User talk:Shhhnotsoloud

This is Shhhnotsoloud's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

Hello, why have you removed the templates that I put up to propose the merger of

]

@El Mono Español: Hello. Because the tags had been there for over a year, with no supporting statement from you or anyone else. If you want to try again, then please do, but in accordance with Wikipedia:Merging you should first create a discussion on either Talk page explaining why a merge is required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my edit on

]

@Leschnei: You're welcome ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

]

removal of disambiguation hatnotes

I am alarmed that you are going round removing hatnotes that enable encyclopaedia users to go to a disambiguation page if the article they have found is not what they want. Why on earth do you think these are not needed? I have reverted you on Brest, France - and this gives a good example of why the hatnote is needed. Given that Wikipedia is full of links to the wrong article, it is important to point out to the reader that there is a disambiguation page. It is also helpful to the reader who chooses one option on the disambiguation page, but then thinks they have the wrong one, to navigate back (relevant on some mobile devices).

Cany you identify any actual harm done by the hatnotes you are removing? If there is none, why not leave them there? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NAMB – I referred to it in my edit summary – It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous. "Brest, France" is not ambiguous (there's only one Brest in France), there are no ambiguous redirects that target it, and it is not a good example of why a hatnote is needed. No-one is going to navigate to Brest, France if they wanted Brest, Belarus, for example. If they didn't know what Brest they wanted they'd land at Brest, the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies for the mistaken rollback

I had just modified my Twinkle preferences and mistakenly rollbacked your edits on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8. Sorry. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you're condensing hatnotes like you did here, there's a better way: please consider using {{hatnote group}} to condense hatnotes rather than manually specifying the hatnote with {{hatnote}} or other tricks. This method preserves the standard forms for hatnotes (including any integral error-checking) while still achieving less bloat at the top of the article. Hopefully this is helpful, {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihiltres: That's very helpful: thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vajrayana

Do you feel the need to solve the 60 links to disambiguation pages in Template:Vajrayana created by the link Kriyayoga? You pushed on to change that link, so it is more then reasonable to ask you to solve the mess created. The Banner talk 11:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With thanks to @TartarTorte: who got there before me ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vinkov and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 4 § Vinkov until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shhhnotsoloud,

I hope you are doing well, this second week into 2023. I noticed that you didn't post a talk page notice to the page creator when you PROD'd this page for deletion. I'd like to encourage you, if you aren't already using it, to use

any time you tag a page for any kind of deletion (CSD, PROD, AFD/RFD/CFD/etc.). Once you set up your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator", then Twinkle will post these talk page notices on your behalf and you don't need to worry about them. It has a lot of other great features that help with the administrative/reporting part of editing which you can explore.

If you are already familiar with Twinkle, well, I'm sorry for stating the obvious, just take this message as encouragement to always leave a talk page notice when you tag a page for deletion. Thank you and have a great year! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shhhnotsoloud, hopes you are good!

Could you help with the correct process of Disambiguating links, on São Paulo (state)? I recently need to revert some edition on the article and looks like other user was working on disambiguating links in the meantime. I don't know how to fix this to him. It looks like you have the knowledge to help.

thank you so much! B777-300ER (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @B777-300ER: (and pinging @Rodw:). You are trying to revert edits by Kauã Haock but you have used Restore to also revert edits by Rodw. Rodw's edits were correct. You should revert your last edit and revert Kauã Haock's edits individually, or manually add back the work Rodw did. I'm going to try doing that for you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some edits could not be undone. You'll have to do them manually. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! B777-300ER (talk)

Hi Shhhnotsoloud, I have nominated the page Agbiz at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agbiz procedurally per the 2021 RfC on contested BLAR. My rationale for reverting the BLAR was that despite a lack of mention there seems to be a bit showing that Agbiz sees to be as shorthand for Agribusiness. Best! TartarTorte 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TartarTorte: OK, thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your message on proposed deletion of CPIM (disambiguation), which I think I have created. But by the time I noticed your message, the page was already deleted. I might not have any issues with the deletion but since history is not available for deleted pages, I won't be able to tell. Please allow for more time for the stakeholders to review your proposals before (unilaterally) making decisions. Aravind V R (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Nothing from Nothing (disambiguation), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by R. S. Shaw (talk • contribs) 05:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved Dead air (disambiguation) to Dead Air. Would you mind explaining why? I think that since there's already a page at Dead air, moving the disambiguation page to something similar would cause confusion, especially to users who don't understand that capitalization matters in article titles. RteeeeKed💬📖 04:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @

WP:DIFFCAPS gives other examples. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see, carry on. RteeeeKed💬📖 17:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Hylidae, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks, ]

Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the

pages, along with others.

I was under the impression that some of those hatnotes (I didn't create all of those on all of these pages, but a good deal of them) were ok, and no one ever said anything different. Perhaps I'll read

]

Heelo @Historyday01: Hatnotes are intrusive: they impede the reader in getting to where they want to be. They should be short and are only required "to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for". Happy editing! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, many of those articles I only added hatnotes because I thought it "made sense", and realize what you do now, that hatnotes can be intrusive. So you are right that they should be short and only used sparingly. Historyday01 (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Jerome, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

. Thanks, ]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sankar (writer & director), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sankar (writer & director) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Mountain people (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

{{One other topic}} left unchecked for two months; even though I could add the book, currently it doesn't have an article, and I feel like hatnotes and

WP:SMALLDETAILS

would be enough to distinguish them. The Ik can be added as a hatnote as well.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm. Technically you are correct, but in the long we will have to restore it, the other books seems notable too.

]

Removal of subheadings and main article links on both

Eslöv school attack

Hello, I was confused on your decision to remove Subheading text and links to main articles on both of these pages. I was hoping you could explain your reasoning, I'd also like to mention I appreciate you moving Kristianstad School attack to "Kristianstad school attack".

Kind regards, Salutations25 (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)User:Salutations25[reply]

@

MOS:HEADINGS, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility

has helpful tips: "Do not skip parts of the sequence, such as selecting levels for emphasis; this is not the purpose of headings". Prose generally reads better if it's not broken up in to single-sentence paragraphs.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I sort of understand, I am fairly new to making larger edits as in the past I mainly made minor edits using an IP. Thank you for these links, I'll need to read them.

Salutations25 (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of incoming links are directed to the World War I blockade which was known by that name, and the article was the primary topic until moved in response to Talk:Blockade_of_Germany_(1914–1919)#Requested_move_8_September_2023 which had no support but moved anyway. I will initiate a RM but this avoids a metric tonne of disambigation links in WWI articles. Links to the WWII article were already correct. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @GraemeLeggett: I know, but you can't just ignore an RM (which was properly constituted and received no opposition) because you don't like it. You're out of order: if your RM succeeds then revert me. Now please go back and undo your revert at Blockade of Germany because right now you're going to confuse readers who land there. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Minor Barnstar
		Hello! I meant to send my appreciation earlier, but thank you for drafting the disambiguation page at Marsouin during the RfD discussion. It may not be much, but putting it together was a big help during the RfD. There was a lot of different possibilities to go with at that title, so thank you! Utopes (talk / cont) 01:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shhhnotsoloud,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username MicrobiologyMarcus, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged

first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|MicrobiologyMarcus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 18:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I have a query about this edit, where you deleted the

]

Hello @MeegsC: Why would that be preferable to adding to or improving Ephebos (disambiguation) ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because Ephebe is the name of a lichen genus. Ephebos is not. MeegsC (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MeegsC: Good point. I've improved the hatnote at Ephebos. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Shhhnotsoloud:. That's an improvement, though there are other potential "ephebe" searchers that will also redirect to ephebos and have no idea how to get to the article they're REALLY looking for. I'd suggest you tweak the disambiguation note to let people know to check there for ephebe (and other sound-alikes) also. Though why you're making people take two steps to find an article when a disambiguation page would get them there in one is beyond me, really. MeegsC (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Poland

I'd like to follow up on the topic related to the

]

@E-960: Improvements are always welcome! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to

. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Anglican Church has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 16 § Anglican Church until a consensus is reached. Notifying previous commenters on old RfD.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this but it appears that NmWT has renamed themselves and retired. Not exactly the outcome I wanted but I thought it may be of interest to you in case you didn't know. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

so, I'm working on a project that involves a lot of navigating from near-miss to intended articles via dab links, and I'm coming to realize that I generally like how dab pages are being written but generally dislike how hatnotes are being written.

Ugh! This type of notice needs to be as short as possible to be as sweet as possible; pointless duplication isn't as bad as it would be in the article body... no, it's worse!

I've been trying to trim the bloat and sprawl as I go, and the workarounds I've come up with are very much along the same lines as yours - stumbling upon one of your

ones was particularly nice, because I'd been intending to use that phrasing for a while but, never having seen anyone else do so, never quite had the nerve to. Much appreciated!

For multiples, my current favourite pattern is to use {{for-text}} like so (real cross-linked use cases this time):

(Heh, looks like I missed the title markup there, but never mind, for these intents and purposes.) It's about as short as the grammatical structure allows, and what may be even more important is that the information structure is consistent that way. I suspect the vast majority of users are familiar enough with Wikipedia hatnotes that they rarely really read them, but instead take in the crucial words, meaning "album" and "film" in the first case, at a glance, and mentally discard the rest as filler. This is facilitated by reproducing the placement and punctuation predetermined by the qualified "(album)" link for the unqualified one, IMO. (ETA: For applying this to a more complex case, see Funeral.)

Anyway, to get to my main point, my impression is that bad hatnotes along the lines of my first "2024 Some Artist album" example are as common as they are not only because editors adopt each others' bad habits, but also because there are underlying systemic issues. Like,

explicitly says to "avoid descriptions that simply repeat information given in the link", using

• "Dark Star" (song), a song N

as a how-not-to example.

similarly starts out by saying stuff like "should generally be as concise as possible" and "lead text, not the hatnote, should explain what the article is about", but then uses

as its first how-to example, instead of actually implementing those ideas and reducing it to

Now, with phrases as short as these, even I don't believe it makes much of a difference in an article. But in a guideline, the bar should be set a bit higher, and first laying out what "should" be and not be, only to then follow up with examples that don't really adhere to those "shoulds", strikes me as, um, sub-optimal?

That said, I reckon at the true root of the problem are the templates themselves. The {{for}}-type requires a description, and when none is needed, placeholder phrases like "other uses" are inserted. The {{distinguish}}-type doesn't allow for a description, so when one is needed, it has to be added via the freeform "text" variants and parameters.

It stands to reason that this is precisely the wrong way 'round, surely. "For" is typically used for stuff that has the same name, and so needs a qualified title (like "Turkey (bird)"), which takes care of the description. "Distinguish" is typically used for stuff that has a merely similar name, and so doesn't need and therefore doesn't have that conveniently descriptive qualifier built in. Plus, mentioning the potential for "confusion" in the latter's very wording, but then failing to reduce it by supplying additional information, seems outright wrong-headed.

The sense I'm getting from all this is that people somehow settled on those phrasings early on, and then let their respective grammatical structures decide for them where information should and shouldn't go. Thus putting the cart before the horse, as it were.

Finally and even more fundamentally, I don't think I agree with the implicit notion that because hatnotes are part of proper articles, they need to be in proper prose, as opposed to the fragmentary style that's fine for dab pages. Functionally, hatnotes work like miniature dab sections, and by that reckoning, the information should be presented in a more rather than less compressed form than on a full page.

Okay, I think that's everything I meant to cover - here's hoping I had you mostly nodding in agreement, as opposed to nodding off! :P

- 2A02:560:5829:B000:99D:3DCE:4DAE:FDB (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes I do agree with everything you say. It's just that trying to change guidance by consensus is painful and sometimes has unintended consequences, so like you I proceed in accordance with guidelines but conservatively, or minimalistically if you like. Personally I would rarely use the 2nd parameter of {{about}}, but very often use the text= facility in {{distinguish}}. Happy editing - and I would urge you to operate from a registered account rather than as an IP editor, which would give you more credibility and make it easier for you to receive Talk page comments: see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you revert your move here? Marcus Octavius the tribune of 133 BC is only marginally better known than his homonym here. There is no primary topic for this name. T8612 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I was guided by

Marcus Octavius (name) which specifically says: "The most known member was the tribunus plebis in 133 BC...". So either he is the most known member, and his article is the primary topic; or there is no primary topic and the (name) page is moved to the base name. Is that latter option what you advise? The situation where the base name is a redirect to one or other of those pages is unacceptable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

He is the most known member for the specialists of the period, not for the average Wikipedia reader, for whom they all are nonentities. There are very few Romans of the Republic that are primary topics, because they had a very limited number of first names, and things rapidly get confusing if we don't have (magistracy+year) after their names. In the case of Marcus Octavius, there is a homonym, also tribune of the plebs, who passed a law on the same topic a generation later. The (name) page should be turned into a disamb page. T8612 (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:.  Done Thanks for your help. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]