User talk:Multichill/Archives/2013/December
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Multichill in topic Commons links
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Delink
You could use User:BeneBot*/movelinks.js for moving sitelinks. Why you just deleted Q13588249 instead of use this to replace with Q55485? --by Revi레비 at 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't delete dead-end railway station (Q13588249). Having dead-end railway station (Q55485) as adjacent station (P197) seems incorrect to me, I restored that item Multichill (talk) 08:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Commons links
Hi, please see commons:Category:Bitcoin, before your edit it contained link to ru:Bitcoin. It was good because I can navigate from image collection to corresponding article making only one click. Now I need many clicks to do the same. So I think your edit make worse Commons usability. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's the result of Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links. Still plenty to clean up at User:Multichill/Possible dupes. Multichill (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cleaning up internal logical architecture is good task. But I think improving internal architecture is only the secondary goal. The primary goal of Commons is providing access to media content for our readers. Usability affects to primary goal. So please restore links on Commons before removing its from Wikidata. Or lets think about another way to make clean internal architecture and do not degrade Commons usability. About Wikidata:Requests for comment/Commons links: it has another results, has no consensus and uncompleted at all, see the RFC and its talk page. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no response... I start discussion on Commons:Commons:Village pump#Commons usability degradation. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. I'm sure we want to do the RFC all over again. Multichill (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)