User talk:KeatonBlaze
Wikilinks[edit]
Thank you for your interest in improving wikipedia. PLease keep in mind that we don't add wikilinks to common words as you dis in Border control. Please see MOS:OVERLINK for more on the subject. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Altenmann Assumed that it applied since you added links for things like Coastal(Coast) and settlers(Settler colonialism) KeatonBlaze (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- In which articles? Let me take a look. We do add such wikilinks in articles on a related subject, e.g., in Chair we have "A chair is a type of seat", because readers are likely to click for further information,, but in the continuation "...typically designed for one person " we dont wikilink words with no direct relation to the article subject:
"typically designed for one person"- Altenmann >talk 20:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- @Altenmann It's singular not plural for articles. My two examples are from the article you took down my edit on (Border control). I'm just doing this because of my interest in the topic so I'm going to give up. You said you took down my edits because the word that I added the link to was too common so I gave two examples of common words that had been added by other people and left up. It was such a minor edit so I didn't expect all of this pushback on something so simple. Do whatever you want. Thanks KeatonBlaze (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Coastal" was bad link I replaced with the correct one within the context in question. "Settler colonialism" is surely not an everyday term and again the wikilink was bad. Please dont think that wikilinks is a trivial issue. I will not give you lectures on that; there are many subtleties. You may start getting some ideas from my recent edits of the discussed article. If you join wikipedia for good, you will get used to this. - Altenmann >talk 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Altenmann I never said that wikilinks were a trivial issue. I simply stated that it was a minor edit (as it was). I set the edit based on reading the rest of the page and seeing equally specific wikilinks (such as the two I cited). If coastal was a bad link, it should not have been allowed to be added in the first place. The thing I find interesting is that you specifically said that everyday terms are what you don't want to be linked, and yet you remove "Settler colonialism" for not being an "everyday term". If I'm not sure what detail should be added or omitted in the articles (as you seem to not be sure of), I would err on the side of caution and link these just to be safe. I would scour the article for other words that meet the criteria of the edit I made that you removed, but I suspect that you would simply say that they are mistakes and edit them as well. KeatonBlaze (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not remove "settler colonialism". Did you look at my edits? "Settler" is an everyday word but "settler states" is not. "Coast" is everyday word, "coastal waters" is not. - Altenmann >talk 15:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I meant "coastal waters" when I said "settler colonialism". My mistake. I said much more than that though... KeatonBlaze (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did not remove "settler colonialism". Did you look at my edits? "Settler" is an everyday word but "settler states" is not. "Coast" is everyday word, "coastal waters" is not. - Altenmann >talk 15:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Altenmann I never said that wikilinks were a trivial issue. I simply stated that it was a minor edit (as it was). I set the edit based on reading the rest of the page and seeing equally specific wikilinks (such as the two I cited). If coastal was a bad link, it should not have been allowed to be added in the first place. The thing I find interesting is that you specifically said that everyday terms are what you don't want to be linked, and yet you remove "Settler colonialism" for not being an "everyday term". If I'm not sure what detail should be added or omitted in the articles (as you seem to not be sure of), I would err on the side of caution and link these just to be safe. I would scour the article for other words that meet the criteria of the edit I made that you removed, but I suspect that you would simply say that they are mistakes and edit them as well. KeatonBlaze (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- "Coastal" was bad link I replaced with the correct one within the context in question. "Settler colonialism" is surely not an everyday term and again the wikilink was bad. Please dont think that wikilinks is a trivial issue. I will not give you lectures on that; there are many subtleties. You may start getting some ideas from my recent edits of the discussed article. If you join wikipedia for good, you will get used to this. - Altenmann >talk 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Altenmann It's singular not plural for articles. My two examples are from the article you took down my edit on (Border control). I'm just doing this because of my interest in the topic so I'm going to give up. You said you took down my edits because the word that I added the link to was too common so I gave two examples of common words that had been added by other people and left up. It was such a minor edit so I didn't expect all of this pushback on something so simple. Do whatever you want. Thanks KeatonBlaze (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- In which articles? Let me take a look. We do add such wikilinks in articles on a related subject, e.g., in Chair we have "A chair is a type of seat", because readers are likely to click for further information,, but in the continuation "...typically designed for one person " we dont wikilink words with no direct relation to the article subject: