Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Your edit summary did not really explain your rationale for reverting me. Note that WP:DRNC frowns upon the type of edit summary that you provided.
Do you think there was an actual problem with my addition? Green Montanan (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. It sounds like aren't aware, but you're making a change to long-standing Wikipedia style, not clarifying existing usage. You're free to propose this, but I'm pretty sure the change wouldn't get a lot of support.

Specifically, what you're calling an introductory line is really a link to a primary topic, when one exists. (A primary topic exists when one topic referred to by a name is much more widespread than others, so the name goes directly to that article, e.g., Fox, and the DAB page is Fox (disambiguation), as opposed to the name being used for the DAB, e.g., Ruff.

Thus, it's appropriate that this line has the same format as all the rest of the entries. Per the above link, the brief explanatory sentence is otherwise an individual entry per MOS:DABENTRY.

The example you gave with pinkwashing is non-standard.

Regards, Danbloch (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me.

• MOS:DABPRIMARY is Section 2.2, "Linking to a primary topic"
• MOS:DABINTRO is Section 2.3, "Introductory line"

Two separate things. My addition was to the section about the Introductory line, and wouldn't impact the primary topic. Green Montanan (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the primary topic is, "A fox is a medium-sized, omnivorous mammal of the family Canidae." The introductory line is "Fox may also refer to:" Danbloch (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty understanding your point. Are you saying that primary topic and introductory line are one in the same? Green Montanan (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm saying. From Fox (disambiguation) again, the first two lines are:

A fox is a medium-sized, omnivorous mammal of the family Canidae.

Fox may also refer to:

The first line, "A fox is...", is the link to the primary topic.

The second line, "Fox may also refer to:", is the introductory line.

Danbloch (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I thought that primary topic and introductory line are mutually exclusive (i.e. a disambiguation page would have one or the other, not both).

Since you agree that the intoructory line at Pinkwashing is perfectly OK, perhaps we should state that when there is no primary topic, it's OK to have multiple blue links in the introductory line? Green Montanan (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I don't agree that the Pinkwashing DAB is okay. I'm just not getting involved. Really, I think that since the first line is neither a link to a primary topic nor an introductory line, it shouldn't be there. Danbloch (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For some unknown reasons, some mid or top quality recent sources saying the boomers' births were between 1944 and 1965 were erased and edited out of the article. I'm absolutely embarrassed and confused on this. How can recent sources be not of the top-quality kind, in particular those saying the boomers as born between 1944 and 1965? The older classification (1946 and 1964) is outdated and needs being changed and / or challenged because modern sources are saying that the boomers began entering this world around two years earlier than was previously thought (meaning during 1944) and the last year during which they were born was one year later than had been previously estimated (1965). How, though, can either I (or anybody else) find a high-quality reference to prove such? Angela Kate Maureen Pears 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Angela. I did give a reason, in the edit summary. But in more detail: The 1946-1964 range has almost universal agreement (which isn't true of the ranges for other generations). It's even in dictionaries. An alternate definition would need a better provenance than the two random people you gave. The sources currently in the article for 1946-1964 include the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (the dictionary I linked to above), the Pew Research Center, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Federal Reserve Board, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Gallup, YouGov, Australia's Social Research Center, and the United States Census Bureau. These are high quality sources. The two people that you give aren't.

You can raise this issue on Talk:Baby boomers and try to get a consensus there, but I would be surprised it there's support for it. Danbloch (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Danbloch. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 19 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey.

And wishing you a joyful Merry Christmas and a wonderful, happy 2026. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 20:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had reverted an edit of mine adding a library resources box to the article for Lloyd Alexander in the bibliography section. I wanted to let you know that I had in fact configured the box to return books by Lloyd Alexander not about him (you can test the link in the revision history). It was also recommended by WikiLoves Libraries that this box be added in the bibliography section for authors.

Since I think this was a misunderstanding of how I configured it, I wanted to ask you to consider adding back the library resources box. I don't want to edit war, but I still believe its addition was useful to the article. Thank you! AaronNealLucas (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've put it back. I'm still not completely convinced that this belongs in the article body, but it's something reasonable men can disagree on. Cheers, Danbloch (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! If you want, of course, I have no objection to it being in the external links if that seems better. I generally put it in the bibliography unless there are multiple different sections listing works (like a bibliography and discography or split bibliography, etc.) or if I don't supress the about links. That's just what feels right to me, but if there's concern that it will get in the way, I understand moving it. AaronNealLucas (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]