GilaMonster536

Hi there, its that the term may refer to various real world stuff rather than a videogame series (and the term was coined before the game was invented), in particular military operations etc. Just sayin:D Wunghuang 14/10/24, 23:25 (UTC) Wunghuang (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's just that there was already a primary topic. If you want that to change, do a WP:RM discussion. You also forgot to change "Overwatch may also refer to:" to "Overwatch may refer to:". GilaMonster536 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you've now opened two WP:MFD discussions for disambiguation pages, including one (which I've procedurally closed) that was opened after your earlier MFD discussion for a DAB page was closed as the incorrect venue by another editor. WP:AFD is the place to discuss deleting disambiguation pages that you think should be deleted/adjusted if WP:G14 doesn't apply. Thanks. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks GilaMonster536 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion which you started at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Gene Robinson (disambiguation) has been moved to the correct venue. Sincerely —Alalch E. 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, GilaMonster536,

You are still a very new editor, learning about Wikipedia's many policies and guidelines and gaining editing experience slowly. Please do not jump into administrative areas like nominating pages for deletion consideration until you have been editing for a few months. It's easy to get in over your head when you aren't familiar with procedures and take on new areas.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's fantastic that you're a new editor who is into disambiguation pages and disambiguation in articles btw. Much of the disambiguation "infrastructure" needs constant improvement and maintenance, and deletion of non-compliant dabs is just an aspect of that. Maybe you've already discovered the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. —Alalch E. 13:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following our recent discussion on my talk-page , it is obvious we have differing views on the the use of hat-notes and disambiguation pages. Despite the rather stern tone you adopted there, I did try to respond in a civil and as low-key manner as possible to explain my point of view. Rather than leave it at that you have now began working through the dab pages I've started, as listed on my user page, and removing any hat-notes that link to them. While some people might regard that as akin to harassment, I would not go that far but certainly feel it is highly problematic behaviour. You certainly don't seem to understand the difference between a guideline, such as WP:NOTAMB, and a rule. As time allows, I will review your edits to those pages and amend accordingly. Hopefully you will respect any edit I chose to make. I appreciate you a fairly new editor but please try to adopt a less confrontational approach in future. 14GTR (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm just trying to make sure Wikipedia is as it should be. Could you please explain why you think that rules and guidelines are different? GilaMonster536 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

By what logic can you describe my edit as "unconstructive"?

1. This is en.wiki. In English, the name of the country is Spain. The article about it is Spain. My version explains to readers of English that its name in Spanish is España.
2. Your version, to use the name España in the disambiguation article of that name, creates a pointless redirect.

Is there anything more to be said? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your edit added an unnecessary bullet point right by the primary topic, and it breaks MOS:DAB guidelines. According to MOS:DAB, if the primary topic article has a different title than the term being disambiguated, then the first line normally uses a redirect from the ambiguous term to link to that article. For a proper example, see Cosmonaut (disambiguation). GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:AGF, "unconstructive" is an unreasonable evaluation of my edit: in similar circumstances, I would revert with Better before and avoid impugning the motives of the editor.

I concede the bullet point.

A better equivalent might be (if it existed) Космонавт (disambiguation), because we would not begin by saying Космонавт is an astronaut: we would always give primacy to the form used in English (ok, it gets even more complicated because of the redirect to section and we discourage 'forced' foreign language redirect articles but it is the general principle that I'm trying to clarify here: we should be prioritising the name in English over the name in Spanish).

This is not a hill I'm going to die on because it is not a credible navigation route. But how about a compromise wording that reads España—endogenously—is Spain, a country in southwestern Europe.? That way the primary use of the word is in bold, it is written in compliance with MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, but the wikilink is directly to the relevant article rather than a redirect. Or is that "unconstructive" too? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Understood. GilaMonster536 (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply