User talk:Niceguyedc: Difference between revisions

If you're here because you've seen me pipe a link through a disambiguation redirect, such as {{other uses|Foo (disambiguation){{!}}Foo}}, and wonder what I'm doing, please read WP:INTDABLINK.

If you're here because I disambiguated [[British]] to [[United Kingdom|British]] in a nationality parameter that was originally added by someone else, please feel free to fully revert the parameter without comment here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Boadu Emma (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Hello sir, may I know the reason why MIM doesn't show up in Google search? It's extremely difficult to get any results after searching MIM in any search engine. Please if there is any remedy to this, let me know.[reply]

• @Boadu Emma: The MIM disambiguation page does show up in the Google search results (it's 6th when I search for MIM), but I'm not sure it matters that a disambiguation page shows up on Google search. -Niceguyedc (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boadu Emma (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC) Ok sir thanks. From my end, the MIM Disambiguation page doesn't show up. MIM - Master in International Management is what I see at the 6th place. Its making it extremely difficult for people to get access to the articles about MIM.[reply]

Unless I add Wikipedia to MIM, I don't find any result whenever I try to search for MIM. If there's something you can do about it, pls do so

And please, I am referring to Google results from Wikipedia.

Because all the results displayed by google about MIM are those from other websites but not from Wikipedia source.

I know Wikipedia isn't concerned about search engines but with your experience, if there's something to remedy the problem, kindly do so.Boadu Emma (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boadu Emma: Disambiguation pages aren't really something that even should be seen by Google search. Google should be showing the most common topics that relate to MIM (similar to how the New York City page shows up when searching "New York" instead of the New York disambiguation page) .topic on the MIM page are you trying to see? -Niceguyedc (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niceguyedc, I get your explanations perfectly. I want to see the places topics sir.Boadu Emma (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, unless you're in Ghana, it's unlikely that those topics will show up in a Google search for "MIM" or "Mim" on the first page. -Niceguyedc (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please be informed that I have made changes to your request regarding Hayk and Argus. If the mentioned redirection was problematic, should we add the genealogy of the descendants of Georgian kings? (I also wrote this on the review page). Thank you!--Lasha-george (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for your corrections on Güven Turan article. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in respect of this edit, is there some policy or guideline that prevents a dab page from being included in category just because some of the entries on the dab page don't fit the category? Ratnam is a common Indian name, hence the reason that three quarters of the entries refer to individuals named Ratnam.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Obi2canibe: Disambiguation pages aren't articles, so categorization is not usually present. However, per WP:DBC, name categories are acceptable on pages where a separate name page isn't present. So if you want to re-add the categories, please do. -Niceguyedc (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2021 has started. The India WikiProject has a backlog of around 10,000 unassessed articles, built up over the last few years. The time has come for comprehensive housekeeping and that's what this drive is all about. The drive will run from 1 September 2021 to 30 September 2021.

We request you to participate in the assessment drive. Learn more about the event here, learn assessment process and rewards details. Please add your name as a participant here.

Feel free to discuss this on the event talk page or at WikiProject India noticeboard.

You received this message, because you participated in earlier iteration of the assessment drive, or we felt that you may be interested to participate. --Titodutta (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi niceguy. I couldn't see any advantage in piping the link as you did here. I have removed the pipe (and the clunky {{!}} template), which seems cleaner to me. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: When intentionally linking to a disambiguation page, the link should be piped through the (disambiguation) redirect per WP:INTDABLINK. This helps those of us at WP:DPL who fix ambiguous links (and the bots that help us) know that the link is intentional. -Niceguyedc (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing that up for me. I got distracted by Sir Tatton Sykes half way through.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 19:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the DAB links for me... it looks as though you have an automated or semi-automated way of doing this? I would be very interested in knowing about it. Andrewa (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrewa: Nothing automated - I patrol the recent moves log. If I'm online I'm able to catch when a whenever a disambiguator on a title gets changed. The ones like the one you did (Alexander Fraser (British Army officer)) are just a matter of cleaning up the new links, as you immediately redirected it to the correct disambiguation page. Plenty of times, an article gets moved to a more precise title, but the original title is left as a redirect to that title, so a little more is required (updating the redirect like you did, moving the disambiguation page to that title or possibly undoing the move, as it might be a primary topic issue, move vandalism, etc.) Another thing checking the move log does is highlight page hijacking - this is a current example, although I was offline at the time so I didn't see it. -Niceguyedc (talk) 05:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know which WHYY? Both of them use the same web site.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: I choose the NPR radio station over the PBS TV station because news is usually more commonly reported from NPR radio than PBS TV. Both do use the same site, so the best link would probably be a combined page on the whole station/company, but that doesn't exist (they're actually pretty rare for situations like this). Sending readers to a disambiguation page first doesn't seem like a great option, as both pages give similar information, so going to the NPR station seems best. -Niceguyedc (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this could happen again, so I needed to know which is best.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User reverted wrong edits and attacked me out of blue— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.125.29 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was posting on this talk page for another reason. I left you a message on your talk page.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for cleaning up the disambiguation mess I left behind at Peter Rainier; not having done anything like that before I was a little unsure what to do about it myself. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pickersgill-Cunliffe: No problem at all. -Niceguyedc (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant amount of evidence I have added in the TALK page [1] of Second Anglo-Afghan War where it clearly states in all 8 references that Afghanistan was a PROTECTORATE state. Will you be ok to add correct information and references in the infobox of the article? Same for article British protectorate, where Afghanistan has been incorrectly added under Protected state instead of Protectorate state. 199.82.243.102 (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]