User talk:Wbm1058

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For discussion of RMCD bot edits, see User talk:RMCD bot.


Disambiguation link notifications[edit]

As these are generated by a bot, and I occasionally check or patrol the status of these, I moved them to a special archive: /Disambiguation link notifications. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Alan Wilson (Alan H. Wilson)[edit]

As this page is basically a list of articles, I've reverted you. You might want to consider creating an article on him over. Read our guidelines on biographies first. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'd have to find more information on him to start a new article myself. He should be mentioned in Semiconductor device#History of semiconductor device development or History of the transistor—its on my todo list. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Computer hardware[edit]

Please understand the difference between the general term hardware that – when it comes to electronics and computers – may refer to any electronic circuit, such as single-purpose circuits designed to fulfill one particular job, and between computer hardware, which is hardware that is part of a computer, a general-purpose (or special- but multiple-purpose) device that can be custom-programmed to fulfill different jobs. Do not simply change all instances of hardware to computer hardware. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion continued here. Sad to see another good editor retire. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued further at Talk:Computer/Archive 5#Definitions of computer vs. computer (disambiguation), and general-purpose computer vs. special-purpose computer. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Distribution America[edit]

Editing this article to meet Wikipedia standards and restoring it to complete Wikipedia's coverage of hardware retailers' cooperatives is on my to-do list. Help with pointing me to useful references would be appreciated. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fecit, Pinxit[edit]


Your bot removed a valid although misplaced request. You can easily improve the project by creating the requested redirect. Thank you. (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. you can do this yourself. Just click on the red link to fecit, and enter the following text to create the redirect page: #REDIRECT [[Pinxit]] and then save the page. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I just found that there is another way to do this. Go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects (WP:Redirects for creation redirects there). Either method is fine, but you might need to use the second method if you're not autoconfirmed. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but as an IP editor I can't create anything. I'll try the other route. Problem with such pages, in case you've never looked there, is that they have huge backlogs. Articles for creation sometimes has a backlog of over a thousand submissions. Odd that I couldn't find that page, though, so thank you--I knew it had to exist. (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


Thanks--that will work. See the frustrations of an IP editor? It takes two days for a simple redirect, and the ignorance of one editor can hold up the entire process. (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, so I helped you out. Maybe there should be an article on Signatures and inscriptions on art or something like that, which covers both, and any other ways that artists have signed their works over the ages. I added a ref. that covers the topic. If you stick with this, consider signing up for an account, that should ease these types of problems. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
For now, I would prefer not to. Odd--the German wiki has Signatur (kunst); the best we can do is a pop-culture thing like Signature artwork. Thanks again. (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
I see, de:Signatur (Kunst)... de:Fecit and de:Pinxit both redirect there. Signature (fine art) and Signature (art) are red links. You're very welcome! – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD -- PBS (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been sleeping on this, and dreamed up some ideas which I'll post there in a while. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
That is very good news. Village pump proposal archive fairly quickly. If it does I'll copy the discussion somewhere else. I think the best place to do so is Wikipedia talk:Proposed mergers as that seems to be roughly the equivalent of RM. If I do I'll let you know. -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I have posted some ideas of my own. -- PBS (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you were involved with automation of requested moves. Sorry, I'm still tweaking things at RM (I'm a bit of a perfectionist). Eventually I'll get to it, but merges are a big bite to chew and I don't want to spread thin and lose too much focus. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Note to myself – look at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 67#WP:Requested mergeWbm1058 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you familiar with {{Requested move old}} (originally named {{Movereq old}})? As far as I can tell, it wasn't documented anywhere, until I just added it to WP:Template messages/Moving#After (potentially) controversial move requests are closed. Although it's been around since 24 December 2010‎, when Rich Farmbrough created it (what I've seen of his work is of highest technical quality), I haven't found any talk page discussion of it anywhere. But some editors have used it—it's transcluded on some 59 talk pages (the last two are my doing). Just amazed that I haven't noticed this template until today. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
How Rich announced his new template: diffWbm1058 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC) stayed in the instructions until this edit. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
personally I don't see the point of Richard's template. I would suggest that automating the merge procedure would be a much better bang for the buck than further perfecting the automated RM procedure, particularly as the algorithms for mulit-move requests and proposed merges are similar and proposed merges are such a mess -- some of them have been around for may years. -- PBS (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
His template could be used to eliminate some redundancy and in my opinion is more elegant than harej's solution for archiving closed RMs. Eventually I would like any similar solutions for merges to be implemented consistently with the RM solutions. But, yes, further teaking here need not hold up some temporary solutions for merges, since that's such a mess... Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I am missing knowledge of what harej's solution is, and why it is thought necessary. Surly to close a RM one just uses {{poll top}}. Why is anything else needed? -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually you should use the more specific {{subst:RM top}}. The old and new page names are included as parameters in {{requested move/dated}}. Closing instructions call for removal of {{requested move/dated}}. It needs to be removed so the bot doesn't pick it up, as the bot looks for transclusions of that template. So, to keep a record of the old and new page names in the archived section on the talk page, harej created {{subst:Requested move}}, which creates the {{requested move/dated}} template, and redundantly writes a list of old and new pages outside of the /dated template, so the list will still be there after /dated is removed. Now, if instead of removing it, we simply change its name to {{requested move old}}—or {{requested move/old}}—voila, now we don't need to write the redundant list outside the template. The redundancy can cause issues, when an editor corrects their typo or changes their mind about what the new name should be, they need to make the change in two places. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
I also just observed that until June, 2011 User:RFC bot created an Automated list of proposed mergers at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log, which were nominated for deletion. Why did RFC bot stop creating these lists? – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
No idea I'll look into it. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
RFC bot's last Proposed mergers list updates were on 29 August 2011. The Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log revision history shows that harej was having trouble getting the bot to "Behave, please.", and about this time he was turning over the bot to a new operator. Looks like a ball was dropped. I'll see if I can pick it up. –Wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Bookmarking an old Feature request Pending Approval. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. If I didn't keep branching off into other directions, I'd get to this sooner. So much to do. :} Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Merge/Archive 2#Automation of merge proposals -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Well duh. The bot was working off of Category:Merge by month, which became a soft redirect to Category:Articles to be merged on 30 August 2011. No wonder the bot's last successful run was 29 August 2011... I patched the program with the new category name and it seems to be happy. Time to file the bot request for approval. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's an example of what I mean by "they need to make the change in two places": diff. – Wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am rather busy at the moment fixing hundreds of pages that use EB1911 as a source, so I have not been following the merge discussions for the last month or so. What is the state of play at the moment? Has the system been automated yet? -- PBS (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see, {{EB1911}}, Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition – looks like a worthy project. Recently added to the public domain because it turned 100 yrs old? Merge bot is running every 24 hours, and awaiting approval. See Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Tagged articles. Also on my plate is supporting multiple tags on a single talk page, see #Cannot get RMCD bot to trigger and Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive 25#Add section title for adding automatically. A solution here can be leveraged to merge proposals, as I'm sure there will be some proposing merge A into B, then below that someone else will propose A into C. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Requests for assistance and feedback remains moribund, mostly supported by a single editor. Probably the next step is to change the current manual process there to another manual process in the form that is desired to be automated. In other words a process that is maintained manually in a similar manner to how requested moves is maintained manually when the RM or RMCD bot is down. Then I can work on automating that manual process. Should be easier to do here than at RM because the activity level is so low. Getting closer to that, hoping to get to it soon. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Warren (Porridge) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Warren (Porridge) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren (Porridge) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 21:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Newtonian fluid and viscous stress tensor[edit]

Hi, apparently you have restored the merge tag in Newtonian fluid assuming that it had been deleted by accident. Actually the tag was deleted because it was posted 6 months ago, and since then there have been no arguments for the merge, but two against it. Besides the article has been edited heavily in the meantime, so it is dubious whether the editor who put the tag there would still want to do it.
That said, I must complain about the tag being placed on the article (and at the *top* of the article) rather than on the talk page. Please do not quote the manual of style. (Some years ago I looked closely at how MOS pages get created, and saw that they are generally the work of half a dozen people, who declare it "consensus" without any input from the other 10,000 editors.) There is an older fundamental and eminently sensible rule saying that messages to other editors should be placed on the talk page, never on the article itself. Article-side editorial tags were apparently first invented for biographies of living people, with the excuse that they were a warning to readers as well as to editors. But then other people started inventing other tags for all sort of banal editor-to-editor messages, and apparently felt that for being enclosed in a flashy frame those messages were somehow exempt from that fundamental rule. So now we have hundreds of millions of obnoxious tags that hog the articles for years on end, thanks to a few dozen editors who enjoy creating tags and pasting them by the thousands, but never take the time to fix the articles or discuss them in the talk page. Of course, those are the same editors who write the Manual pages that "legalize" the use of such article-side tags, "by consensus"...
Sigh. Can't people see how ridiculous and yucky Wikipedia articles look with those post-its all over the place? Can't people see what will inevitably happen when editors can tag an article with a few mouse clicks, but it takes at least half an hour of work to remove a tag?
Sorry for the rant but I had to try. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding permalinks to block log entries for 3RR[edit]

Discussions are consolidated at /Adding permalinks to block log entries. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Deep gratitude[edit]

A big thank you for your help to clear Category:Cross-namespace redirects into its subcats. Really can't thank you enough! Joys! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 03:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. One final push to clear most of the rest, and then it will be time to take a break. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Break? Whassat?! Face-wink.svg – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 05:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Wbm1058,

You asked a while ago about how many editors were using VisualEditor each month, rather than the each-day stats that are given on the dashboard. It appears that the most recent answer is that a bit under 1800 editors here at the English Wikipedia saved an edit with VisualEditor during the month of June. This represents about 5% of the people who have (ever) opted in to VisualEditor (most of whom are not currently active editors) and almost 1.5% of all registered editors who made any edit at all last month.

@Risker:, you might be interested in these numbers, too. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Polygraph examiner[edit]

Sorry - I didn't mean to be redirecting articles even while you were in the process of providing links to them! 0;-D Actually it was one of your links that called my attention to that unsourced stub. As you saw, I put some sourced information about polygraph examiners into the Polygraph article before redirecting it there. Sounds like you are OK with that? --MelanieN (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I just tagged it with template:R with possibilities. Someone could expand it into a more detailed and sourced article about the profession. I was interested in the idea that polygraph examiner "is a lay term for the forensic psychophysiologist". If that could be confirmed, it would be nice to add that link back to the polygraph article, if the profession view themselves as forensic psychophysiologists. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't find that term at the APA website;[1] I wonder who uses it? --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm: – but the Marine Corp lends some support to this: Marine Corps Enlisted Job Descriptions: MOS 5822 -- Forensic Psycho-physiologist (Polygraph Examiner)Wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk page errors[edit]

Thanks for finding the Talk page errors you reported at the OTRS Noticeboard. As you guessed, most are OTRS issues; I've begun slogging through them. In many cases, this is a boring technical issues, a new agent used the image template when the text template should have been used. It isn't as simple as changing the template, one has to read the OTRS ticket and track down the text in question, so it is manual, not a task for a bot. I'm glad this was uncovered, because in at least two situations, the permission was for an image, and because the tag was on the talk page, not the image, so the images were deleted. I've recovered ten images that have been or can be restored to articles, so you deserve credit for helping with that.

If I've buttered you up enough, you mentioned that you do patrol for these types of errors, so I wanted to report that at least 4 are something other than OTRS. My plan is to make a formal list, maybe in a subpage, of items I have not handled. Some will be OTRS, and the OTRS team will figure out what to do, but some are not. Would you be willing to take a look at:

And see if they are ones you can handle?--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, a couple of those titles are familiar to me; as I said there were a few there before the OTRS issues appeared. I'll get to them eventually. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
An interesting conversation at Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard #Errors requiring attention, where I reported this issue. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
By the way, it wasn't always this easy to find {{error}}s to fix this way. See Template talk:Requested move #template:error for discussion of the work I did to make this possible. It's nice to see my efforts paying off! Wbm1058 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I just fixed Talk:Misha B/Archive 2 and Talk:Total Siyapaa/Archive 1. The other two have already been addressed. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: 80 left, Get 'em while they're hot! ;D – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks:) I'm working on a summary of what is left, so now I can skip one category, the non-OTRS issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I found one more:

Thanks, there's light at the end of the tunnel. --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: Stuck at 39 left? Wbm1058 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Let's not say "stuck" but "paused". I have an external summary in progress of the remaining ones. Not surprising, the low-hanging fruit is gone, and the remaining ones are a bit more difficult. I need to finish my summary, identify a game plan for the various categories of open items, and post it. Life intervened, and frankly, it dropped off my radar. thanks for reminding me, I'll try to return to it soon.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Magnifier (Windows)#Requested move 23 August 2014. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pithecanthropus erectus‎[edit]

Hi, the redirect "stood" for eight years for the same reason why many other obscure incorrect redirects do: No one searched for it, so no one discovered the mistake. Pithecanthropus erectus‎ is a binomial. The species erectus is now classified as Homo erectus. Therefore the genus name Pithecanthropus becomes a synonym of Homo, and P. erectus‎ becomes a synonym of H. erectus. It cannot be a synonym of "java man", because Java man is at best a subspecies of Homo erectus, H. e. erectus. A species cannot be a synonym of a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pithecanthropus erectus is a binomial." By that you mean Binomial nomenclature? The first part of the name identifies the genus to which the species belongs; the second part identifies the species within the genus. So, Pithecanthropus is the genus and erectus‎ is the species? Well, this is interesting. You have found yet another "obscure redirect" to correct? Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
A binomial is a name consisting of a genus and a species name. Bi refers to two, and nomial refers to name. A genus name can only be a synonym of another genus name. A binomial can only be a synonym of another binomial, etc. That's just how it works. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see that you've been participating at in an article review at Talk:Java Man/GA1. If there is a consensus there for your changes to these longstanding redirects, then I suppose it's OK by me. I'm not near being an expert in this area. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you should be aware that there are many taxonomic synonyms that are left redirecting to the wrong articles due to reclassification, and many other such issues that are left for years. An example from today, Lepidotus. It has been a separate article since 2009, though it is just a disused spelling of Lepidotes. I just redirected it earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I just ran into this when patrolling Category:Invalid redirects. Java man said that Pithecanthropus erectus‎ redirected to it. So those disambiguation hatnotes need to be moved to the new destinations of the redirects. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: OK, I fixed the hatnotes to be consistent with the new redirect targets. I do find it curious that the new target of Pithecanthropus (Homo) doesn't mention the word (other than in the hatnote), whereas in the former target—Java Man—"Pithecanthropus" is repeated 25 times. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dab moves-Explanation of reversions[edit]

Hi Wbm1058, about your moves of the Japanese disambiguation pages: my actions were to restore the disambiguation page to the stable title at the base name, as the standard practice for reversal of controversial moves. Unfortunately, many of the cities listed on these pages were moved without discussion last month, resulting in the large number of links. Hopefully many of these can be solved via redirects. However, the disambiguation pages are the stable titles, and there is no correct place to redirect the pages without them at the base names (the cities are definitely not the correct target of base name redirects). I'm sorry that this creates a lot of links (I know, I worked on DPL for a long time), but the default is to return to the stable titles and discuss from there. Dekimasuよ! 20:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, there is ongoing discussion of the undiscussed moves at Shizuoka, Shizuoka. Because the city pages sat at the plain titles for a month before reversion, I think many of the links you mentioned can be fixed by figuring out which are attached to redirects that turned into double redirects when the cities were moved to the plain titles. I would have done more of this myself, but there were more than a dozen pages involved. I guess it goes to show why mass, undiscussed moves that delete dab pages along the way create work for everyone. Dekimasuよ! 21:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that any of these were "stable" with hundreds of pages linking to disambiguation. I responded at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Requested move. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
They didn't have hundreds of pages linking to them, but they were stable. I don't know if someone went through and depiped links in the last month; I haven't done that much research. But you can check the histories and the page moves (where the mover didn't delete the dab entirely). For example, Chiba and Gifu were dab pages continuously with no moves since 2004. Dekimasuよ! 00:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At the moment, it's looking to me like one of the main problems was Template:Metropolitan cities of Japan, which did have piping removed by the editor who moved the dabs. I have fixed a few links on that template, as have others. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dekimasu, Kirin13: OK, I found these at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/The Daily Disambig/Recently added. I would have assumed that your fixes should have removed them from that list. But this isn't something I regularly patrol, so I don't know the ins and outs of it. Chiba and Gifu look OK now. But there is an issue with Nagano. At lot of articles think that the Olympics were held there, and the few I checked are linking directly to that (it's not via a template). Were the Olympics held in the city or the prefecture? I wouldn't know the answer to that offhand. Oh, I see. The dab says (via indentation) they were held in Nagano, Nagano. So how come it's taken so long to fix those links to disambiguation? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking back at a stable version of Nagano (20 April 2014—it wasn't changed until it moved on 10 September 2014), observe the hatnote. It says:

"Nagano" redirects here. For other uses, see Nagano (disambiguation).

Now that's something that I do patrol for. Shortly after the article moved on Sept. 10 – actually on Sept. 25, I "fixed" the hatnote to support that move. This was flagged by Category:Invalid redirects. So, indeed the long-term stable position for Nagano, at least between April and September, was to redirect to Nagano, Nagano. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I have replied on Nagano at User talk:Dekimasu#Nagano x3. Dekimasuよ! 01:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories[edit]

Category:Small Wikipedia template categories, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Momoko Tsugunaga[edit]


You mentioned the page Momoko Tsugunaga in one of your posts at Talk:Shizuoka, Shizuoka#Discussion. There are so many idols like her in Japan and I personally am too old and too square to understand everything the kids are into these days. Your point about Chiba, Japan a good one though. At first glance, I assumed that to be Chiba (city), Japan, but as you say it's hard to tell. Interestingly, her "hometown" is simply given as Chiba-ken (千葉県) on her Japanese Wikipedia page, which is a little unusual because idols typically have lots male fans who know everything (from blood type to favorite "type" (of guy)) about their favorites. I googled her (in Japanese) and found one (fan)site for female idols which lists her hometown as Kashiwa, Chiba. Not sure if you needed to know any of that so just toss this in the trash if you want.

IMO, Momoko Tsugunaga does seem to be very poorly cited so maybe a {{BLP sources}} should be added. I'm still fairly new to Wikipedia so I'm not totally clear about using templates like that. Do you think that would be acceptable in this case? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you about that, since the sources are all in Japanese. I can't really evaluate them myself. I'd speculate that if she wants to preserve any privacy she might not want her fans to know too many details. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Understand. I was simply referring to the fact that none of the sources are being used to support any of her biographical information. They are just Amazon-like pages for DVD/book releases and chart positions. I'll post on the project page and see what they say. Thanks again. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a common problem, unfortunately. See {{Not in citation given}} which is a template you can use if the sources don't confirm the facts as claimed. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Face-smile.svg - Marchjuly (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate template parameters[edit]

Your edits reverted my fix to remove duplicate parameters and these files will soon be placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. I'm not watching them, nor am I watching this page, so I leave it to you to fix the issues. --  Gadget850 talk 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Right, already taken care of. See Template talk:Non-free use rationale logo#Override fields. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

bot help
Thank you, user who knows the secret to winning the Race Against The Machine, for helpful bots and for cleaning up yourself ("removing WP:OVERLINK to an everyday word"), for redirects and templates such as {{Forms of energy}}, for detailed analysis and offering to serve as arbitrator: "Don't underestimate how far I'm willing to go to read the background", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

唐山 listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ''唐山''. Since you had some involvement with the '唐山' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've no problem with deleting that, it was a workaround I had to make to satisfy another editor who felt that Chinese characters are legitimate search terms in English Wikipedia and that such characters should not be italicized in hatnotes. Things seem happy as long as there's no redirect-hatnote on the Tangshan article. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


Glad to see you're back in. Don't let the guidemakers get you down: each year there are some who will straight-up reject candidates just because they're not an admin, which I think is very short-sighted. The important thing is having more non-admins and female candidates run in the election—unfortunately the latter is still scarce this cycle, but it's encouraging that the former is more numerous than usual. Even if you don't get elected, I think having more non-admins run each year will eventually result in an ArbCom more representative of the community. Altamel (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for sorting out Mary Cholmondeley (heiress) with good grace. I'm afraid I assumed that it wasn't done as her name appeared on a "things to do" pile. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I found it because of the merge templates; I sometimes help out at WP:WikiProject Merge. Like to give prioity to biographical forks. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:RMtalk[edit]

Template:RMtalk has been nominated for merging with Template:Requested move. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding Template:RMassist/editintro[edit]

What is the purpose of Template:RMassist/editintro? From how it looks at the present time, I could only ascertain that the template would have use if the "Contested technical requests" section of WP:RMTR was moved over to its own page so that this template could be an editnotice for the page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

When there are requests at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, click on the "(discuss)" link, and that will open up an edit window with this edit intro at the top. This is what the admins such as Anthony and Ed do, but really any editor can contest a technical request this way, and bypass the step of moving it to the "Contested technical requests" section. I just haven't advertised this yet, as I considered this new funcionality to be in "beta". Feel free to try it yourself the next time you want to contest a technical request. You have to be on the subpage for this feature to work, it doesn't work on the main WP:RM page. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
See also Template talk:RMassist for more discussion of this nifty feature. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Arrowsmith School[edit]

If my move was not the correct way to do it, can you please rename it and do it the correct way? I already gave reasons for keeping the title Arrowsmith School and am open to further discussion. But for now can you keep it at Arrowsmith School? Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to move "Arrowsmith School" back to "Arrowsmith Program" (like I did before) for reasons I explained on the talk page. I strongly disagree with Taeyebaar. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and would appreciate help or advice. Thanks. Eaqq (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I just read what you wrote about how I didn't name change the article following procedure. I wasn't fully aware of what the procedure is supposed to look like or I would have done it the right way. I am new to editing Wikipedia and most of my edits are minor spelling fixes, not anything fancy. Eaqq (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I replied at Talk:Arrowsmith Program. Let's keep the discussion centralized there. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox template loop[edit]

Hi Wbm1058, Thanks for help re infobox; seems to be working. Thanks. Regards. Eagleash (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for WP:NCGN#Bangladesh[edit]

A convention for naming geographic locations in Bangladesh is proposed. You are invited to discuss. – nafSadh did say 01:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You For The Help![edit]

Wanted to stop by and personally thank you for helping me fix up the Boeing 777X page! With your help, we were able to make the page look more professional with what the future 777X will look like.

Thank you again. And have a great week! --PilotJaguar1996 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor[edit]

Seeing as you performed the task last time, could you add another year to Template:Progress box? Unfortunately, Category:Articles lacking sources is quite long. Thanks! Altamel (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Yes check.svg DoneWbm1058 (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

RMtalk / Requested move[edit]

I will leave it to you and Steel1943 to carry out the merge/deprecate plan. Let me know if there are any problems. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Wbm1058, at the present time, I have no objections to your plans. Granted, I'd rather just see {{RMtalk}} become a redirect to {{Requested move}} and then replace all instances of {{RMtalk}} in instructions with {{Requested move|talk=yes}}, but ... for the time being, I have no objections. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Good, I see that {{RMtalk}} was never fully updated to use the new RM Lua module. I'll do that now. This is a step-by-step process, feel free to check in with any questions or issues you might have along the way. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I'm about done with the changes. I tagged {{RMtalk}} as a {{Deprecated template}}, per "The {{Deprecated template}} template notifies users that a given template has been replaced by a different one. This is useful when usage is different (so a redirect won't work)" – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks good! By the way, what functions does {{RMtalk}} still have that {{Requested move}} doesn't have, just so I understand? Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem's not that the function isn't there, it's that you cannot pass a template parameter with a redirect. So while

{{subst:requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.|talk=yes}}

is the same as

{{subst:RMtalk|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

the simple redirect equivalent

{{subst:requested move|Proposed new name|Reason for move.}}

is not, because while talk=yes is the default for RMtalk (indeed that's its raison d'être), talk=no is the default for {{Requested move}}. Thus, redirecting would undo its entire purpose. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, which would have been the purpose behind updating all documentation to remove all references of {{RMtalk}}, which was the purpose behind the merge request I submitted. I hope I'm explaining this well; the purpose behind the merge discussion I started is similar to the discussion that resulted in {{Other uses-section}} becoming a redirect to {{About}}. (The discussion happened here, and since then, I've "wised-up" a bit and realized that redirecting (or merging) is better than deleting for reasons I previously did not understand.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Either way, I'm not going to press the matter. It may be something I revisit at a much later time, but that time is not now. Either way, it works! Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Headings of Requested move[edit]

Why including headings as part of a template? There is already a subject/headline box. --George Ho (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For editor convenience. See the discussion Here. This ensures that section headers are unique, i.e., so there will not be two sections on the same talk page both titled "Requested move". The {{Requested move}} documentation explains how customized section headers can still be used, see Template:Requested move § Custom header. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've found (err, a beta version of my bot has found) three open RM's which are malformed, e.g., this one. The bot is not picking up the section links for these. It doesn't work when there are comments inserted between the section header and the RM template. Having the template write the section header, at least initially ensures that doesn't happen. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

RMCD bot deleting discussions[edit]

I'm not sure whether you noticed, but this happened once yesterday, too. I figured the problem was not on the bot's side, but thought the extra example might help now in case you are working on something. Dekimasuよ! 18:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am working on improving the bot's robustness. I have identified a place where error checking wasn't being done, and am in the process of making it report malformed requests. Thanks for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed that glitch. That's another issue where I have an idea of what the problem is and how to address it, so I'll make a code enhancement there too. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
For the malformed requests language, "Did you submit your request by using subst:requested move?" can be read to imply either that the request is malformed because the request has not been submitted using subst:requested move, or that the error was caused by using subst:requested move. Can we try a different wording, e.g. "Did you remember to submit your request by..." or something like that? Dekimasuよ! 21:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I already changed it to use "Did you remember to", based on your last edit summary ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion venues[edit]

Hi. You do a lot of good work around Wikipedia but before you start criticising Technical 13 you need to learn a lot about Wikipedia discussion procedures yourself. I would be grateful if you would post your comments in appropriate places. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I realise it was in good faith but with this edit you just broke another golden rule of talk page etiquette. If you want people to take you seriously you need to be more careful. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, again I apologize. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merge template[edit]

Why do you keep removing a standard redirect and replacing it with a ridiculous, non-standard template message? What policy or guideline allows you to do this? I've reverted you until I hear a rational reason for this bizarre edit. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The template you are looking for is called {{Requested merge}}. Please use it. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I thought I made it more clear by starting a template documentation page. See #Wikipedia "Merge" like WP:RM or WP:AFD. It's a long-term project, maybe I'll make some progress on it in 2015. There are already 15 other redirects to {{Merge}}, and the Merge bot program has all of them hard-coded, but "Proposed merge" is not in its list. This means that anyone who uses that alias won't find their proposals in the bot's lists. I'd rather not use the "requested" name which is for moves, as the processes may not end up being identical, so the same name may be misleading. This would be designed to be a replacement for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, or an automated generation of that page. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused why you and others create unique process requests instead of following a simple, logical consistency across the project. If an editor wants to request something then it should be simple to find the appropriate template by typing it in the search field. Instead, we see that a "request" or a "proposal" for anything has a different naming convention. This makes no sense. Second, there is no accepted usage of reserving a template by typing "This template is reserved for future use" where the redirect should go. None. Only admins can reserve (or rather, "protect') a title. Third, you have many options open to you, all of which I'm sure you know about, from using a sandbox template (outlined at Wikipedia:Template sandbox and test cases) to using a new template, to making a simple request for deletion of the redirect so you can recreate it. I'm frankly confused why you would go down a route not reflected by our best practices. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move date format[edit]

Hello. It appears that you are someone who may be able to help with the comment I just posted at Template talk:Requested move#Bad date format. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank your for fixing my errors[edit]

Thank you for correcting my contributions here and here. I was too hasty...

A happy new year --Cyfal (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem, just doing my job ;) Happy New Year to you too Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


I undid your edits to Template:Disputed title. I don't think they were a good idea. If you think they are, please take it to the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I then saw that you tried to do some revision of title templates, and reverted all of it. I don't know where to discuss it. You can start here, perhaps, or let me know if you have a suggestion where else to discuss this. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflictI see it has something to do with Template:Topic links. I noticed you made over 10 edits to that template. And the same at Template:Cleanup-articletitle. You really shouldn't make experimental edits on "live" templates. Please use sandboxes for that purpose. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Please tell me what you don't like about my edits. "Not a good idea" doesn't really tell me anything. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you tell me what your idea is? What is it you were trying to accomplish? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
That's just it. You don't even understand what I was doing. So, why can't you ask first, before reverting. Look at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup. Does that make it clear? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. It is not as though I didn't have a clue. I did get the general drift. Now that you have explained yourself, let's discuss this. First of all, was this idea discussed anywhere? Because if so, I missed it. As for the technical things. I disagree with your idea to sift out main article space only. Why would you do that? Don't other namespaces have title issues as well? And the idea of sorting into 4 categories, however orderly it may be, does not seem to be a major improvement to me, especially in view of the relatively low number of pages (articles) in these categories. Which brings me back to the question if this is all your idea, or if this was discussed? Because if it wasn't, then I for one don't think we should implement this. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No not discussed, I was just being bold. It was just an idea I had after I discovered {{Category anchor}}. I didn't really expect this to be controversial. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised anyone even noticed.
  • You must not be familiar with Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, because it has always been for mainspace only. My edits today didn't change that (well, it did change temporarily until I fixed it with {{category other}}). You get a lot of user space junk otherwise. I don't want to go fixing user space. The four templates that populate this cat are only designed to be used on articles.
  • Other namespaces have different venues, such as "categories for discussion"
  • I thought it would be nice to easily see on the category page which templates were being used. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser: Now you can see what it looked like before. It just shows mainspace pages. You can't tell which template put a page in the category. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I used to be active in maintenance templates, standardizing them, so many of them are still on my watchlist. That is how I noticed.
You are right, that non-articles are not supposed to be tagged with these templates (and none are, presently). But to sift them out from categorization is counterproductive. If the will appear in the list at Category:Wikipedia title cleanup, they will stand out, and will likely be dealt with.
I personally do like the idea of sorting the pages into 4 groups, the way you did. I do not think it is necessary, in view of the small number of articles tagged with these 4 templates. A more serious problem I have with it, is that this is not the way to do this. If it is important to separate them, then make separate category pages for each template. Making such a division inside one category page, is ignoring the idea of categories a little. In any case, perhaps raise the idea on some forum, like the WP:Village pump, and see what other editors think. I'd appreciate a notification if you do. Debresser (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of Keynesian Economics: Suggestions to keep the contribution[edit]

Wbm1058 what would you recommend me to do in order to keep the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis-Philippe Rochon (talkcontribs) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Louis-Philippe Rochon: Hi, deletions isn't an administrative area that I specialize in, but my quick thoughts are:
  • You've only made 3 edits on Wikipedia (other than the one here), all to Review of Keynesian Economics. Editing other articles would be helpful so you can gain some experience. I trust that you aren't a WP:COI editor regarding that topic?
  • Per the message at the top of the article, You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason., you may buy some more time by removing this from the article:
{{Proposed deletion/dated
 |concern = Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
 |timestamp = 20150103113454
  • But that may simply lead to a more formal deletion process: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You should consider whether that will be worth your time.
  • The article should reference {{third-party}} sources, or you may see that message placed at the top. Right now the only source is the official website.
  • Review the other articles in Category:Economics journals to see what similar articles we have, which have withstood any possible deletion challenges. Try to match that standard.

Hope that helps. Good luck, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Louis-Philippe Rochon

You're welcome. Sign your edits by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Wbm1058 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Categories using Template:Category anchor[edit]

59 total categories transclude {{Category anchor}}, as of 3 January 2015

Auto assessment categories[edit]

Work queues[edit]



Proposed new use[edit]

Recommended change to Merge Bot[edit]

Hello Wbm1058! Thank you for running User:Merge bot all this time. I have a recommended change: for proposed merger log entries, use the template {{Merge log entry}} instead of having the formatting hard-coded into the script. Partly this is because there is a specific formatting I would like to see implemented (as you can see on the template), but also I think it is in the spirit of the wiki to have as few things as hard-coded as possible. The syntax for the template is as follows: {{merge log entry|1=First article mentioned|2=Second article mentioned|talk=Location of discussion|type=[into|with]}}. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Harej (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! So you don't want to use the red and blue merge arrows anymore? I'll look into it. Thanks for clearing out all the bot's old pages. Just a reminder that if you remove one of the pages from the log, as well as the log for that month you also need to delete the associated category, or the bot will just add the page link back to the log (the bot just sees that the category exists, it doesn't look to see whether it's empty). I also updated RMCD bot to use {{Dashboard grouping}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing against the arrows :). Just that in the context of the specific lists, having that high a concentration of symbols is overwhelming and less effective at conveying the necessary information than using simpler symbols in the body of the lists. Thank you for the reminder regarding the categories and for updating the bot to use the template. Incidentally, would it also be possible to code the bot to actually see if a category is empty, and then explicitly mark its own pages for deletion? That would neatly avoid the current situation of log pages being abandoned and left in lingo. Cheers, Harej (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: The bot's using {{Merge log entry}} now; check it out. I added a third, sometimes used parameter to the template, and fixed it so it wouldn't number every line item as #1. Each of the possible use combinations is in Template:Merge log entry/testcases, both old-style and new. I've put checking for empty categories on my to-do list; that's a good idea. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks great! Thank you! Harej (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite[edit]

AbbeyRoadZebraCrossingRevisited.jpg Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Neutral notification[edit]

You previously voted, opined, commented, or otherwise took part, at Template talk:Succession box#RfC. Please see a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder#RfC Congressmen's tenures in infobox. Kraxler (talk) 15:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Module documentation and test cases[edit]

There's really no point to having test cases for data modules, since there's no code to test. Also, doc pages that contain a #invoke of the module itself exist so that TemplateSandbox can be used to preview changes of the module. It's fine to add "real" documentation, but the #invoke must not be disabled or removed when doing so. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivy League/Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League/Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association[edit]

1. Apologies for screwing up the redirects for Ivy League last night. I was trying to get rid of the redirect for the EIBL, since there is a separate article for that, but I did not intend to change Eastern Intercollegiate Conference from a hatnote to a redirect. I thought I had made two edits to make it work out correctly, but I only see one now, so either I didn't do the second one properly or I'm just losing my mind. :-) In any event, sorry, and thanks for fixing that.

2. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure why you put the link to the EIWA on the EIBL page, and only that link. The EIBL is a direct predecessor to the Ivies in basketball, and never contained any non-Ivy schools. The EIWA, on the other hand, is nowadays a separate competition from the Ivies in wrestling, and while it was founded by a group of Ivy schools, it has admitted other schools for a long time now. From the Ivies's standpoint, it is essentially the vehicle by which they qualify for the NCAA tournament. If we're going to put in links to leagues related to the Ivies, we should also have Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, IRA, ECAC Hockey, IFA, etc., etc. At that point, it probably makes more sense to either have the links at the general Ivy League page, or else have a category page (if that can be justified--don't know the rules yet.) Other Side of the Creek (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Other Side of the Creek: Hi! I moved this discussion to the bottom of the page, per the WP:TOPPOST talk page guideline. Re: (1) No problem; (2) The redirect I'm having problems with is Eastern Intercollegiate League. As far as I know, there was never any league with exactly this name. The Ivy League article doesn't explain why "Eastern Intercollegiate League" redirects there, and searching that article for the string "Eastern Intercollegiate" finds Eastern Intercollegiate Basketball League and Eastern Intercollegiate Wrestling Association as well as Eastern Intercollegiate Conference. Now you tell me about Eastern Intercollegiate Baseball League, and searching for that string I find Eastern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference, and "Eastern Intercollegiate Leagues" for gymnastics, ski and volleyball. I'm thinking that redirect should be turned into a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index page, as I don't see why basketball or any other sport should be the WP:primary topic for "Eastern Intercollegiate League". The same could be done for Eastern Collegiate League (nobody's created that one yet). At least Eastern College Athletic Conference is a more traditional multi-sport league, unlike these other single-sport leagues. I'm familiar with ECAC as I graduated from an ECAC hockey school long before there was an independent ECAC Hockey league. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about getting rid of the EIL redirect too, but left that because I wasn't as sure on that decision. If any league could reasonably be called just EIL, it would be the basketball league; I have seen quite a few references using just EIL as I have searched through the Ivy League newspapers. However, looking at the articles covering the reorganization of the league in 1911, they all pretty much indicate that the official name was EIBL from that point on, at least. (When the league initially started, the name I've seen the most so far is Intercollegiate Basketball Association, though I've also seen Intercollegiate Association and Intercollegiate League, and you still see those sometimes even after 1911.) So I would say that you're right, and that a WP:disambiguation or WP:set index is necessary. I will leave that up to you at your leisure, because you know how to do it better than I do. I still would say, however, that links to quasi-Ivy leagues like the EIWA and others should go under the general Ivy League page, if they go anywhere. I might start a discussion on Talk:Ivy League and see what people think.Other Side of the Creek (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Eastern Intercollegiate League is now a {{sport index}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

re Bhagwan Devatma ‎[edit]

Hi Wbm1058
Just letting you know that I have redirected Bhagwan Devatma‎, which you suggested merging, to Satya Nand Agnihotri. The editor has now created 3 pages on the same person, including Dev Atma which is how I got involved, from wp:NPP. I have a strong feeling all these pages may end up being deleted, as so far there appear to be no unaffiliated sources. Regards, 220 of Borg 02:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to complicate the issue, there's a pre-existing page (since 2007) about same person under the name 'Shiv Narayan Agnihotri'.Face-surprise.svg
Comments at Talk:Shiv Narayan Agnihotri. --220 of Borg 04:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

TWA guide left bottom.png
Hi Wbm1058! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:44, Tuesday, January 27, 2015 (UTC)

Get Help
About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Thank you for your work at the backlog of tfd/h[edit]

Hi Wbm1058. Thank you for your work at WP:TFD/H. I very much appreciate it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheyenne Mountain (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi there,

It's improper use of a disambiguation page to have all the "namesakes" on the page. But I did put a see also with an Template:Intitle link for Cheyenne Mountain. If you'd like, we can take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.

Really, there shouldn't even be a disamibiguation page for Cheyenne Mountain - there's one Cheyenne Mountain - and people referring to NORAD or the nuclear bunker call it NORAD, not Cheyenne Mountain.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Please bear with me, and my proposal will become more clear. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, hanging in to see where it goes.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, as an FYI, I did some clean-up on the page, grouped the items, and corrected some of the information on the page... and I just posted an item at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Two Colorado disambiguation pages.--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

sost disambiguation[edit]

I saw you reverted the disambiguation for Sost change that I made. I looked up page view stats to see which page is the primary topic. Page view stats say that Sclerostin (SOST) got about triple the traffic as Sust (Sost, Pakistan) in the last 90 days. Here are the 30- and 90-day page views of all pages noted on the Sost disambiguation page:

  • Sclerostin (SOST), 1629 views in the last 30 days, 4725 in the last 90 days
  • SOST (RMS Titanic Inc), 642, 1810
  • Sust (Sost, Pakistan), 450, 1565
  • SOST (bullet), 111, 304
  • Sost (disambiguation), 71, 250
  • Sost, Hautes Pyrenees, 47, 227
  • Sost, Afghanistan, 24, 87

It looks like the primary topic for Sost is Sclerostin. What you do you think? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for raising the issue. I've been enjoying looking at the pictures and watching youtube videos of the highest border crossing in the world (between Pakistan and China). Just spectacular. It is really hard for me to tell whether that town is more commonly called Sost or Sust as you can find road sign pictures with both an "o" and a "u". Content forks were started independently at both titles. The pages that link to Sost will need to be fixed if its primary topic status changes. SOST gene seems like a natural disambiguator for Sclerostin, and since it's all-caps it may not be easily confused. I wouldn't put much weight in page views for this case. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Unicode blocks[edit]

I just caught your addition to the Syriac unicode block article. I think this is fine, especially since it looks like you've been cleaning out the list of Unicode characters article at the same time, but I think I'd put the "list" format under the standard 16/row unicode block template, since the block template kind of functions as an addendum to the lede, while the list could theoretically be expanded to encompass all kinds of information. VanIsaacWScont 23:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: Hi. I did Syriac (Unicode block) that way, as well as some others, because I was just following the pattern established by Basic Latin (Unicode block) and Latin-1 Supplement (Unicode block). I haven't seen any pages which show both, that show the standard 16/row unicode block template first, but your rationale makes sense to me. Feel free to flip them around if you like. Best, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The New Science[edit]

I noticed your edit to "History of Science" that undid mine. I was slightly wrong; "New Science" does redirect to "The New Science". However, "New science" does not. That's what I was trying to refer to. I'm going to redo my edit so that it is correct. I would appreciate it if you contacted me before editing that part further. (Decentman12 (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC))

Oops, usually I catch those. Thanks for getting it right. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


As you may have seen, I posted a request for help at WP:VPT regarding your comments on editing a protected talk page. Jackmcbarn says that he's resolved the situation. Would you mind attempting to submit an edit request for a protected talk page? As an admin, I can't test it, since it will just let me edit the page; I'd appreciate hearing whether the new feature does what you were hoping it would. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that did the trick. Thanks! Wbm1058 (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Invalid redirects[edit]

Category:Invalid redirects, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Unicode characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Nobel Peace Prize hatnote[edit]

Turns out Peace Prize with capitals still points to the Nobel Peace Prize article, while Peace prize without the cap points at the list. I am retargeting the first redirect. Apologies for the interference. -- saberwyn 21:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Another Inconsistent similar redirect that I missed, like The New Science above. Thanks for making them consistent. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)