This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Page moves of monarchs
I mentioned you
in this discussion. I tried to ping you, but wasn't able to find all the letters in your name.
GoodDay (
talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Next time, copy and paste for simplicity. There is much argument to be had over the page names, that is what the move discussions are for, but I will try to summarize my stance here. There is no need for of country when there is no ambiguity over the page name. (In fact, I personally believe the article on the current British king should have the country name added because there are multiple Charles III's of considerable stature.) Anyway, I have noticed editors opposed to these moves saying the page moves are "sad" rather than appealing to Wikipedia policy. The editors supporting these moves, however, do generally appear to base their support votes based on Wikipedia policy.
Векочел (
talk) 21:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Stop!
Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them. -
UtherSRG(talk) 13:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
These need to be handled individually, and not in bulk. There are times to use pipes, and there are times not to. This user doesn't appear to be making that distinction. -
UtherSRG(talk) 14:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
UtherSRG, I have found it is generally preferable to use a redirect than piping to the main article. Is there any test you use to decide when a pipe is needed and when it's not? I am going with what
MOS:NOPIPE says, as Rosbif pointed out.
Векочел (
talk) 19:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOPIPE is a how-to guide, not a definitive policy. You were unpiping without any seeming rationale for picking and choosing. If piping were something that shouldn't ever be, someone would write a bot, remove all pipes, and disable pipes being something that can be used. Sometimes redirects should be used; sometimes pipes should be used.
Wikipedia:Piped link#Use shows there are valid uses for pipes. Can you say you were checking each pipe usage to see that they were appropriate to be unpiped and were not one of the valid uses? That seems unlikely given how fast you were doing the unpipings. -
UtherSRG(talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:NOPIPE is a guide, but it doesn't say anything that resembles "Simple direct links are preferred. Do not remove pipes to them." It actually makes it clear that redirects are generally preferable to unnecessary piped links.
The script that Векочел is using converts links of the form [[A|B]] into links of the form [[B]] if [[B]] is a valid redirect to [[A]], or if [[A]] and [[B]] both redirect to some other page [[C]]. The result is a link that has the same target and displays the same text as the original. I do agree that caution is advisable, and there are cases where exceptions may reasonably be made.
@
UtherSRG: you reverted about a hundred of Векочел's edits in about ten minutes. Did you check each example to see that they were actually at fault?
Jean-de-Nivelle (
talk) 15:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
If a category has been tagged for speedy deletion as an empty category (
CSD C1), there is really no good reason to take it to
CFD for a week-long discussion. It will be deleted more quickly as a CSD C1, while CFD nominations can sometimes last weeks and what are editors going to debate about an empty category? It's unnecessary and I hope you will stop this practice. Only start CFD discussion about categories where a discussion would be fruitful. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 21:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
February 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you
often edit without using an
edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in
your preferences. Thanks! LizRead!Talk! 05:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, Векочел,
Please leave an edit summary with every edit you make. This is especially important with the dozens of page moves you are doing recently where it's not clear why you are moving the articles to different page titles. If you leave a brief explanation, particularly one based in policy, it's less likely that your edit will be reverted because your fellow editors will understand why you made the edit you did. It really takes just a few extra sentences so please take an extra minute and leave an explanatory edit summary. It's good practice on the platform. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Векочел!
The
New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the
guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read
the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the
project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider
applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
I was trying to to revert the whole DOB, per
WP:DOB, but reverted your cn template instead. Now fixed.
Laterthanyouthink (
talk) 05:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)reply
March 2024
Hello! Did you really think
this was a good idea, removing the linked reference to her place of birth? You could at least have linked it in the info box. I am asking you now to do that. Please be more careful, and please (as requested above) leave edit summaries!
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 13:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will try to be more consisteny with my edit summaries. However, per
MOS:BIRTHPLACE, Birth and death places, if known, should be mentioned in the body of the article, and can appear in the lead if relevant to notability, but not in the opening brackets alongside the birth and death dates.Векочел (
talk) 13:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you! It would have beemn nice if you would have linked her place of birth in the info box when you removed it elsewhere. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You changed the link to a location in Norway and in Västergötland. Fixed now. Are you going to be more careful? --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
March 2024 (2)
Please do not
change any info-box names so that they do not correspond to (1) article names and (2) names as given in article text. If you want such name changes you need to request article moves (renaming). No other way.
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 09:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
See
WP:NOPIPE. The page on Anund Jacob was presumably moved to remove the country name, and the article on Cnut the Great was also moved.
Векочел (
talk) 10:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)reply
What is
this supposed to mean? Please start using edit summaries.
TylerBurden (
talk) 19:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It means illegitimate. His son was born out of wedlock.
Векочел (
talk) 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Why are you making massive, undiscussed changes, removing religion from Infoboxes where previous editors had added it in? Is there policy regarding this? I was going to revert all of your changes until I saw you were an experienced editor, not a new account, but it seems like you are making changes on a grand scale without discussion. LizRead!Talk! 19:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In most cases the religion of these royals is simply not notable. We don't list the religion for Queen Elizabeth II's three younger children or for Charles III's sons, for instance.
Векочел (
talk) 19:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In cases like
Catherine Jagellon, her religion is a vital detail, yet you removed it twice there also. I've now fixed that twice. Please slow down, at least read articles you wish to change, and be more careful! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 15:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Векочел Would you mind helping
User:CtasACT by going through all the references on the above mentioned article and also ensuring whether they meet Wikipedia's policy or not. The GA review is taking place at-
Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2. I would greatly appreciate it if you could help. Regards
MSincccc (
talk) 13:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I will look at it shortly.
Векочел (
talk) 23:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)reply
April 2024
Please stop doing
this!
Nobility and
royalty are not the same thing. I would think you knew that before going about all those faulty changes?!
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not correct. Read the articles, be enlightened and stop doing this! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
April 2024 (2)
You are doing a lot of damage with changes like
this. Unless you go back and fix those articles, we are heading for serious trouble. It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles.
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
A prince regnant is a type of monarch.
Векочел (
talk) 19:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes, I do know that. That's not what I wrote to you about. Read it again and fix your errors! --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 19:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The page Elizabeth II is already under Category:Daughters of kings. (I did not categorize it.) What is the point of removing a category when it helps to disambiguate? As for the pages which I placed in Swedish nobility, I will have a second look.
Векочел (
talk) 20:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You are changing categories from helpful ones to much less relevant ones when you make changes like the one I linked to at the top of this talk section. Understand? It is far more relevant that these people are the children of monarchs than any other less relevant titles. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 18:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
For the most part, I think the categories are, at least in theory, supposed to be limited to women who lived to see their children become monarchs. At the very least, that's the philosophy I was using when considering adding them to the category.
98.228.137.44 (
talk) 21:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
In history, whoever was the mother of a monarch is counted as such whether or not she lived to see the monarch's reign. It's the monarch's relationship to her that's most relevant. --
SergeWoodzing (
talk) 11:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your nominations are spurious. Being found disruptive months after creating categories is not a valid reason for deleting them. Please close your nominations immediately. I have commented on the first one, but frankly, a wholesale listing like that is also bordering on the disruptive.
——Serial Number 54129 17:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for that Векочел, I respect that. As a compromise, let's leave that one open (I will adjust my comment) and see if it gains traction; I could always be wong... Thanks again.
——Serial Number 54129 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.
✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag.
✗plicit 14:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hadrian's marriage
Well caught! That was a truly egregious error... Amazing how long these things can go undetected.
Haploidavey (
talk) 12:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply