User talk:Colonies Chris

Welcome!

Hello Colonies Chris, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- GraemeL ^(talk) 22:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect of Iceberg (Fashion House)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Iceberg (Fashion House), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Iceberg (Fashion House) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Iceberg (Fashion House), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Yes, the page can be restored. It was actually deleted because it failed to establish any significance. It appears that the subject has not more than ten links here in Wiki, and its something. --Efe (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to improve it? If I restore the page now and nothing happens after, it will be speedy deleted again. --Efe (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored. I added a tag to alert other users its in the middle of a revamp. --Efe (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

City-State

What is your reasoning for removing this that links to both the city and state and replacing it with one that just links to the city? 72.159.71.131 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't say which article you're talking about. But in general, where an article links to a city, it doesn't need to link to the state too; the state is just there either to disambiguate the city (e.g. Portland, Maine vs Portland, Oregon) or to provide context for a reader who might otherwise have no idea at all where the city is (e.g. Elko, Nevada). If a reader wants to know more about the state the city lies in, they can use the link in the city's article. The sort of convoluted construction that you see sometimes, along the lines of [[Des Moines, Iowa|Des Moines]], [[Iowa]] just adds complication without providing any significant benefit. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about the thing that is like {{city-state then the city and state. Why does this thing exist then? 72.159.71.131 (talk) 18:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be thinking of the {{city-state}} template. It generates separate city & state links, in the way I described above, but as linking that way isn't good practice, I converted to straightforward [[city, state]] links.Colonies Chris (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats it. What do you mean it isn't good practice? It makes both links, thats not better? Why was it created in the first place? 69.136.60.6 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can create a template; some of them are a good idea, some not. When an article links to a city, that's what the link should do, link to the city. If you want to know more about the city, you can click on the link. If you then want to know about the state the city's in, you can use the link in the city article. The state's only there because most US city articles are named that way. Other cities around the world usually just have the city name alone e.g. if an article mentioned the English town of Cheltenham, it wouldn't usually mention that it's in the county of Gloucestershire, because English towns aren't usually identified that way. But the Cheltenham article would have a link to Gloucestershire. It's not necessarily better to have more links - what's important is to have links that people are likely to use. And if an article mentions a city, it's very unlikely that anyone would click on the link to the state that city's in - especially as you can't easily tell from the appearance of the link whether it's linking to [[city, state]] or [[city, state|city]], [[state]]. Compare Des Moines, Iowa and Des Moines, Iowa for example - the only (barely) visible difference is the black or blue comma. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

List of extreme makeover episoes

Hi there,

i revert yoru awb because it messed up the location, state links i will not be doing the same to the invidual pages for each season as the information is on teh first page but i agree teh dates should be changed.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough i will remove the links manually then because the links where workign fine withut the way the awb made it so i will remove the state links which i was doing slowly and make sure the location links works--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

They dates came back when i reverted, i am manually goign through it just now and fixing it manually i am also fixing a few other minor issues, ill leave a messae when i have finished it and if you can check it is fine then that will be it done :) , but i am trying to understand why you need to have it location, state istead of location, state? and where there is other ones doing location, state as it looks better to me--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have manually done the removing of links if you can check and then fix anything that is still wrong then that page should techincally be complete :) sorry for the hassle --Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Delinking now before ARBCOM

Yes, no joke. I've mentioned you here based on a previous conversation we had, I hope you're not upset that I did not ask you for permission first.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Date delinking are clear and to-the-point. I have no objections when an article on my watch list is stripped of date links. -- SWTPC6800 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just read them too and you make some very good points. I have been delinking dates since the consensus changed back in August. I must have done several thousand, usually as part of a copyedit (ie I fix any other problems I see with the article at the same time). I had one or two inquiries at the beginning, but it is obvious that an overwhelming majority of editors here never liked the linked dates and are now quite happy to see them go. --John (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• A discussion at Lightmouse's house may be of interest to you. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• "How telling it is that the best Tennis Expert can come up with to support his allegation of edit warring is a complaint that he himself filed, and whose outcome was NOVIO. Strange he didn't mention that." He has amply demonstrated, therough the number of complaints against him, that he has ownership issues. What's more, his unforced errors are legend. That's why I would very much like to play tennis with him. I expect him to hand me game set and match. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your entry was spot-on at ArbCom. Tony (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking arbitration

Just to make you aware I've named you as a party in this, I had intended to from the beginning but forgot you. You've already made a statement so you're obviously aware of it, but I wanted to leave a note making sure you know you'd been included as a party. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

The following temporary injunction has been passed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking;

Until this case is decided or otherwise directed by the Arbitration Committee, all editors are instructed not to engage in any program of mass linking or delinking of dates in existing articles, including but not limited to through the use of bots, scripts, tools, or otherwise. This injunction is entered as an interim measure and does not reflect any prejudgment of any aspect of the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)