User talk:Wipe/Archive 1
Just to make the red link go away. Wipe 23:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Substub tags
[edit]Personally, I don't feel that it is usefl to have an article in the substub category if it can conceiably go anywhere else. (The substub category is way' too big for it to be at all likely that someone is going to browse it and find just the stub they wanted to expand.) That is why I removed the tag from Aldor; if you disagree with that assessment, I respect that, I just wanted you to know that it wasn't done on a whim. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:50, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I'm not one to start edit wars, especially on trivial matters like this.
- But I do disagree. It's not useful to exclude some substubs from the substub category. When people are browsing the category, they most likely aren't looking for any specific stub, but rather anything that might be interesting. The longer the list is the more likely it is that they find something they might consider expanding. At least it doesn't make searching harder since subjects are dispersed randomly in an alphabetical list.
- It's useful to divide stub categories into subcategories, but the substub category isn't divided and it's still easy to navigate and useful. Wipe 09:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
List of compounds
[edit]Wipe,
Since I notice that you've been quite active on List of compounds, I thought I should mention that I am currently working on dividing this page into List of inorganic compounds (now complete) and List of organic compounds (still working on that). See the talk page on List of compounds for discussion. I see you (quite appropriately) deleted a couple of entries that didn't belong- I have in fact found hundreds like that- obscure or even fictitious compounds, minerals (lots of those), and general terms (like carbohydrate) as well as mixtures. If you look at List of inorganic compounds you will see how much I chopped out, and the organic one will also lose a lot of the silly stuff (probably at least 30% of the total). If you have any thoughts please let me know. Walkerma 21:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, your work looks great. Should I have time to spare later on, I'll make further contributions and present my ideas on the relevant talk pages. I personally think that these kind of lists should only contain entries that have a reasonable likelyhood to have their articles written in the future (and those that already have articles). If someone decides to write about some strange esoteric subjects, the articles still somehow tend end up on the lists sooner or later - this has been my impression so far of this large loosely-knit socitey they call Wikipedia. Wipe 23:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks- I strongly agree with you. I think it's silly to have a link to cobalt(II) tetrafluoroborate when we didn't even have a page on cobalt(II) chloride until I wrote one in January! I try to be careful, though, and check up- you never know if the obscure compound is in fact really important as a semiconductor or a biochemical molecule that I'm unfamiliar with. Walkerma 04:34, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Wipe - a group of us are trying to empty out Category:substubs of all the items that have stub subcategories on them (where they will better be seen by editors). You seem to be dumping a few of them back in substub. It doesn't make our work any easier! Grutness|hello? 
08:05, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I hadn't read the substub category page lately. I wasn't aware of the new policy because there wasn't anything about it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting, Category:Stub_categories, Wikipedia:Template messages, or its subpages, and you seem to have a habit of not explaining your actions in edit summaries. All this reverting could be avoided if decisions and policies were communicated more openly. Wipe 08:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Appreciation
[edit]Hi Wipe,
I just wanted to leave a brief note. I think your comments about Colon Classification are interesting, and I appreciated them. Your diligence and care is apparent, and you got me to think about what I was trying to do in a clearer way. I can see your position and to some degree agree with it. However, I also think there is an opportunity to improve the article with the inclusion of with examples that may not clearly be Colon Classification, per se, but provide a useful way to look at Colon classification and help people to understand it better.
--Scott Jenkins 18:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're very kind. Examples are great, as long as they have a clear purpose and give accurate and relevant information about the subject. On the other hand, putting too much general information about a broad subject (such as classification or faceted classification) in an article about one part of it (such as CC) is not good practice. I believe we must trust people to be smart enough to click the hyperlinks if they want to know more. A "see also" section is also handy. However, short descriptions of the general subject and good choice of words are often needed to avoid creating too confusing articles. Wipe 01:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Template box reversion
[edit]Hi there. I've responded to your reversion here.~ Neuroscientist 09:50, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. Wipe 16:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Guitar reverting
[edit]Thanks for the tip on reverting you left at the Guitar article. Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James 16:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- There have been cases where information has been forgotten when reverters haven't been paying enough attention. Either someone reverts too far and erases newly added good edits, or doesn't revert far enough and old information erased by a vandal gets lost. It's good to hear you care about these things. Happy editing! Wipe 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
[edit]
|
- Well, eh, thank you! I've been here for so long and never gotten a proper welcome message. Is this a case of better late than never? 8-) Wipe 17:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)