User talk:Colonies Chris/Archive/2011/Sep

Gothic architecture

Oh, very well done, Chris! Amandajm (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

List of shipwrecks in 1989

I've reverted your edit because the convention is that the name of the ship appears first, with the flag afterwards, per all other lists of shipwrecks. No objection to individual wikilinks being removed if you think that there is overlinking, but that edit, whilst made with good intent, was not desirable. Mjroots (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, I could see that the intent was constructive, even if the result wasn't! Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Biopower

Thanks Chris for doing those edits,most appreciatedRichardlord50 (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that information I'll try and remember for future referenceRichardlord50 (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Delinking of Common words

Although I can appreciate unlinking overly linked words in articles I have seen several cases were you, IMO, took the delinking a little too far. For example I just reverted your edits to Francis D. Rauber were I believe one link of each is appropriate. Particularly linking United States of America under the allegiance in the Infobox. There are in fact a number of United States of X and since not all readers of the pedia are from the USA I do not agree that we should assume that they all would undeerstand. It is to me a bad assumption to make. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Partially true but the MOS doesn't say don't link them at all. These terms are useful to link and add value to the articles IMO. Your opinion is the opposite and thats fine but since you are using AWB, and there are those of us that would disagree that delinking these when they are only used once in the article is useful, it could be considered misuse of AWB. Ther reason I reverted the other edits was, as I stated above, because all they did was delink common terms that were only used once. If they were linked 5 times and you removed 4 I would have left them, but having them linked once each is fine. Additionally this could be considered a minor inconsequential edit. Even though delinking them does render changes to the page I would argue that delinking these terms when nothing else is done is pointless and uneeded. --Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because you reject it doesn't make it untrue. I used to do a number of these tasks myself and got my hand slapped for it as wasteful myself. As for the Port au prince. When I saw multiple dubious changes I simply reverted. I'm not going to go picking through looking for one or 2 good edits. For what its worth I'm not goin to follow you around checking on what else your editing. This article was on my watchlist so I reverted. Its not worth arguing over and not worth an edit war. I am just relaying my opinions as well as some warnings I have received in the past for the same activities (I lost AWB access for a while over it by the way). Go ahead and take your chances but eventually someone else will complain who has admin rights and they just revoke your AWB access or write an ANI or something else. For what its worth I would say about 98% of your edits are fine, its just when you do these lone delink changes that I find annoying. --Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I left a note at the AWB discussion page here. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest universities in continuous operation

I don't think this edit of yours is helpful either: mass-delinking place names in a list of places isn't the best of ideas. I can't think of a sensible way to undo this edit though - thanks [sarcasm, sorry] for lumping two scripts together... Deryck C. 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your rationale, and having rethought about it the bulleted list part now looks better than before. However your use of a script to de-link the page has left the tabular part rather inconsistent: Valencia is linked but Rome isn't, and Scotland linked but not England. I removed and restored a few links to make it more consistent. Deryck C. 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that over-linking is bad, and you've already convinced me that linking all place-names on this list is over-linking. This is not over-linking vs. consistency, but consistency within what we define as over-linking. The script you used was inconsistent about what is over-linking when applied to this list (presumably it gathered a list of common words, for which England and Paris were in but Scotland and Valencia were out, which is unhelpful for a list of places). So I removed as well as added a few links to make the threshold for linking more consistent. Deryck C. 05:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

36th G8 summit

Please review my edit here in which I reverted some -- not all -- of the changes you made here. In the specific context of this article (and the corollary G8 summit articles), links to the national participants seem justified, helpful, appropriate. After further reflection, perhaps you begin to see my point?

Compare my edit here at 12th G-15 summit which restored Brazil. Please note that among the participants, you had de-linked Brazil only. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The important point is that the changes I made were to remove links not facts. Any reader coming to an article on the G8 may well be unsure of exactly which countries participated, but, given the list, they are not going to be sitting there thinking 'ah ... France - I've never heard of that before, I'll click on the link to find out about it'. The facts are important, but the links are valueless. And they certainly don't need to be linked again later in the body of the article. Similarly, no-one with enough interest in world affairs to be reading about the G8, needs a link to find out what is meant by 'President of the United States'.

If the country links could be tightened, they could be useful. For example, if there were such an article as France at the G8. Failing that, a link to Economy of France might be helpful, providing it was clearly identified as such, since most readers wouldn't think of clicking on an Easter Egg piped link ([[Economy of France|France]]) that just looks like France.

And why did you revert my conversion of curly quotes to straight quotes - which is in line with the MoS WP:PUNC#Quotation characters - and my reformatting of the date from June 28th, 2010, to June 28, 2010, which, again, was bringing it into line with the MoS (WP:DATE#Dates)? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, yes. Your reasoning is valid, yes -- but other factors inform a reluctance to agree with your editing decision. For example, what links here? The country links are also reflected in search parameters and algorithm which develop outside the article, are they not? You disparage the political office links like President of the United States; however, as it happens, these are links I myself have used repeatedly.

Your de-linking may be an arguable improvement across a wide range of articles, but I disagree with de-linking (a) countries and (b) offices in the context of this specific article and others like it, e.g., 2010 G-20 Toronto summit.

The "nine dots" puzzle. The goal of the puzzle is to link all 9 dots using four straight lines or fewer, without lifting the pen and without tracing the same line more than once. One solution appears below.

One of many solutions to the puzzle at the beginning of this article is to go beyond the boundaries to link all dots in 4 straight lines.

I wonder if others who watchlist international summit articles would concur with your assumptions and conclusions? If your viewpoint garners consensus support, then that would affect a significant number of other articles, e.g., 2011 G-20 Cannes summit.

As for WP:PUNC#Quotation characters, see my edit here + here. And as for WP:DATE#Dates, see my edit here. In my revert, these simply fell through the cracks. --Tenmei (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Tenmeil, I gather you bunched up the President of the United States link with the President's name link: MOSLINK discourages bunching, the office is very very commonly understood, and the office is linked prominently at every article on a President. It seems to serve no purpose to offer two adjacent links, the second of which is more specific and itself links to the first. Many readers won't know that they are separate links; and focusing the link blue signifier is, in terms of signal-to-noise ratio and the psychology underlying choice, a better bet for the wikilinking system. I hope this helps. Tony (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I take your point. Please re-consider in the context established by 2010 G-20 Toronto summit. Would your concern be addressed if participants in the 12th G-15 summit were identified in a table format? If you have the time, please review this Toronto summit article to see if you believe this format issue is important in that context? If so, we will see the consequences metastasize throughout a range of articles. --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

12th G-15 summit

Please notice my edit here which reverted changes in two sub-sections only: (a) Core G15 participants and (b) Guest participants.

The identification of "core" participants is (a) consistent with the format of other summit articles and (b) responding to previous disputes about the composition of international summits, e.g.,

• Talk:G8#Spain controversy
• Talk:G8#canada's nominal gdp is 99.6 % as big as Spain's nominal gdp but
• Talk:G8#canada nominal gdp 1.432 trillion spain nominal gdp 1.429 trillion
• Talk:G8#Spain should be in the G8
• Talk:G8#canada gives more to the un spain had a larger gdp than canada in 2003
• Talk:G8#Stop complaining about Spain not being in the G8

My views about the restoration of office-related hyperlinks are explained above at 38th G8 summitUser talk:Colonies Chris#38th G8 summit-above. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of that article contains no discussion of that subject at all. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please look again at the several thread headings -- the subject of the series is what? Step back. Although the term "core" is not used by anyone who contributed to these threads, it is the unstated subject. --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The link you've provided - 38th G8 summit - has a talk page that is virtually empty. Where are you referring to? Colonies Chris (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Colonies Chris#38th G8 summit-above. --Tenmei (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There was also a dispute like this in the transition from BRIC to BRICS. --Tenmei (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot of text to hunt through to find your views ... I tried. I'd be more concerned to fix the language of the article—which needs quite a lot of work—rather than resisting Colonies Chris's attempts to improve the use of wikilinking. Tony (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

None of these discussions appear to have any relevance to my point that there is no justification for identifying certain countries as 'core' members. Are you claiming that those seven have a higher GDP than the others so they're more important? Even if true, that doesn't justify the article assigning them a different membership status which the G-15 itself does not recognise, as far as I can see from the sources. Do you have a reference for calling them 'core' members? Colonies Chris (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I missed that bit. Furthermore, raw GDP estimates are clouded by whether PPP or nominal rates are used—both have international relevance. And there are yet other factors in what is a highly political selection. Tony (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Core". No -- I do not want to argue about the composition of the G15 nor the G8 nor any international group; rather, I am bringing to your attention the fact that arguments have been made by others in the past in other summit-related contexts. In other words, the Lessons learned the hard way in developing articles about other summits inform the format for the G-15 summits. FYI -- the term "core" comes from the Council on Foreign Relations --Tenmei (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm asking again - where is your reference for describing these 7 countries as 'core' members? There's nothing in the article you linked to, and no reference to anything related to the CFR in the references of the article we're discussing. And even if the CFR thinks that some countries could be described as 'core' members, that doesn't justify describing them in the article in a way that implies that they have a different membership status from the others. If you have a reference for the CFR's opinion, I would be happy for that to be mentioned in the article, but not in the misleading way it now appears. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "core" is informed by Rieffel, Lex. "Regional Voices in Global Governance: Looking to 2010 (Part IV)," Brookings. March 27, 2009. Also, the now inaccessble Muskoka 2010 G-8, official site expressly used the term "core".

I did not participate, nor did I really understand the threads about Spain and Canada on the G8 talk page; but I did understand that this was a dispute which didn't need to be a dispute. Similarly, I didn't appreciate the fine points of similar arguments in other contexts, but I do recognize the value in averting an avoidable problem in advance -- ergo, "core" participants, etc. Do I need to try to explain again in different words? Are we not on the same page?

Please note my edit here which acknowledges your legitimate concern. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference you've provided discusses which countries might be selected as core members of a future summit. It doesn't mention the G-15 explicitly at all, it only mentions a few of the members of the G-15 by name (in some cases only to exclude them), and several of the countries listed as 'core' in 12th G-15 summit are not mentioned at all. There's not even justification there for describing the G-15 members as core contributors to other summits (though that may well be true), and there's none at all for describing those seven members as 'core' members of the G-15. Surely what needs to be said here is that only 8 of the 15 members attended, and all but Indonesia sent their President or Prime Minister. This clearly means that those countries place more importance on the G-15 than the ones who didn't attend, but it doesn't give them any special status as 'core' members. (And shouldn't Indonesia have a flag, as the foreign minister was representing the country?). The heading 'Core G15 participants ' needs to just say 'Attendees'. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

CORRECT representation:
U=Universe of G-15
A=Core members
B=Attendees who are also heads-of-state

INCORRECT Graphic representation:
U=Universe of G-15
A=All members
B=7 leaders mislabeled as "core"?

I misunderstood your objection. In the edit summary, one word made all the difference -- "seven." At the right, does the "incorrect" diagram describe the problem? Please see my edit here. Allow me to restate what I understand to have been your main worry: The text as formerly drafted seemed to imply that the eight nations not represented by a head of state at Caracas were not "core" members of the group? Does the newly edited version address your concern? If so, good -- we will have demonstrated that collaborative editing can achieve a consensus wording ... however, I hope you will keep this article on your watchlist.

If A and B are sets and every element of B is also an element of A, then: B is a subset of (or is included in) A, denoted by B⊆A.

In future --with an added sentence or two (plus inline citation support) -- the sub-heading can be restored. The distinction between "core" membership and others in these international groupings has been and is likely to continue as a recurrent theme. Something to do with the Colombo summit in 2012 may generate articles which will address this directly. We'll see.

Do the Euler diagrams help clarify the meaning of our words? --Tenmei (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're making progress here. We seemed to have cleared up the misunderstanding over core members. Some minor points remain.

• I still don't see that the reference justifies the statement that G-15 members are core contributors to other summits. However, I accept that it's probably true nonetheless.
• Shouldn't Indonesia have a flag, as the foreign minister was representing the country?
• It's a little confusing to show only Indonesia in that section - is there no information available about the representatives of the other countries (at least their titles) - were they all less senior than a foreign minister? If so, that would be valuable information in itself.
• The first line of the 'guest participants' section should start with Group of 77, not Qatar, as the G-77 is what he was representing. It would perhaps be appropriate to put (Qatar) after his name, for information about him personally. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Flags. As you may know, an actively discussed subject appears to be flags in general and flag-templates in specific, e.g., {{flag|UN}} vs. {{flagicon|UN}}. I simply try to follow the changing and sometimes evolving consensus. I have followed your lead here and here. If the flags are a format issue which interests you, perhaps you would be willing to give some thought to Talk:Group of 15#Navbox consensus? In this, I have no preference; and I don't really understand the fine points which inform the various points of view. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Google books template. Your modification of a citation is difficult to understand. Your edit here changed a hyperlink to the specific page cited to a title page for the book cited.

• GOOD: <:ref name="chauhan">Chauhan, Sandeep. Demand for New International Economic Order, p. 129., p. 129, at Google Books</ref>
• LESS HELPFUL: <:ref name="chauhan">Chauhan, Sandeep. Demand for New International Economic Order, p. 129, at Google Books (p. 129)</ref>

The specificity is needed in the process of further edits, including the anticipated ones I would expect to make. This seemingly minor edit makes our collaborative editing more difficult. In other words, the hyperlinks embedded in inline citations are not trivial, not minor, not unimportant. --Tenmei (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this. Both links lead to the same place (p129) so it's just a matter of presentation. Ideally the Google books template should be enhanced to show the page number, where present, in the displayed text, without it having to be included manually. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps In September, I may try to create 11th G-15 summit using our discussion here as guide. I will be sure to alert you so that your comments can help improve the format and structural foundations for 10th G-15 summit, 9th G-15 summit, etc. --Tenmei (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Heroes in Hell

A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Burrn!

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 Burrn! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ChristianandJericho 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Burrn!

Hi Colonies Chris, you recently removed a deletion tag from Burrn!. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Burrn! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Burrn! 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/Burrn! 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. ChristianandJericho 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)