This is an archive of past discussions with User:DankJae. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Croesnewydd
Hi, wondering if there's a grammar typo in the second paragraph of the hall's description; generally offices, or general offices? Cltjames (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Cltjames, I’ll look at the wording, one source stated it was made into offices while another said it became a centre. Tried to balance both, but probably can do with better wording. DankJae08:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Boldface outside the lead
I can see you're on a bit of a de-bolding spree! I noticed that you de-bolded "Dolydelen" at Dolwyddelan because it wasn't in the lead, so I just wanted to flag up that, according to MOS:BOLD, if a term redirects to an article subsection then the first mention of it in that subsection can also use boldface. It doesn't really apply to Dolwyddelan, but you might find an example on your travels. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of that, if the subsection especially if it is named under the redirect then bold can remain. Dolydelen was clearly an alternative spelling. I left one or two because of that. DankJae22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh I'm not at all fussed about Dolydelen, I doubt anyone searches for the village by that name. I just didn't want your efforts to be in vain elsewhere :) A.D.Hope (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Left them at Local board of health for example. Dolydelen wasn't at the beginning and the section was on the name generally rather than that specific spelling. Don't mind if some are re-bolded at a later date should a redirect be recreated and it be a common alt in lead, or acts in a dedicated section. Just generally popping around leads doing multiple corrections, from language tagging, to singularising. DankJae22:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
No, you're doing a good job – it's not the most exciting editing, so thank you for doing it. I do trust you know what you're doing (more than me, certainly), the edit summary just gave me pause. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I do it spontanously anyway, ranging from MOS:GEO, capitalisation, order, short description etc. Once you've got a system going harder to stop. Yeah the summary was probably too generalised in that instance, probably when I first used it it was clearly not in the lead, but then just re-used the edit summary because it was close enough. DankJae23:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
It's easy to fall into the trap of using 'close enough' edit summaries, I do it more than I should. Sounds like you've got a good system going, I can't claim to be as organised. The trust is well-earned, but if I happen to see a mistake I'll give you a shout (and vice-versa, of course). A.D.Hope (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I notice that in your edit of the article on Lake District you quote MOS:BOLDALTNAMES but you leave the name Cumbrian Mountains in bold. However you have decided to rename them 'Cumbrian mountains. Nowhere did that MOS say that names should be written in lowercase. Unless you can show differently, I must revert your edit. If you can show why I shouldn't do this then I must rename such mountains as Moel hebog, Glyder fawr etc. OrewaTel (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@OrewaTel, apologies, initially removed it as only Cumbrian mountains appeared as a redirect, but yes apparently it does exist as a redirect so capitalised so can be justified, and already self-reverted it. (Must’ve been blind at “what links here”) If any other names wished to be boldened in the lead but do not currently redirect, if a redirect with a disambiguator is justifiably made then be free to re-bold. But if it doesn’t redirect, and therefore signify not a commonly used alt name, then they shouldn’t be bold when interpreting MOS:BOLD.
Moel Hebog is clearly capitalised in the title so clearly used, but the main topic of Cumbrian Mountains is of a different name. DankJae10:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. And now you've given me a heads-up, I'll look out for random bold words and names when I'm editing pages. I hadn't considered them to be wrong - just annoying. OrewaTel (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@OrewaTel, Be fine to, the specific thing is at MOS:BOLD#OTHER. I do find some leads have too much bolding (opting for italicising or parenthesis as alternatives over full removal), but ofc every now and then a redirect can be created instead to justify the bolding, so if you feel such be free to make them. In the end, leads change all the time. Be bold! but not too much of the other bold! DankJae23:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings!
Hello there, thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2024! ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reverts on my edits to the Water supply and sanitation in England and Wales page. I'm very sorry for such big removal. I was just trying to tidy up the page and update it a bit and remove a little bit of POV. I honestly think the page would best if it was split with page respected pages for England and Wales, as England and Wales both have seperate water supply systems and policy now.
I hope you don't mind, I added the image back I added and a source.
Hi, Merry Xmas! too, I did view your edits as good faith but were too large to ignore. I do believe the article needs cleaning up, although became concerned with the large removals, although can understand the concerns and efforts. The article was disputed about half a year ago, when the failed split was raised, and the article was overhauled probably to a POV. Understand the argument for a split, however it was rejected at the talk.
But I do urge you to use the edit summary to make it clearer what you're doing, "added source" but then removing a lot of content, seemed very contentious. Will look at the concerns you raised, such as POV, and may try and rework the article, it does need improving so thanks for your efforts! DankJae19:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I will take this on board, 100%. I am new to this site so learning the ropes.
Sionk (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
All the same issues, and all that one person ever wants to discuss *is* the City Line. Not a CU by any means, but I'm certain it probably is. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Still, some new way forward is needed at Merseyrail, seems the occasional IP isn't happy, even if they may possibly be the same person. But I am aware, many locals could believe the City Line is as part Merseyrail because it is branded as such, but don't recognise that the article is also about the train company. But best discussions on that is at that talk. I hope there isn't another edit war though. DankJae19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
.JPG)
