User talk:Sebastian
Hello and Welcome! I hope you like the place! --mav
Hi Sebastian. Why have you redirected Lower, Middle and Upper Franconia to their German names? As this is the English language Wikipedia, it is common practise to use the accepted English names for places and regions. I don't see what's wrong with these. D.D. 13:38 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Because these are, AFAIK, not accepted English names. I actually didn't see them anywhere, but they were just my translation on the spot. I wasn't so sure anymore when I realized that "Middle Franconia" might just as well be called "Central Franconia". When I saw that the article Bavaria lists them all in German, I I felt we should stay on the save side and reverted them. If you are sure that these are accepted, pls say so and then we can change it after a grace period. Sebastian 22:50 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
Glad to have you with us. It's easy to get hooked, isn't it? The scientific/mathematical part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style is basically non-existent. Maybe after you've looked at some of the entries in that area you can help us develop it more. Considering the complexity, it might even be a separate section. Ortolan88 00:40 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
- Yep, it is addictive. I'll have to wean myself, though. I still have a job in a good company. So I can't promise anything. But the good thing about wiki is that you can play it by ear. I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for math style.
- Thx, BTW, for fighting for "nascent articles". It took me a while to understand your comment for your changes of -oid, though. You may want to take a look at my contributions in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Hi Sebastian,
I hope you're going to move the associated talk pages for the various gulf wars. Also, while I don't know which talk page to put this on, I think Iraq-Kuwait War is a very poor choice of names. It is an uncommon name, and while unambiguous, it is also misleading, as it implies that the two main sides of the war were merely iraq and kuwait, while for most of the war, the United States led the anti-iraq coalition. DanKeshet 18:14 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Good proposal about the talk pages. I assume this would have been done automatically if I had used "move this page"?
- It would've been as easy as a checkbox. This option wasn't available to you without deleting the page at the name you wanted to move it to, though, and to do that, you need sysop powers.
- RE the name: Which unambiguous name would you propose, then? Sebastian
- 18:25 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- /me thinks... /me thinks some more... I guess that's the only place for the page, but I'll add some notes on common usage in the article itself, so it's clear what the most common names are. DanKeshet 18:35 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
You are going to fix the hundreds of misdirected links going to Gulf War are you? If not then I'm moving that article back to its common name and placing a disambiguation block at the top of the article. BTW the guidelines for this are at Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --mav 20:27 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- Hmm, good question! This seems to be an argument of expediency vs. accuracy. I see now that the guidelines say I should fix the links. However, if there are really that many then I of course don't have the time to do that. What is your impression: Do most of the existing links point to what is currently called Iraq-Kuwait War or were many of the links already ambiguous? If the former then I am wondering if you administrators don't have a tool to fix the links globally? If the latter, I think it is not a bad idea to leave the link to the disambiguation page to help clarify the confusion.
- I also would rather wait a bit with any such grave decision until a final name for Iraq-Kuwait War has been decided.
- Sebastian 20:48 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)
- The primary purpose of disambiguation pages is to quickly and easily get people to where they intended to go. A disambiguation block accomplishes that goal. I agree that "Gulf War" is not the best title - esp since that is what the Iran-Iraq War was commonly called before 1990 and also the fact that yet another Gulf War is about to start. I suggest we rename Iraq-Kuwait War to Operation Desert Storm, redirect Gulf War there and have a disambiguation block at the top of Operation Desert Storm. That way we are discouraging further links to Gulf War and that gives us plenty of time to fix all the misdireted links. We might also want to not go too crazy about fixing links just yet - we don't know what name the media is going to adopt for the comming "new" Gulf War. When they do choose a name for it and it becomes commonly used then there also may be modifications to what is now commonly called the "Gulf War". We may end up with Gulf War I and Gulf War II or historians may see the whole thing as one long war with several operations and an uneasy decade + long semi-truce. In short, moving the article IMO was premature. --mav
- I agree with you that deciding on a "final" name would be premature. Let's continue that discussion on the appropriate talk page.
- However, I think that adding the disambiguation page was overdue. These are different topics, and they deserve an unambiguous entry for each. The disambiguation page also serves to educate all of us. The sooner we start disambiguating, the better.
- Sebastian 21:19 Feb 9, 2003 (UTC)