User talk:98Tigerius

Committed identity: c95a739811fb004d63ac532409a62fe88d1b488ecd2ee6761396a60b590c81b0ba0b96c5eb0b9d2232bd45c418630dc425d48ffdb8067d83b9aacf367706384e is a SHA-256 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi 98Tigerius, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:REPEATLINK

WP:REPEATLINK does not encourage linking in separate tables in separate sections, and you'll find that when a link is already present in the body of an article, it is usually not linked again, even if REPEATLINK says "once per major section" is fine—you can see GAs and FAs for this standard. Besides, you clearly noticed I had removed the links, which were only added late last month. They were not present up until that point, therefore WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply as I was reverting to the way the page was. Please do not manually revert an edit restoring the way the page was (BRD). I don't believe readers are aided by the same links that are present in the table directly above. I really don't believe readers would jump to the monthly chart table alone and skip the weekly one, therefore I believe most readers have already encountered those links by the time they reach the monthly chart table. Ss112 08:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why List of UK Albums Chart number ones of the 2000s, a featured list, repeatedly hyperlink/wikilink the same artist(s) and/or album(s) in a different subsections? Also the List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2010 to List of Gaon Album Chart number ones of 2016 have all repeated links in monthly chart table but no one bother to de-link those. So MOS:STYLEVAR applies before that non-existent STATUSQUO of yours and it should be the same from 2017 to 2024 lists. It is also said in MOS:REPEATLINK: Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 10:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

98Tigerius, I have nothing to do with those lists as I did not create them and have either never or barely ever edited them. The lists you just cited are also longer and more complete than this. While it's a deletion-discussion argument, the logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here: just because there are other instances of repeat-linking on Wikipedia doesn't mean it needs to be done everywhere, or that because I have a standard I'm following that I'm going to seek out contrary instances and apply my preference everywhere. While the part you just quoted is talking about repeat linking within the same table, the idea of linking in adjacent tables is why I just said I don't believe readers are aided by the same links that are present in the table directly above. I really don't believe readers would jump to the monthly chart table alone and skip the weekly one, therefore I believe most readers have already encountered those links by the time they reach the monthly chart table. Ss112 10:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you have nothing to do with those list nor I but there should be "consistency" in those related list articles. And why would you follow your own standard and preference? Please read WP:OWN. Anyways, we will never have a agreement as we see things differently so I will seek a third opinion to settle this once and for all. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 11:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@98Tigerius Seeking a third opinion to settle something once and for all is not the way Wikipedia works, but FWIW I agree with @Ss112 who has far more experience here than you and has cited well-established Wikipedia policies which you are ignoring. I suggest you move on. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be "consistency" in list articles or on Wikipedia in general because articles are written and worked on by different editors. I don't think that I "own" an article merely because I reverted to the way it was, hence STATUSQUO—the way it was for months before an editor added the repeated links last month. You also misinterpreted what MOS:STYLEVAR applies to. It doesn't apply to nor does it even say it applies to sets of articles (e.g. number-one lists for a certain chart)—it applies to individual articles and unnecessarily changing the style of it from one to another. Ss112 12:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)