abused word were used about Bangash tribe
Best wishes
Aftab Banoori (
Talk)
15:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This disambiguation page contains the primary topic, mainly original articles. Your edit is not helpful Sir . LisaRoy ( talk) 15:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Primefac No no no itt isn't promotional. I am nort adding any business name. LisaRoy ( talk) 16:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Sir Can you start one. I am a new user. I will participate. LisaRoy ( talk) 01:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here we are. Just doing as you suggest and bringing our further discussion here to your talk page about this subject. I am truly sorry that you and I must be so sharply divided on this issue, especially since it's an issue that has no perceivable sharp divisions in either the science of linguistics nor on the more popular, yet usually reliable, scene of sources. We could both probably cite sources that support our views, but that would ultimately be shadowy, cloudy and not really truly conclusive, unless they were from some rather arbitrary view of a language speaker who wants their tongue upgraded to "language" or some other writer who wants a nearby tongue to stay a "dialect". Even those sources I've read that support Saraiki as presently a language say words like "until recently, Saraiki was considered a dialect". But they don't really go into it much more deeply. Leaves me with questions like, "When was 'recently'?", and "Considered a dialect by whom?" I'm really being honest with you when I say that, even when it may seem like OR, we must still be compelled to do the best we can with the tools we have, and one of the best tools when it comes to global gray areas is Wikipedia's own brand of consensus. We abide by consensus until we think it has, or may have, changed, and then we test it to see if it's changed. Consensus as defined by this project is really our best tool. It doesn't always work, and it definitely doesn't always work the way we want it to, or the way we think it should, and so on. At this point in time, consensus in the Saraiki dialect RM discussion has been determined to favor no title change. I say respect that, move on, and at some point in the future test it again to see if consensus has changed. Along this vein I have opened an " Addendum" section at Talk:Saraiki dialect. Paine u/ c 00:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
...the various RMs and RfCs have been dominated by socks that have consistently misstated sources and obfuscated the discussion. In a sense, none of those discussions were really valid ones.
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 Naxuan, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "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, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 08:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The stuff on your userpage was getting a bit excessive, so I've put in a request for temporary protection at RPP. Primefac ( talk) 16:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
PLZ DONOT REVERT MY EDITS IN ARTILE pUNJABI LANGUAGE,I AM EXPANDING . Shemaroo ( talk) 11:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I have made edits in this article, plz do not revert or change because i did not write extra any thing,i have just rearranged material already available on wikipedia like hotos etc and i have just wrote the matrial available in this article.plz donot revert Shemaroo ( talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
sir i am going to add sources for articles Punjabi language.thanx in advance Shemaroo ( talk) 11:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Uanfala. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
If you think that this the Baluchistan Liberation Army is a declared terrrorist organisation is not relevant on a page of a Baloch militant leader, I believe you are mistaken. I will take this to wikipedia administrators. It is referenced to the UK Home Office department and has a fully attached PDF file, stating the "Baluchistan Liberation Army" was proscribed in 2006. It is relevant. ( Wiki id2 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC))
If you think there is more material to add, please add it. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
You,r Good work on the subject. Can you improve these few ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaRoy ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
This user seems to be someone's sock. See this. Filpro ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Please visit DRN to solve a content dispute between us. Please don't feel it personal. Dye heart respects AksheKumar ( talk) 07:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Uanfala. Just wanted to give you a heads up: in this edit, you redirected Terk to Terk (disambiguation). But that's backwards; if one is to be a redirect to the other, the redirect should always be the page with "(disambiguation)" in its title. When it's reversed, like this pair, it's a "malplaced" dab page. Don't just copy-and-paste from one to the other (you didn't, but sometimes people do); read WP:MALPLACED to learn ways to deal with these. Often, they are a quick fix at WP:RMT. — Gorthian ( talk) 05:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
When you decide to move an article and make a dab, would you please resolve at least some of the links that now point to the dab page? There are over 200 of them! :-O — Gorthian ( talk) 01:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Can Saroha be a valid DAB page? There are some people with this surname, although only one of them seem notable:
NitinMlk ( talk) 20:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
SIR YOU JUST CAN NOT IGNRE SAYING THAT INDIAN ARE JUST SMALL EMIGRI POPULATION,IN INDIA SARAIKI (OR MULTANI) IS SPOKEN IN FAZILKA DISRICT NAD FEROZPUR DISTRIC,THEY ARE NOT EMMIGRINTS, BUT THEY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS PUNJABI SPEAKER,YOU CAN THRUST NEWLY BORN TERM SARAIKI ON ALL. Shemaroo ( talk) 11:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)