User talk:ShelfSkewed/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Edit to Joker

Just FYI: No need to add Category:Disambiguation to pages that have the template {{disambig}} (or any of the similar ones). The template adds the category automatically. Cheers--ShelfSkewed Talk 07:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd been wondering about that but hadn't seen the answer. Doczilla (talk) 07:30, January 2008 (UTC)

user subpage maintenance

Thank you for your edit to User:Ceyockey/Sandbox. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I was recently doing some minor editing to "The Walrus" page, mainly tightening sentence structure and grammar. When I went back to the page after I had done some research, I was greeted with a message from ShelfSkewed asking me to stop vandalizing the "Future" and "The Outsiders" articles. Now, I have never even been to either page, so I'm a little confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.62.51 (talk • contribs) 12:32 (UTC), 26 January 2008

I am also confused. I was adding helpful links to cultural interviews and got the same message. And yet links added by others still there! Seems to me that ShelfSkewed is the vandalizer here. Not me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.208.47 (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"I Can't Wait"

Hi Shelf, are you actually planning to create an article about the Stevie Nicks song "I Can't Wait"? Otherwise there is no reason for you to have disambiguated the links to an article that does not exist ala Rock a Little and New Attitude. Thanks – Phildev (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of writing that article, but that's not why I dabbed it. When I was fixing up the dab page I Can't Wait, I found the song ambiguously linked in the target article, Rock a Little, which all by itself means that it should have a disambiguated link on the dab page. Then I also found the song linked in three other articles, which suggested to me that at least one editor, and perhaps more, strongly felt that this song could/should eventually have an article. By leaving the link and dabbing it wherever I found it, I built a web for the article title. Red links are not bad things—they can encourage article creation and show the correct location for those future articles. But red-linking is always a judgment call. If you want to unlink the song, be my guest. --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

User:ShakespeareFan00/Film List

Thanks

Feel free to confirm other links on the list :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

oneword

Hi,
You were, of course, correct. In my copy (Arrow paperback, 1994) of "Dick Contino's Blues", page 73 clearly has the title of the story with one word. Oddly enough, the page with the publication and copyright info and legals, and where is says when the stories "first appeared" (is there a name for that page?) it reads, "Dark High Town © James Ellroy 1986. What gives with that, I wonder?
--Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch!

Shame on me for not realizing that the Go page had been vandalized!... --Vlad|-> 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I hesitated which of the two formats should go on top, but I guess your way it's ok! --Vlad|-> 21:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Question

I also had a message from ShelfSkewed that really puzzles me. I see lots of external links to interviews and I don't understand why it's inappropriate to add links to interviews with the page's subject on my radio show, Writer's Voice. They are are serious, in-depth and add to the general knowledge of a writer's work. Is there any way I can make this resource available without violating the rules? Subjects of Wikipedia write entries for the page about them -- is that seen as a conflict of interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesca Rheannon ([[User talk:Francesca Francesca Rheannon (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Rheannon|talk]] • contribs) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Also, I am not putting links in to increase my rankings, as Shelf-Skewed seems to think. I don't need to increase my rankings. Writer's Voice is the first ranked hit on Google for "writers voice" and various permutations of that phrase. Francesca Rheannon (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

When your contributions consist exclusively of adding your own external links to articles, you are, perforce, a spammer. Whenever a mass addition of links by an editor who only adds links to the same website is noticed, it is (or should be) reverted. Wikipedia is not a mere repository of links, no matter how appropriate. It's an attempt to create a collaborative encyclopedia, the content of which is produced by continuous discussions and negotiations among contributing editors. So, please, by all means participate: Offer your links on the talk pages of the relevant articles and join the discussion.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is good advice...but if I don't comment on the entries of others, is it still OK to say something like (example from the current show, which I'm just using as an example, not as intention to add an edit in Wikipedia): "This interview with novelist Kevin Patterson is about his novel of the Arctic North and the Inuit, CONSUMPTION. He talks about the collision between the old and the new in that region and describes the life of the Inuit as they transition from traditional nomadic life to settlement in towns built for them by the Canadian government. The novel tells the story of one family across three generations as its members make this transition, the uneasy peace they make with modern society, and the connections and tensions between them and the Kablunuks– or whites — who come to work in the Arctic." I guess I feel that an interview link in a Wikipedia page adds to the general knowledge about a writer, whereas a "talk" entry is supposed to comment on other entries. Your objections to my entries favor the already well-known media venues but discriminates against just as worthy, lesser-known media venues. Guests on Writer's Voice consistently say it was the best interview they had about their book -- that's partly because it is in-depth, something not allowed for by most "big" radio shows.Francesca Rheannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) I've read the Wikipedia guidelines on adding links but didn't find the answers to the above question--so I'm trying to be specific, not self promoting. I'd put a smiley face here, but I'm not sure that's allowed! Francesca Rheannon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit to being a little confused by your questions, but I'll just forge ahead with my advice: The way to add your links to an article is to first propose them on that article's Talk page. For example, if you want to add a link to the article Junot Díaz, then on the page Talk:Junot Díaz you would start a new section offering your link and briefly describing (stick to facts, and stay away from PR-type prose) why you think the link would make a good addition to the article. If, after a reasonable amount of time (5 days is standard), no one has objected, then you can add the link to the article--and make sure that you mention the Talk page proposal in your edit summary so that other editors can see what you're doing. Even then, however, I can't guarantee that another editor won't remove them. Some editors take a hard-line against any conflict-of-interest additions. On the other hand, often just mentioning the link on the talk page will bring it to the attention of a regular contributor to an article and that editor will add the link for you. I know it all seems roundabout and bureaucratic, but the idea is to discourage the hit-and-run addition of external links. Otherwise every article would soon be overwhelmed by them. P.S. Smilies not only allowed but encouraged here :-) --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

Thanks for giving a hand at Naruto (disambiguation). The user in question is rather giving me a hard time and I'd like for someone to explain the purpose of DAB guidelines to him/her. Note that I have already alerted JHunterJ and Bkonrad regarding the matter. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at the Dragon Ball, Hellsing and InuYasha dabs? I ask this of you because you claimed that the top sentence here was excess. And I don't understand this edit. I think the fictional character should take the first line but that's just me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Removed the extra links from the three. JHunterJ seems to disagree in at least one case that a second link in the intro line is excess, although I don't see any need for it unless the entry link is a redirect, but none of those are. It's certainly possible that I'm mistaken--let me know if JHunterJ has a different take on it. As far as the order on Naruto (disambiguation), yes, it also seems logical to me to have the Naruto character first, but Abtract's version also makes sense in putting at the top the entries that most closely match the dabbed term, followed by the rest alphabetically. I think I'd still favor putting Naruto Uzumaki at the top, but I don't see any reason to insist on it. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I normally prefer to leave the intro para with a single blue link, as if it were another dab entry. For instance, in HP (disambiguation), I tried to leave just HP linked, and not Hewlett-Packard, but another editor disagreed, and the guidelines are silent on extra links in the intro, so I will sometimes leave them in when I clean pages. I don't think I've added them when no one else had. And I certainly prefer not to see "William Shakespeare was an English poet and playwright" opening William Shakespeare (disambiguation). :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Here J, I'm also watching the page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you place the character at the top for me? I'm tired of getting reverted by Abtract. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't think it is important enough to fight over. If you do think it is significant, then start a conversation at Talk:Naruto (disambiguation); if consensus there is to move the character to the top, then that's what we should do. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's okay. I don't feel like sparking a discussion anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of category from your userpage

Hi. In enacting consensus from User categories for discussion, I have removed the category Category:Wikipedians interested in books from your userpage. It was determined in that deletion debate that this category should be depopulated of individuals, but kept as a parent category. If you wish to display a category reflecting your interest in books, please consider one of the specific sub-categories under its umbrella. Thanks, and please excuse the necessary editing of your user page! ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Home Sweet Home

Thanks for explaining; yes, it's much improved! Unschool (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Underdog edits

Hi,

I noticed you partially reverted the edits I made to this page. I'm not sure why this was, because you didn't provide a summary of your reasons, but here's a rationale for mine:

  1. The addition of Home of the Underdogs is because the word "underdog" is a partial match for a difficult-to-remember title. This was, indeed, the article I was looking for when I plugged "underdog" into Wikipedia's search.
  2. The root article is underdog (competition). This should really be at underdog with the disambig at underdog (disambiguation), per the MoS. All derivatives stem from the root article's definition.
  3. The split of "songs" and "albums" in the music section isn't really necessary. Section headers are there to help with readability, not to strictly taxonomise lists. There are only a handful of entries in each section, so there's no real need to split them up.

Let me know if you've any concerns with this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw your comment on my talk page; no biggie. I still reckon we should move underdog (competition) to the root article and have underdog (disambiguation) as the dambig, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like you're okay now. Any idea what motivated that scumbag? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Novel moves

Re this and the like. Is there a guideline for disambiguating novels in that manner? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes: WP:NC-BK#Standard disambiguation, which specifies clarifiers using last names only. My move of the Edgeworth novel was incorrect—and shame on me, because I should have known better, having done a lot of work on fiction articles. So I moved the Rice novel to match. --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Brothers

I tend to troll Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup and this page happened to be flagged for clean-up earlier today. I noted the red links and was actually trying to find sources on the web so that I could at least produce a stub page for them. Aside from that, I hadn't really thought that far.-- Marchije (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Good job for creating all those stubs. That's initiative above and beyond. You can't be as new to Wikipedia as your account makes it seem, can you? In any case, nice work. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm learning as I go. I'm just glad to have found a new outlet for my OCD/ADD -- Marchije (talk) 20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User:91.135.3.38

Just a heads up, the guy you warned continued to spam. If you can help me keep an eye on it, I would appreciate it. :) —— Eagle101Need help? 12:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tarragon Theatre

Please don't undo links in red - articles for these links may be added at some point. --Dizzy hiss (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Leatherneck

I would like to create a separate article for United States Marine Corps use of the term Leatherneck for use in redirects in main articles written about Marines. I was thinking I could move the current Leatherneck article to “Leatherneck (disambiguation)” so I could use that article title for the article currently located at User:FieldMarine/Sandbox 2. I would like your opinion on that? Thanks! FieldMarine (talk) 05:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The USMC use is certainly the primary meaning of the term, and there is no other article with that exact title, so the move makes sense to me. Cheers --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input...much appreciated! I'll make the move tommorrow. Semper Fi, FieldMarine (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)