User talk:Alvestrand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Alvestrand/Archive1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

feel free to add topics.....

Older talk:

• User talk:Alvestrand/Archive1

[edit] Re:Bot stopped?

Hi, thank you for letting me know about my bot. I've been busy with my computer in the past week or so (formatting, re-installing everything, etc) and completely forgot about the bot. I've started it up again, and it should now run again every day. Cheers, Jayden54 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphan Tags

Surely the fact that you state that only incoming links from other article, and not from categories, means that more than half of the pages on Wikipedia should have this tag on them then?? Please respond to my user talk page. Dreamweaverjack 21:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Response on User talk:Dreamweaverjack as requested. --Alvestrand 21:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement that you have made on this issue surely means that around a third of all Wikipedia pages would need the orphan tag. My understanding of the category pages was that they were there to group information by relevance to a certain subject matter.

The reason why I say this, is because most people access this website to research topics, and surely the categorised lists are the best way of showing all of the articles which are relevant to the subject being looked for! --Dreamweaverjack 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My understading of the wikipedia website was that it was supposed to be an online encyclopedia-type reference tool. So why does it need to use the Orphan tag when every encyclopedia that I have every seen has pages listed alphabetically without all of the topics needing to have links to them on other pages. Most just have a title and a list of relvant articles in the same way that the category pages operate!! --Dreamweaverjack 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(Since you've started removing the discussion from your page, I'll reply here) In my opinion, because other encyclopedias have failed to exploit the power of the Web. WP:NOT - Wikipedia is NOT a paper encyclopedia. --Alvestrand 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The way that I came about the figure of a third is to do with the amount of pages which are already within the orphan tag section!! --Dreamweaverjack 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

To clear something up, I am only removing the orphan tag from pages which contain at least two items in the category display box at the bottom of the article, as I consider these to be two links. --Dreamweaverjack 22:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion will continue on Template talk:Orphan. --Alvestrand 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles

Not having any in-line citations does not mean an article is non-cited, the episode /is/ the source (the "primary source"), it's "self referencing" to the episode, though I agree that it's going to require some verifiable secondary sources as well. The televisions series is notable, the episode is inherent. --Matthew.