1 |
Varangians from Sweden
Hi! I noticed your partial revert here. You've restored three links to the modern country Sweden, home of IKEA, Saab and ABBA. Not only do I think this qualifies as riding through the middle of the guideline major examples of ... countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) and Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, ..., but just on aesthetic and usefulness to the reader grounds, doesn't seem that helpful to understanding the subject of the article. In the 9th century, there was no IKEA, Saab or ABBA, and the link to the modern country just seems to jar with the medieval vibe of the article. I saw you'd previously made a similar edit, so I think we're probably on the same side of this one really. Anyway, I'm well aware this is a fairly minor matter; it's an excellent and fascinating article and I enjoyed reading it and making a few trifling copyedits. Thanks for caring about this sort of thing, thanks for not just reverting, and take care of yourself. --Wubslin (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Wubslin: Hello, I would never wholesale revert significant copyedit efforts over a few links, so no worries about that. MOS:OVERLINK can be a tricky thing due to different opinions about what constitues ″major examples″, there are obviously some that can be more or less fully agreed upon like the examples given in the MOS, then there are others that are more subjective ones which I guess Sweden and other Nordic countries are part of, as well as other similarly sized countries. I generally think people enforce it too much, the MOS specifically states ″However, try to be conscious of your own demographic biases – what is well known in your age group, line of work, or country may be less known in others.″ Wikipedia is meant to be an easily accessible general encyplopedia, I think it is unfair to assume general readers are going to be as familiar with geography and countries as the average editor that would work with links would be.
- I don't think the link to Sweden does any harm, the article isn't all about ″ABBA, IKEA and Saab″, it covers the history of the nation as well including having a relevant Viking Age section, it's also the same area geographically discussed on the article. Russia is definetely an overlink, probably Ukraine too, Belarus could probably be linked. You may notice there are some other links you didn't remove, such as Denmark, Norway and Azerbaijan which I also have not removed as I don't consider them overlinks. As for MOS:DUPLINK, ″but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead″. I think it is useful to have one link in the lead and one at the first mention after, since some people only read the lead as it is a short summary and others dive into the full body for a longer read. That's my two cents on it at least, I see you have also made a similar edit on Vikings, so hopefully with this you better understand my reasoning for restoring the links. Thanks for reaching out as well as your solid copyediting work, have a nice weekend. :) --TylerBurden (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary on Jake Paul
Hey, Tyler. I read your edit summary on Jake Paul, and I wanted to clear the air on a couple of things: First, per WP:TPO, you are correct to say that you cannot edit other people's comments without their permission, but "fixing format errors" is allowed per the guidelines; and second, I added that "reftalk" template to prevent WP:REFCLUTTER at the bottom of the page. Thank you. L33tm4n (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @L33tm4n: Hello, sorry about that, it was a complete blunder of mine. Let's just say that day there had been some drinks involved, and I genuienely can't remember making that edit, nor why I thought going on Wikipedia in that state was a good idea but rest assured it was a mistake. From looking at it I guess I got confused since you had made some talk page edits at the same time, and so for some reason thought you had altered someones talk comment, but then I reverted you on the actual article so I am as confused about it as you probably were. At least it was quickly reverted. Needless to say not one of my finest moments, again sorry for the inconvenience. Next time I get home from a night out it'll be a self imposed temporary ban haha. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you can remove the explanation of hybridity and post-colonialism on the Anglo-Scandinavian page, it's an absolutely critical theoretical point underlying the entire article (which I intend to expand in the near future when I have a spare moment). What was your justification for removing it?Faust.TSFL (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Faust.TSFL: I thought I made that pretty clear in the edit summary, you can't just add that to the immediate lead without including a reference. --TylerBurden (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- That link provided doesnt include any comments at all that I can see. Hybridisation is a pretty basic, fundametal element of post-colonialism, and is much better explained in the linked pages on the topic and Bhabha. Faust.TSFL (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Faust.TSFL: I am not sure how familiar you are with Wikipedia policy, but see WP:VERIFY. Any content you add needs to be supported by added references to the article, which you did not add for your edit. That's why I removed it. --TylerBurden (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- That link provided doesnt include any comments at all that I can see. Hybridisation is a pretty basic, fundametal element of post-colonialism, and is much better explained in the linked pages on the topic and Bhabha. Faust.TSFL (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Erling Haaland
Hi, I noticed your revert here and wanted to point out that as it's now 1 July in the UK it should be fine for the article to be updated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hey there, yea, I misremembered UK time and thought it was in line with UTC for a sec. Either way it is now also 1 July UTC so all good to go. TylerBurden (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Country links
You're the one edit warring, and as I say, there're already specific links of places within the country. And your points of Sweden being an unknown country and that we must keep things as currently are just because are laughable. The only reason I'll no revert again right away is that MoS isn't policy, just a guideline. But it's clear you're not neutral when discussing Sweden.... Urbanoc (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I guess WP:CIVIL (a policy, not a guideline) went out of the window here? You should follow WP:BRD and start a discussion next time you make a bold edit and are reverted, not just restore it. You're now making strong accusations that I am somehow biased, with no proof to provide for it. If this is how you handle minor disputes about a link, I don't even wanna know what you're like otherwise. Yikes. I would have thought you had stopped edit warring to you know, not edit war and instead discuss the matter like adults, but instead you came here with whatever this is meant to be. If you plan on continuing to edit war, we can go to for a visit to WP:AN/3 if that's how you want things to go. Rather not though and I'm still open for civil discussion to hear out actual arguments rather than snarky comments and baseless accusations. TylerBurden (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what edit summary you read, but I'm also not saying anything "must be kept as they currently are". I asked you to not edit war and gain consensus for your removal to a link of a country smaller than several states in the US. How you are twisting that into this hostility and assumptions of being biased somehow, is truly beyond me. TylerBurden (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)