User talk:Urhixidur/Archive/2015

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Petrichor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 08:28, 2015 January 26‎. Urhixidur (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urhixidur, I cleaned up TLS and noticed the same on CND (disambiguation). The new entry on each isn't WP:DABMENTIONed and we don't pipe on dabs. WP:MOSDAB has plenty of reading to explain it all. Regards Widefox; talk 17:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a basic problem in treating dab pages as pure navigation aids, particularly with initialisms: where do you put meanings that are not listed elsewhere in Wikipedia? Removing them altogether results in loss of information content, pure and simple. Urhixidur (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, dabs are explicitly only for navigation per WP:DAB "Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek" (and MOSDAB). If they are on a dab, but not in WP then we should add them to the article to shore up the dab, as long as it's a worthy one. Most don't appear to be. I have a soft-spot for initialisms but this way is also the only reasonable way to maintain them too. If I've misunderstood, please drop a note in the dab project for further opinions. Regards Widefox; talk 02:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The basic error is in the sentence "[...] can quickly navigate to the article they seek". A lot of users do not consult Wikipedia for a detailed explanation of a topic, but rather to look up a simpler piece of information, such as the meaning of an initialism. They already have the context, so simple sentences like those removed by the policy are precisely what they seek. Granted, this may be a task better left to Wiktionary, so maybe that is what the policy should suggest: establish a link to Wiktionary, and explain the initialisms there. Urhixidur (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I imagine a big demand for quick, small lookup, especially with the rise of mobile. If it was up to me, I'd want users to use WP as the single interface (and they shouldn't have to know about which place to search for what), and automatically include wiktionary entries in dabs. (I add the wikt link to every dab nowadays). We sort of have it for empty dab pages, but that's what I'd prefer to use myself generally. Widefox; talk 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you not included any documentation for Template:MinorPlanetNameMeaningsFooter template? I would dearly love to edit pages connected to it, but cannot because I can't work out how it is used. I will eventually work it out but your help would be useful to save time. Jodosma (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Looking back, they're hacks that could probably be unified into a single new template. The problem with the "Meanings of minor planet names" pages is that they're sparser as one gets further down the list. Whereas the "List of minor planets" pages have a steady stride (of 1000), the "Meanings" start off in sync but, as they get sparser, we need to bunch more meanings together in order to have the pages be of reasonable length (e.g. Meanings of minor planet names: 427001–428000). Anyway, if you need more help, just ask. Urhixidur (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dunwich (Lovecraft), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bard's Tale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that one was deliberate, as the text does not make clear which Bard's Tale is meant. Urhixidur (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urhixidur. Researching the definition of the myrio prefix, I tracked down what appears to be the earliest entry regarding myrio in the English Wikipedia, a contribution you made back in 2004: [1]. This was later turned into a redirect, but not before the contents was translated into other Wikipedias (including the German WP).

Over the years there have been several discussions regarding the validity of the definition of myrio as 1/10000, because all RS other editors were able to turn up indicate that myrio was a spelling variant of myria proposed by Thomas Young in the early 19th century, and although used in various international sources, it was never officially part of the metric system. Further, these sources define myrio as 10000, not as 1/10000.

There are, however, also many sources in the net defining it as 1/10000, but many of them seem to have been derived from the Wikipedia entry in one form or the other, and none of the sources found so far could be considered as RS.

I thought that you could, perhaps, shed some light on this. Do you remember your source from back then? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of those things that I "just knew", with no real recollection of an actual source. Google Books shows quite clearly (in the various publications of the beginning of the XIXth century) that myrio- never meant 1/10000. Looking at this one, for instance, one realises that the multiples were from Greek roots, the subdivisions from Latin, so myrio- could not be a subdivision. Other reference works clearly lump myrio- and myria- together as well. It's sad that I was the seed from which this misinformation sprouted. Urhixidur (talk) 03:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply and the clarification, Urhixidur. Don't be depressed about it, we all make mistakes from time to time.

I corrected or deleted all instances of myrio and related entries I could find in the English, German, Japanese and French WP as well as the corresponding Wikidata entries. We just need to have an eye on it now to not let the false information creep back in unless someone finds a rock-solid reliable source for it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Albanian lek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scutari and Valona. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ur. You said it exactly: "The previous descriptive sentence ... fails to explain why that short scene appears." That's because the movie itself — the actual, concrete, manifest content of what's on screen — does not explain it. In the plot section, we can only say what the movie itself actually says and shows. Anything after the fact comes from outside analysis and isn't part of the movie itself.

RE: "Did you mean the explanation better fits at the end of the page's lead paragraphs, where the sequel is mentioned?" I wouldn't think it belongs in the lead, which is a summary of general points and not about specific plot points. And the sequel section as it stands looks pretty thorough. I'm not really sure there's any need to say, "This final scene sets up the sequel" when we have a whole section saying that there's a sequel coming, and what else would the final scene, disconnected from the rest of the plot be for? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Urhixidur: Not sure about the message you left me today. Didn't I answer your December 7 post here, immediately above? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]